(02-07-2012 01:51 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:39 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Don't interpret any of this as for/against gay marriage, but:

-This would have gone to the Supreme Court no matter this court's opinion.
-I don't see a federal right to marriage.
-Not sure how it is a civil rights issue either.
-The govt. shouldn't have it's hand in the private lives of its citizens. (Shouldn't care who marries who, gay or straight).

Remove the tax incentives to marriage by eliminating the IRS, moving to a flat/FairTax and every other "benefit" to marriage/unions can be handled by a contract. Leave the word "marriage" to the churches. If one would like to grant marriages to same-sex couples, then good for them.

there are only 2 fair options...

1 (and i think best) is to get government OUT of marriage...call it a civil union (for the rights) and let the people decide who's married.

2 level the playing field so gay folks can marry just like their straight counterparts

FIFY

You guys have absolutely no clue about history.

Careful, Memphis! Torch is huffing and puffing.

One sentence is huffing and puffing? Just how short do my posts have to be?

(02-07-2012 01:54 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:36 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:28 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Yep. It's gonna happen. Very hard to argue how this is constitutional.

Now its clear you're an angry, gay black man...with an axe to grind. Get over it.

what if he is? (ant saying you are or aren't) he would have the same rights as everyone else.

The point is, he does have those same right. Exactly the same. Identically the same. Duh.

nope...the SECOND the government started granting rights to married couples...same-sex marriage became a civil rights issue...you can't deny rights to someone because they want to share their life with someone of the same sex.

Why not? Furthermore, no one is stopping a gay man or woman from marrying just like straights do.

Quote:

Quote:..and that should include the right to marry the person you love,

Nobody currently has that right...accept they do...a man and a woman who love each other can marry and enjoy government benefits...that makes same-sex marriage a civil rights issue

Except they don't. There are all sorts of restrictions on marriage.

Quote:

Quote:and enjoy all the government rights that come with it.

W/o the obligations? what obligations do governments require for marriage?

Plenty.

(02-07-2012 02:36 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:24 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:22 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  That what he finds disgusting isn't worthy of consideration...how far can one push their "rights"?

Surely even YOU can differentiate between a consensual relationship between two committed adults, and someone abusing an animal, or a child. Right? You can't be that far gone.... can you?

LOL...no. It's an interesting hypothetical. As I'm sure gay "marriage" was 100 years ago. Food for thought. Like I said in the other thread...Civil Unions with all the benefits of Marriage are fine with me but trying to rename it is foolish and a waste of your time. A different name isn't separate and the benefits make it equal.

It's not an interesting hypothetical... it equates something criminal and reprehensible with something that should be celebrated: two people finding each other, falling in love, and choosing to spend the rest of their lives together in equality. It's only food for LACK of thought to make the comparison.

Was gay marriage unthinkable 100 years ago in this country? Sure. But what of it? Lots of things were unthinkable in times past. Imagine the reaction some would have 150 years ago to the notion of a black president. It's only been a couple generations that women weren't allowed to vote. People are still alive, well, and relatively young who lived through the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s. Can you imagine blacks being prohibited from attending the same schools as whites? Unthinkable. Yet, it was law only a handful of decades ago.

We change and evolve. What is unthinkable in the past becomes a simple matter of equality and fairness as old superstitions and fears die away.

Allowing gay men and women to marry each other and live their lives in peace and equality doesn't harm you, or anybody else. Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. It will in no way diminish your own marriage. It simply provides fairness and happiness to people who want to live their lives together. It astonishes me that any rational person would oppose it. President Obama is too cowardly to come out and support it fully, although it's obvious that will happen eventually. Maybe he fears that his support will turn it into a lightning rod issue that becomes a focus more on him, and that it will do more harm than good. Maybe.

But in the end, it WILL become legal, everywhere. That is the reality. And the sooner, the better, because coming generations will look back on it in astonishment the same way we look back on times when blacks and whites couldn't marry, or women couldn't vote, or when other human beings were made property. Unthinkable.

Quite the emotional plea...I've never said it would hurt me. I just want you to be honest about what you want. Benefits. So when you and your husband/partner file your taxes and apply for health insurance you get the same BENEFITS as straight married couples. This has never been a "Rights" issue.

(02-07-2012 02:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Quite the emotional plea...I've never said it would hurt me. I just want you to be honest about what you want. Benefits. So when you and your husband/partner file your taxes and apply for health insurance you get the same BENEFITS as straight married couples. This has never been a "Rights" issue.

Equality from a taxation and benefit standpoint are part of the "rights" we are talking about, obviously.

Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW? You seem to be under than misapprehension.

(02-07-2012 02:48 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Quite the emotional plea...I've never said it would hurt me. I just want you to be honest about what you want. Benefits. So when you and your husband/partner file your taxes and apply for health insurance you get the same BENEFITS as straight married couples. This has never been a "Rights" issue.

Equality from a taxation and benefit standpoint are part of the "rights" we are talking about, obviously.

Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW? You seem to be under than misapprehension.

I really don't know who is arguing for it. I really don't care. Frankly I agree that it will become the law of the land sooner rather than later. I just don't want to see them redefine what "Marriage" is. Why is what they call it so important to you? Marriage has always been a religious union. You seem to despise all things religious so I would think you would want a different name...like...Civil Union so as not to be affiliated with religion.

(02-07-2012 02:48 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Quite the emotional plea...I've never said it would hurt me. I just want you to be honest about what you want. Benefits. So when you and your husband/partner file your taxes and apply for health insurance you get the same BENEFITS as straight married couples. This has never been a "Rights" issue.

Equality from a taxation

Marriage penalty?

Quote: and benefit standpoint are part of the "rights"

Benefits aren't "rights". You've mixed words for so long that you believe your own lies.

Financial benefits were established in response to the benefits of traditional marriage.

Quote:Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW?

Largely. And a few others who were never taught the basics of history and critical thought.

And people wonder why I'm so critical of universities.

(02-07-2012 02:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  And people wonder why I'm so critical of universities.

I thought it was admission standards.

Some of you really detest and despise freedom. Not a lot of real patriots around this forum. Those of us who love America are fine with this ruling.

(02-07-2012 02:53 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:48 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Quite the emotional plea...I've never said it would hurt me. I just want you to be honest about what you want. Benefits. So when you and your husband/partner file your taxes and apply for health insurance you get the same BENEFITS as straight married couples. This has never been a "Rights" issue.

Equality from a taxation and benefit standpoint are part of the "rights" we are talking about, obviously.

Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW? You seem to be under than misapprehension.

I really don't know who is arguing for it. I really don't care. Frankly I agree that it will become the law of the land sooner rather than later. I just don't want to see them redefine what "Marriage" is. Why is what they call it so important to you? Marriage has always been a religious union. You seem to despise all things religious so I would think you would want a different name...like...Civil Union so as not to be affiliated with religion.

You are forgetting that there are plenty of gay Christians, and plenty of churches and pastors and religious figures who are, in fact, fighting FOR gay marriage. Probably not the majority, and certainly not the loudest voices, but there are religious organizations and churches who support marriage equality.

You're a Christian, I assume. Muslims can be married in this country, and it's called "marriage" - although it has nothing to do with your religion. There are plenty of atheists who are "married" but it has zero to do with your notion of God. Folks of all nationalities and religions (or lack thereof) are married. "Marriage" fits many definitions. It won't stretch it too far to allow same-sex couples to use it as well. Like I said before, how does it harm anybody, or anything? You object only to a term that is already subject to an endless # of definitions if you're looking at it solely through a religious prism.

(02-07-2012 01:21 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to equal protection.

Protection from what?

(02-07-2012 02:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:48 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Quite the emotional plea...I've never said it would hurt me. I just want you to be honest about what you want. Benefits. So when you and your husband/partner file your taxes and apply for health insurance you get the same BENEFITS as straight married couples. This has never been a "Rights" issue.

Equality from a taxation

Marriage penalty? GONE

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/...t-benefits

Quote: and benefit standpoint are part of the "rights"

Benefits aren't "rights". You've mixed words for so long that you believe your own lies.

the GAO does not agree...

"the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049[2] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_...ted_States

Financial benefits were established in response to the benefits of traditional marriage.

Quote:Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW?

Largely. And a few others who were never taught the basics of history and critical thought.

And people wonder why I'm so critical of universities.

you must be mentally challenged to think you must be Gay to support equal rights for all...

(02-07-2012 02:10 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:04 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I was testing the waters by directing the question at the Liberals on here trying to see how they felt about a man having multiple wives/husbands?

I'm not really a liberal, but this doesn't bother me. What do I care?

What about marrying animals or children with parents consent? What about their RIGHTS?

Whose rights are you talking about here, the animals, the childrens, or the parents?

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Well graybeard, if you want to marry an animal I suggest you propose what would be the legal age for consent for the animal and how would someone know if the animal was providing this consent.

(02-07-2012 03:18 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  the GAO does not agree...

"the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049[2] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor."

Then why did they use different words?

Quote:

Quote:Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW?

Largely. And a few others who were never taught the basics of history and critical thought.

And people wonder why I'm so critical of universities.

Quote:you must be mentally challenged to think you must be Gay to support equal rights for all...

You must be mentally challenged to think that I can't recognize the logical fallacy of re-directing the question. You call it "equal rights for all", and you assume it true. I already proved it false.

See what I mean about a lack of critical thinking?

(02-07-2012 03:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 03:18 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  the GAO does not agree...

"the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049[2] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor."

Then why did they use different words?

Quote:

Quote:Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW?

Largely. And a few others who were never taught the basics of history and critical thought.

And people wonder why I'm so critical of universities.

Quote:you must be mentally challenged to think you must be Gay to support equal rights for all...

You must be mentally challenged to think that I can't recognize the logical fallacy of re-directing the question. You call it "equal rights for all", and you assume it true. I already proved it false.

See what I mean about a lack of critical thinking?

LMFAO...you couldn't prove the sky is up...

(02-07-2012 03:38 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 03:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 03:18 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  the GAO does not agree...

"the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049[2] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor."

Then why did they use different words?

Quote:

Quote:Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW?

Largely. And a few others who were never taught the basics of history and critical thought.

And people wonder why I'm so critical of universities.

Quote:you must be mentally challenged to think you must be Gay to support equal rights for all...

You must be mentally challenged to think that I can't recognize the logical fallacy of re-directing the question. You call it "equal rights for all", and you assume it true. I already proved it false.

See what I mean about a lack of critical thinking?

LMFAO...you couldn't prove the sky is up...

Why do you Memphis people always have pics of dead people in your signatures?

(02-07-2012 03:01 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:53 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:48 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Quite the emotional plea...I've never said it would hurt me. I just want you to be honest about what you want. Benefits. So when you and your husband/partner file your taxes and apply for health insurance you get the same BENEFITS as straight married couples. This has never been a "Rights" issue.

Equality from a taxation and benefit standpoint are part of the "rights" we are talking about, obviously.

Do you think that it is only gay men and women who are arguing for gay marriage, BTW? You seem to be under than misapprehension.

I really don't know who is arguing for it. I really don't care. Frankly I agree that it will become the law of the land sooner rather than later. I just don't want to see them redefine what "Marriage" is. Why is what they call it so important to you? Marriage has always been a religious union. You seem to despise all things religious so I would think you would want a different name...like...Civil Union so as not to be affiliated with religion.

You are forgetting that there are plenty of gay Christians, and plenty of churches and pastors and religious figures who are, in fact, fighting FOR gay marriage. Probably not the majority, and certainly not the loudest voices, but there are religious organizations and churches who support marriage equality.

You're a Christian, I assume. Muslims can be married in this country, and it's called "marriage" - although it has nothing to do with your religion. There are plenty of atheists who are "married" but it has zero to do with your notion of God. Folks of all nationalities and religions (or lack thereof) are married. "Marriage" fits many definitions. It won't stretch it too far to allow same-sex couples to use it as well. Like I said before, how does it harm anybody, or anything? You object only to a term that is already subject to an endless # of definitions if you're looking at it solely through a religious prism.

1.) No such thing as a gay Christian...see Holy Bible

2.) I said religious not Christian. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

You really don't get it do you?

(02-07-2012 04:06 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  1.) No such thing as a gay Christian...see Holy Bible

2.) I said religious not Christian. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

You really don't get it do you?

1.) Wrong. You are betraying your ignorance.

2.) You don't have to be religious to be married, nor do you have to be married in a church or house of worship of any time.

I get it. And whether you ever get it or not, you'll have to sit back and watch while gay marriage becomes law of the land in all 50 states.

Hope you enjoy it.

(02-07-2012 04:06 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  1.) No such thing as a gay Christian...see Holy Bible

(02-07-2012 04:12 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:06 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  1.) No such thing as a gay Christian...see Holy Bible

2.) I said religious not Christian. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

You really don't get it do you?

1.) Wrong. You are betraying your ignorance.

2.) You don't have to be religious to be married, nor do you have to be married in a church or house of worship of any time.

I get it. And whether you ever get it or not, you'll have to sit back and watch while gay marriage becomes law of the land in all 50 states.

Hope you enjoy it.

1.) No. The Bible explicitly denounces homosexuality.

2.) I don't disagree. But the institution of marriage has been defined by religion and that is defined as being between a man and a woman.

Your comment insinuates you think I have a problem with gay people...I don't. Sorry if your feelings are hurt but your lying to yourself if you think you're going to Heaven...spend the rest of your life in deluded bliss.