Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"There is no such thing as "Spartacus713." There never has been and there never will be, regardless of any law that may be passed saying otherwise. Likewise, if a law is passed stating that the moon is made of green cheese, that will not make that so either."
See? My statement carries as much social and legal weight as yours does. Like none.
In this country, it is civil government that is responsible for conferring the benefits and enforcing the responsibilities that are governed by the marriage contract. That being the case, government gets to set the basic terms regarding who is able to enter into that contract. It seems very clear to me that an American government should not pick and choose which adult citizens, free of other marriage contracts, should be afforded the opportunity to enter into marriage contracts. No different than any other civil contracts.
This is just how the gay-hating right wingnuts are handling SS marriage. Smoke starts coming out their ears and then they have no choice other than saying, "There is no such thing as gay marriage! It doesn't exist! It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't!" while stomping their feet. The adult version of a pre-school tantrum lol!
Actually, both the statement that there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage" and never will be, and your statement are both valid.
Spartacus713 is my user name here on this message board. On some other boards, I have different user names. They are made up. Fictional. Concocted at my whim out of proverbial thin air.
In fact, I exist, but Spartacus713 does not. Neither does homosexual "marriage" Say what you want to, it never will, as that is just not what marriage is.
Likewise, you can claim to be married to your house cat, your iphone, or your season tickets to your favorite sports team - and maybe a law will be passed declaring such a marriage valid. But it is not a real marriage, because that is not what marriage is.
So, my marriage license and the benefits I now receive due to that license are valid by state and federal law, but YOU say it's not a valid marriage? If my husband and I are receiving all the benefits, how is it not valid? We filed our taxes jointly the last two years...
How can you even tell who is "black" and who is "white"? By looking at their skin color? LOL. Good luck.
But you can tell who is a man and who is a woman.
Besides, homosexuals are given equal protection under the law to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want to, which is what legitimate marriage actually is. So, there is no problem here.
In fact, what homosexuals and advocates of homosexual "marriage" want to do is change the definition of marriage, not obtain equal access to it, which they already have.
And remember Sparty, YOU have equal protection under the law to marry someone of the SAME sex. See how that works?
Actually, both the statement that there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage" and never will be, and your statement are both valid.
Spartacus713 is my user name here on this message board. On some other boards, I have different user names. They are made up. Fictional. Concocted at my whim out of proverbial thin air.
In fact, I exist, but Spartacus713 does not. Neither does homosexual "marriage" Say what you want to, it never will, as that is just not what marriage is.
Likewise, you can claim to be married to your house cat, your iphone, or your season tickets to your favorite sports team - and maybe a law will be passed declaring such a marriage valid. But it is not a real marriage, because that is not what marriage is.
Kind of like your fantasy that it won't exist? What is going to happen if the SC legalizes it? Are you 60 years from now going to be on city-data saying "It's not REALLLLLLL!!!!!!!!"?
I am not encouraging them to marry at all. Nor am I encouraging any heterosexuals to marry anyone they do not believe they can make a lifelong commitment to.
The definition of marriage has been established for millennia. Now it is a fad to want to change it. This is the question that the supreme court will be ruling on. Does the equal protection clause of the US Constitution require the re-definition of a fundamental institution of human civilization, which has been in existence since before recorded history began, to accommodate the pairing together of people of the same sex?
A redefintion that was in 2001, for the first time ever, recognized by a nation (the Netherlands) as legal?
Well, there was no electricity for "millennia", yet we flip on lights, watch TV and make phone calls. Maybe we just need to go back to the ways of the cave man... before there was any government or man-made gods to decide who can marry whom
Likewise, you can claim to be married to your house cat, your iphone, or your season tickets to your favorite sports team - and maybe a law will be passed declaring such a marriage valid. But it is not a real marriage, because that is not what marriage is.
A real marriage is a legal contract that can be entered into by consenting adults who are each not in a currently valid marriage contract. Legally, that's all it is. The emotional meaning you attach to it is up to you alone, and no one is required to feel about it the same way you do. And in fact, a majority of Americans don't feel about it the way that you feel about it. I can think of no reason why your feelings are so special that those of us who disagree with you should have to live by them.
This is just how the gay-hating right wingnuts are handling SS marriage. Smoke starts coming out their ears and then they have no choice other than saying, "There is no such thing as gay marriage! It doesn't exist! It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't!" while stomping their feet. The adult version of a pre-school tantrum lol!
It's been a long thread, and some good points have been made regarding the upcoming decision.
For, or against, I can only add one thing, and perhaps this should have been the sentiment all along.
What business it it of any one as to how a particular couple participate in a given lifestyle?
It is not your business nor mine.
If one wants to marry their dog, what business is it of ours?
The constitution states in the fourteenth amendment, "equal protection under the law".
I take that to mean ALL people residing in the United States of America are protected against unequal treatment.
What part of that wording do some of you not understand?
I don't think the sc can vote any other way than to accept the proposal, and treat ALL citizens equally.
If you are going to deny one, then you must deny all.
It's been a long thread, and some good points have been made regarding the upcoming decision.
For, or against, I can only add one thing, and perhaps this should have been the sentiment all along.
What business it it of any one as to how a particular couple participate in a given lifestyle?
It is not your business nor mine.
If one wants to marry their dog, what business is it of ours?
The constitution states in the fourteenth amendment, "equal protection under the law".
I take that to mean ALL people residing in the United States of America are protected against unequal treatment.
What part of that wording do some of you not understand?
I don't think the sc can vote any other way than to accept the proposal, and treat ALL citizens equally.
If you are going to deny one, then you must deny all.
Bob.
They are already being treated equally. Any person is free to marry almost any other person (except for incest) of the opposite sex, which is what marriage actually is.
The advocates of homosexual "marriage" are not seeking equal protection, they are seeking to redefine what marriage is. And being able to redefine an institution like marriage is not protected by the 14th amendment.
It appears likely that this is how the Supreme Court will rule on this.
They are already being treated equally. Any person is free to marry almost any other person (except for incest) of the opposite sex, which is what marriage actually is.
The advocates of homosexual "marriage" are not seeking equal protection, they are seeking to redefine what marriage is. And being able to redefine an institution like marriage is not protected by the 14th amendment.
It appears likely that this is how the Supreme Court will rule on this.
Well won't you be salty when they rule the opposite way . You can drop that "They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex" because that argument has not only be laughed out of nearly every appeals court, and even the Chief Justice stated it creates an aire of sex discrimination. You just need to get over the fact that you are on the losing side of history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. You can drop that "They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex" because that argument has not only be laughed out of nearly every appeals court, and even the Chief Justice stated it creates an aire of sex discrimination. You just need to get over the fact that you are on the losing side of history.