• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

With respect to "gradually winning the hearts and minds of the country", that's not likely to happen, as all that's been done in effect is to increase animosity of those 92% of the population that are pissed that their 12,000 year-old institution is being brazenly hijacked by 2% of the population. That won't "win" anything .. but adversity.

What is now likely to happen, however, is that states who think there is some nebulous "handwriting on the wall" will rush to create homarriage domestic partner civil unions. :shock:

This will allow SS couples to get homarried, and have equal protection in their committed monogamous romantic relationships regarding their relationship's dealings with government and private enterprise while at the same time respecting definitive propriety and the institution of marriage that belongs to 92% of the population as a class.

Once that begins to happen, once that becomes the norm, then your "Loving v. Virginia" will occur in reverse of what you imagine, likely compelling the comparative handful of states that have ludicrously sanctioned the oxymoronic SSM to invalidate those relationships .. or convert them to homarriages.

:cool:

You would do well to rethink your "likely outcome" scenarios in light of the most probable outcomes.

I'm pretty stoked. I want to have this discussion across the country. I did not think it should be decided by a few justices.

And I love people like you because...well...no offense but the language and attitude you bring to the discussion is probably going to be quite helpful in pushing our case. Whether you like it or not, same sex marriage is law in those states and choosing to speak down and belittle the people and relationships that you don't agree with is not going to inspire many people to find your cause just or benevolent. It just makes you look angry and vindictive...but whatever.

There are no losers with this decision. Everyone in the country is a winner because the courts are allowing us to do what is best and that is to have a civil and ongoing discussion on what is best for the country and our culture as a whole in regards to the incredibly important institution of marriage. Let's do it!
 
Yes, you can oxymoronically get a same sex partner "marriage" license in those comparative handful of states .. for now.

But, in reality, you'll simply not be married.

Actually, you will be.

And, of course, all is reversible with a mere predictable ideological swing of the pendulum of power ...

And, not only do you have no evidence of this, all evidence shows the OPPOSITE happening. So, you are wrong times 2.
 
Your reaction is hardly the norm. Truth is, SSM has gained in support every single year lately. Under 30 it is overwhelmingly supported. The people most opposed to it are the older generation who are dying out. I realize you are alergic to facts and science, but polling might be something to look at before making such nonsensical claims.

Then they don't show up to vote in state elections, so essentially they don't count, their opinion doesn't matter, never has. Until that happens it's still going to be true that the majority of the states have a majority of voters that are anti-SSM. That hasn't changed.
 
Yes, you can oxymoronically get a same sex partner "marriage" license in those comparative handful of states .. for now.

But, in reality, you'll simply not be married.

And, of course, all is reversible with a mere predictable ideological swing of the pendulum of power ...

Marriage, as a license and a set of legal obligations and benefits is exactly what you will be, by definition. That you do not like it is entirely irrelevant. I mean, really, this is not hard. In fact it is really easy. Sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the evil truth will not make it go away.
 
Then they don't show up to vote in state elections, so essentially they don't count, their opinion doesn't matter, never has. Until that happens it's still going to be true that the majority of the states have a majority of voters that are anti-SSM. That hasn't changed.

Which is changing, as we learned in November.
 
1) Justice Kennedy's statement is on target. SSM and OSM are equivalent in regards to how marriage is seen by the government. Since we know that procreation is not a requirement, we know that children of gays do as well as children of straights, and we know that committed relationships (be they gay or straight) are beneficial to society, we know that Kennedy is on target with his equivalency statement. You have completely failed in proving this position wrong. If you believe that they are NOT equivalent, prove it... but remember, procreation is off the table as it is not a requirement for marriage.
2) The state's rights position is that the unconstitutionality of DOMA allows the states to decide on marriage, without the federal government's input in regards to benefits and such. Since it sees SSM as equivalent to straight marriage (which by governmental definition, it is), states are no longer prevented from full recognition if they choose.
3) Consistently, you have contradicted yourself and ignored definitions. You have admitted that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, then denied this when it sinks your argument. Further, your reliance on logical fallacies, even when these were demonstrated to you, seriously hurt your argument This is dishonest debating. Your positions have been completely are totally shredded, not only by me, but by anyone who has responded to you. If you look at the response of others, from either side of the political spectrum, they mirror what I've told you. I understand that you don't like this, as you have invested a lot of time into a failed argument, but that's how it is. Perhaps the next time you debate an issue, you will spend a little more time researching it, so your positions are not so poorly constructed and inaccurate.

You of course have opportunities to redeem yourself. I have asked you to demonstrate how SSM and OSM are different... and remember, since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, you cannot use this point. I would be interested in seeing your answer.


You've pulled that "we" dishonesty crap already, and repeated this deliberate dishonesty of stating what I did not say. I said that your own insertion of compulsion <requirement> to procreate, a flaw of argument known as affirmation of the consequent, is not anywhere involved in the cause for the recognition of heterosexual marriage. And if you cannot win the argument by honest terms, I guess you feel you must try to win it by dishonest terms, and having me removed from discussions, which is more than just a flaw of argumentation, but a serious flaw in character.

The FACT is that procreation only happens by heterosexual means, and that is in FACT the cause for the recognition of marriage by societies the world over.

As far as DOMA being unconstitutional, I give you these following words:


"Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage[/U] and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

Bill Clinton,
Signing Statement, DOMA
Friday, September 20, 1996

Passed by super-majorities in both Houses of Congress,
and majorities among Democrats in both houses.

The allegedly offending passage of DOMA:

Defense of Marriage Act
Section 7, Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.​

♦ The only thing DOMA applied to was the definition of marriage for federal purposes.

♦ The federal government did not outlaw anything, as it did with polygamy, and as the court did with sodomy.

♦ It did NOT insist that the states recognize the federal government's definition that had been the sole definition recognized throughout this country's ENTIRE HISTORY!

♦ The Federal government does not even issue marriage licenses! The states are completely left alone and not violating state federalism at all! In fact the Court violates federalism by dictating the acceptance of this new definition.

The ONLY thing DOMA did was the FEDERAL government regulating the FEDERAL government -- which is ENTIRELY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUE, a legitimate act of Congress and nowhere the domain of equal rights!

The SOLE purpose of DOMA was the prohibition of States coming up with their own definition AND compelling that definition on other states by the corruption of the Full Faith and Credit clause. That's IT! There was no denial of rights here. Rights are not any guarantee of outcome and reward! This was only the federal government indicating the terms by which it would recognize marriage, which is entirely within it's authority!


And in the hypocritical act of ALL TIME, the 5 liberal activist progressive judges have sought to deny the Federal Congress its legitimate authority of indicating the terms which only the Federal government would recognize marriage, by the abuse of the federal Court's position in the federal government to 1) dictate their own position, to the independent branch of Congress, 2) violating Separation of Powers, and 3) dictating that Federal Court's position to the allegedly sovereign States as well, violating state sovereignty!!

The U.S. Supreme Court has allegedly recognized the Sovereignty of states, but only select sovereignty, denying the sovereignty of other states entirely, so as to dictate its own Social Engineering dictate to the States and Congress as well!

Today the Supreme Court showed that it is NOT in defense of States Rights, but willing to dictate its own view of the terms of marriage by the Federal government, and deny Congress' own protection of those States Rights.

Simultaneously, regarding Prop 8, that Supreme Court denied the appeal, and allowed California to proceed to the denial of the will of the people in referendum, to deny enacted law, and to fail to defend that enacted law already instituted in statute, with the State and Court wanting to have repeated bites at the same apple to get the result they wanted, regardless of anything else, so that it may institute the dictates of a few elites in the State legislature, and Governor's office, to dictate the terms in disregard to all of the populace.

In one statement before the court is that "no other group in recent history has been subject to popular referendum to take away rights ... the way that gay people have." What they want is there own terms dictated, in disregard of states rights, in disregard of the people's view, in disregard to Congress's view.

In the hearing of this case, the Leftists Court Justices were arguing Federalism and states rights ALL DAY LONG, .... UNTIL it came to the states actually making decisions against their chosen outcome, UNTIL it involved the States making decisions on their own not dictated by one state under Full Faith and Credit abuse.

In Fact the Constitution itself, and even the meanings of terms therein, mean nothing to the left, NOTHING in comparison to the Progressive Utopian statist desire to dictate to all of society and impose their view on ever member of society. They DON'T WANT the states to make these decisions! And they only want the federal government to make these decisions, if they are the decisions they want!

There's no "rights" involved here; there is just a corrupt judiciary, and the rejection of the limits imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution.

Every single American should be greatly alarmed by this. Just as the emancipation of blacks from slavery was used to violate real rights and impose utopian dictate, so too will this be used to dictate even more intrusive terms, and annul individual rights.
 
Last edited:
4 liberal justices and Kennedy was exactly what was expected. What cave have you been living in.
Whether or not it was "expected" by some is irrelevant.

It remains curious that in this case liberals pushed states rights when usually they are the ones supporting the people or the fed over states rights.

The SCOTUS decision process remains more about ideology than ideologues like to admit.


The gist of the ruling was not states rights. It was mentioned briefly.
Absolutely false.

I quoted Kennedy in proof of the states' rights nature of the DOMA decision.

Read my post a few back and you'll see.

Any ideologue that thinks today's decisions were about a sanctioning of the oxymoronic SSM are simply fooling themselves, as usual.


Well, except for all the places it has not been like what you think, including previously in this United States. And except for all the places currently where it is not what you think. But I am sure those are just "exceptions". the excuse when something ruins your argument.
By your thinking, a mafia hitman or abusive dictator that kills arbitrarily in isolated pocketed violation of the law against murder and gets away with it for a time somehow "redefines" the word "murder" to narrow its scope. :roll:

Marriage was created 12,000 years ago just before the agricultural revolution to be "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" and remains simply that to this day.

Nothing else is "marriage", obviously.

It really is that simple.

No amount of oxymoronic mantra chanting will change that forever standing reality.

You need a new word here.

I have suggested "hommariage", a win-win for both sides that respects definitive propriety and gets SS copules' domestic partner civil unions so-named recognized by government and private enterprise.



You should probably read the decisions before commenting on them. You are pretty much entirely wrong in what they ruled.
I did read them .. and my presentation is accurate.

Assuming you read them too, it obviously takes more than just a reading to be able to grasp the obvious reality as I presented it -- it takes a discarding of pre-conceived ideology that so greatly dumbs one down.
 
Then they don't show up to vote in state elections, so essentially they don't count, their opinion doesn't matter, never has. Until that happens it's still going to be true that the majority of the states have a majority of voters that are anti-SSM. That hasn't changed.

This is not entirely accurate. Firstly, majority support for SSM is only recent... the last few years. Secondly, that does not mean that it has majority support in every state. As would be obvious, there are still many states where it is not supported.
 
None of this is based in reality since the majority of Americans support SSM, a percentage that has been near continuously rising for over 15 years. And, since we know that younger people tend to support SSM more strongly, this number will only rise. Fact and logic prove you wrong, of course.
You continue to wax oppositionally defiant of every accurate presentation I make. I wonder why ...

Americans support SS couples' domestic partner civil unions being recognized by government and private enterprise.

But they do not in the majority support the use of the word "marriage" to apply to those relationships.

If that was the case, more than a handful of states would have statutes declaring the oxymoronic SSM .. but, they don't.

When the facts, all the facts, are told the people, the facts that I have presented, people respond differently than to the comparatively meaningless poll questions they're stuck with.
 
But, in reality, you'll simply not be married.

You are entitled to your opinion.

And if it were all to be reversed, then fine. That isn't within my control. I'm content just to form the best relationship I can and live my day to day life as best I can. I am not bothered by the opinions of those who would seek to belittle my relationship without even knowing me or my partner. Those opinions say more about the people who hold them than they do about me. I'm interested in doing what I feel is best for the country and the culture and I think same sex marriage is a step in the right direction. I respect that people disagree because they are hesitant to change what they see as how it has always been, but progress is inevitable and I think marriage will be stronger as result of the inclusion of same sex couples.
 
1.)You still have a problem with "lies", using it in a manner few adults actually would, and undoubtedly stemming from your problematic recognition of fact. Your failure to recognize Fact, does not constitute my own lie.

2) The statements I've made in other posts, or in other threads, are entirely irrelevant to what I said in that specific post in response to you, which is gave you a direct link to post #770, the relevant post, where I did my Carnac routine, stated noting whatsoever about people coming from heterosexual relationships.. The fact is your claim is wrong and irrelevant to my post.




3.)No, its not 100% false. It is, in fact, 100% correct. Each and every person is the result of heterosexual relationships, even those that are using in vitro fertilization, are relying on heterosexual reproduction, a sperm and an egg, and that is heterosexually based, with the egg/ovum being called in ancient Greek, gamete γαμετή for "wife" , the sperm being recognized by the term "gametes", ancient Greek gametes γαμέτης for "husband". There's no getting around the fact, and you're wrong.




4.)See above.

5.)You haven't proven a thing, except your penchant to offer your own unfounded ramblings as truth, and your failed understanding to accuse lying.




6.)As shown in the link #770 above, I was referencing heterosexual relationships, not marriage, which shows your statement wrong, and your claim that I lost wrong.




Yes, and I want to thank you for proving, through your ignorance, the the definition and recognition of marriage comes form the fact that people can procreate outside of marriage, or any relationship at all, and this is why societies the world over, throughout mankind's history, have invariably recognized marriage to be a man and woman.

You can keep trying to spin, but your misrepresentations of fact, and this conversation, won't change either.

1.) nice deflection and failed insult, fact remains you still lied
2.) again nice try nobody honest is buying it lol
3.) 100% false this fact will never change :shrug:
nice try at a back pedal and reframing though but your statement, this statement "Each and every person is the result of heterosexual relationships" is 100% false. SOrry
4.) I agree see above
5.) you are welcome to this false opinion but its proven wrong
6.) again your statement is meaningless to the facts and your false claim
7.) already proven false but keep saying it maybe somebody uneducated enough will believe it

its funny you think any of this will work lol

I AGAIN ask you "do you have anything thats on topic to legal marriage and matters to the topic? anything?
 
Every single American should be greatly alarmed by this. Just as the emancipation of blacks from slavery was used to violate real rights and impose utopian dictate, so too will this be used to dictate even more intrusive terms, and annul individual rights.

Wow...paranoid much? It is one thing to blame gays for undermining the moral fabric of society, but now we get part of the blame for the destruction of individual rights? I really need to get a copy of the Gay Agenda! How are we doing all this nefarious stuff!
 
This is false. Every single person is not the result of a heterosexual "relationship". Many people are the result of an opposite sex booty call. Some are the result of some sperm being donated to a woman for her to get pregnant by. Some are the result of a rape. Some are the result of an egg being donated for use in conjunction with sperm and a surrogate mother in order to make a baby. "Relationship" generally implies much more than any of these things.

And none of this has anything to do with marriage. Children are not required for marriage. And blood relation is not required to raise a child well.

ding ding ding

we have a winner somebody that understands facts and reality

something tells me these facts will go ignored or a but but but is coming
 
Uh, that "opposite sex booty call" is still heterosexual reproduction, and the term "relationship" does not necessitate nor imply any sort of ongoing relationship between people, but references the ongoing and immutable relation of the sperm and ovum necessary for reproduction, to those two heterosexual sexes.

Likewise, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization also rely on that same heterosexual reproduction process, and rape as well.

Again, and quite obviously, the reference to "relationship" does not refer to any ongoing relationship between partners, much less a stable one, but the relationship of the reproduction process to that heterosexuality... and it really is an inane claim that it might be.

did i call it or did i call it

reframing, deflection and moving the goal post

classic back pedal
 
You've pulled that "we" dishonesty crap already, and repeated this deliberate dishonesty of stating what I did not say. I said that your own insertion of compulsion <requirement> to procreate, a flaw of argument known as affirmation of the consequent, is not anywhere involved in the cause for the recognition of heterosexual marriage. And if you cannot win the argument by honest terms, I guess you feel you must try to win it by dishonest terms, and having me removed from discussions, which is more than just a flaw of argumentation, but a serious flaw in character.

I thought you weren't going to respond to me, anymore. Guess this another area where you are not truthful. Now, you have said, quite clearly several times, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. So have many others. This is an accurate statement of fact. If you believe on ANY level that it is, demonstrate proof, which would require you to show a legal edict or some law that shows that in order to get married, one has to agree to procreate. If you cannot do this... and we know you cannot, your entire procreation/biological argument is completely refuted. As I said, I know that you put a lot of time into that failed argument, but you really needed to do your homework first. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong, which you were.

The FACT is that procreation only happens by heterosexual means, and that is in FACT the cause for the recognition of societies the world over.

And this fact has nothing to do with marriage. If you disagree, show any legal precedent that requires someone to procreate in order to marry. If you cannot... and we know you cannot, your position is refuted. Which it is.

As far as DOMA being unconstitutional, I give you these following words:


"Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage[/U] and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

Bill Clinton,
Signing Statement, DOMA
Friday, September 20, 1996

Passed by super-majorities in both Houses of Congress,
and majorities among Democrats in both houses.

The allegedly offending passage of DOMA:

Defense of Marriage Act
Section 7, Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.​

♦ The only thing DOMA applied to was the definition of marriage for federal purposes.

♦ The federal government did not outlaw anything, as it did with polygamy, and as the court did with sodomy.

♦ It did NOT insist that the states recognize the federal government's definition that had been the sole definition recognized throughout this country's ENTIRE HISTORY!

♦ The Federal government does not even issue marriage licenses! The states are completely left alone and not violating state federalism at all! In fact the Court violates federalism by dictating the acceptance of this new definition.

The ONLY thing DOMA did was the FEDERAL government regulating the FEDERAL government -- which is ENTIRELY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUE, a legitimate act of Congress and nowhere the domain of equal rights!

The SOLE purpose of DOMA was the prohibition of States coming up with their own definition AND compelling that definition on other states by the corruption of the Full Faith and Credit clause. That's IT! There was no denial of rights here. Rights are not any guarantee of outcome and reward! This was only the federal government indicating the terms by which it would recognize marriage, which is entirely within it's authority!


And in the hypocritical act of ALL TIME, the 5 liberal activist progressive judges have sought to deny the Federal Congress its legitimate authority of indicating the terms which only the Federal government would recognize marriage, by the abuse of the federal Court's position in the federal government to 1) dictate their own position, to the independent branch of Congress, 2) violating Separation of Powers, and 3) dictating that Federal Court's position to the allegedly sovereign States as well, violating state sovereignty!!

The U.S. Supreme Court has allegedly recognized the Sovereignty of states, but only select sovereignty, denying the sovereignty of other states entirely, so as to dictate its own Social Engineering dictate to the States and Congress as well!

Today the Supreme Court showed that it is NOT in defense of States Rights, but willing to dictate its own view of the terms of marriage by the Federal government, and deny Congress' own protection of those States Rights.

Simultaneously, regarding Prop 8, that Supreme Court denied the appeal, and allowed California to proceed to the denial of the will of the people in referendum, to deny enacted law, and to fail to defend that enacted law and already instituted into statute, with the State and Court wanting to have repeated bites at the same apple to get the result it wanted, regardless of anything else, so that it may institute the dictates of a few elites in the State legislature, and Governor's office, to dictate the terms in disregard to all of the populace.

In one statement before the court is that "no other group in recent history has been subject to popular referendum to take away rights ... the way that gay people have." What they want is there own terms dictated, in disregard of states rights, in disregard of the people's view, in disregard to Congress's view.

In the hearing of this case, the Leftists Court Justices were arguing Federalism and states rights ALL DAY LONG, .... UNTIL it came to the states actually making decisions against their chosen outcome, UNTIL it involved the States making decisions on their own not dictated by one state under Full Faith and Credit abuse.

In Fact the Constitution itself, and even the meanings of terms therein, mean nothing to the left, NOTHING in comparison to the Progressive Utopian statist desire to dictate to all of society and impose their view on ever member of society. They DON'T WANT the states to make these decisions! And they only want the federal government to make these decisions, if they are the decisions they want!

There's no "rights" involved here; there is just a corrupt judiciary, and the rejection of the limits imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution.

Every single American should be greatly alarmed by this. Just as the emancipation of blacks from slavery was used to violate real rights and impose utopian dictate, so too will this be used to dictate even more intrusive terms, and annul individual rights.

And everything you wrote shows why it is unconstitutional. Based on the full faith and credit clause, it is not the Federal government's place to dictate to the states how they can license something like this. DOMA violated this and was appropriately deemed unconstitutional. As usual, and as was shown in today's ruling, you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty stoked. I want to have this discussion across the country. I did not think it should be decided by a few justices.

And I love people like you because...well...no offense but the language and attitude you bring to the discussion is probably going to be quite helpful in pushing our case. Whether you like it or not, same sex marriage is law in those states and choosing to speak down and belittle the people and relationships that you don't agree with is not going to inspire many people to find your cause just or benevolent. It just makes you look angry and vindictive...but whatever.

There are no losers with this decision. Everyone in the country is a winner because the courts are allowing us to do what is best and that is to have a civil and ongoing discussion on what is best for the country and our culture as a whole in regards to the incredibly important institution of marriage. Let's do it!
I'm not "belittling" anything.

The truth of the matter is that you're ignoring what marriage truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife ..

.. And in so doing you're pissing off a great many of the 92% of the population to whom, as a class, marriage belongs.

You can pretend that I'm "angry" and "vindictive" and "in the minority" and all, but pretending will not help you, instead setting you up for a huge disappointment in the future.

What I bring to the table is a cogent rational argument that, though not necessarily the devil's, will still present you with a devil of a time if you don't consider the likely real consequences of continuing to think you can get away with hijacking a 12,000 year-old institution from an entire class of people.

A word to the wise: start imploring your state reps to create homarriage domestic partner civil unions today.
 
I'm not "belittling" anything.

The truth of the matter is that you're ignoring what marriage truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife ..

In religious terms, that may be so. It's whatever the government says it is, in this case.
 
Marriage, as a license and a set of legal obligations and benefits is exactly what you will be, by definition. That you do not like it is entirely irrelevant. I mean, really, this is not hard. In fact it is really easy. Sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the evil truth will not make it go away.
Since that is what you're doing, sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the truth you can't handle about the likely scenarios that will occur if SS activists continue to push their marriage-hijacking agenda on 92% of the population, you should understand then that that likely reality simply won't go away because you have your fingers in your ears.

All can change quickly in a short-time power-play.
 
I'm not "belittling" anything.

The truth of the matter is that you're ignoring what marriage truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife ..

.. And in so doing you're pissing off a great many of the 92% of the population to whom, as a class, marriage belongs.

You can pretend that I'm "angry" and "vindictive" and "in the minority" and all, but pretending will not help you, instead setting you up for a huge disappointment in the future.

What I bring to the table is a cogent rational argument that, though not necessarily the devil's, will still present you with a devil of a time if you don't consider the likely real consequences of continuing to think you can get away with hijacking a 12,000 year-old institution from an entire class of people.

A word to the wise: start imploring your state reps to create homarriage domestic partner civil unions today.

I find the term "homarriage" offensive. I'm not sure why you feel that is appropriate or why you feel that is not derogatory but it is. Even if you don't agree with calling same sex marriages "marriage" it really does not justify you creating a neologism just to disparage people and their relationships. There are plenty of widely accepted terms you could use. "Domestic Partnership" "Civil Union" "Civil Marriage" Etc. I suspect you intentionally use that term as a way to belittle and demean gay people.
 
Last edited:
I find the term "homarriage" offensive. I'm not sure why you feel that is appropriate or why you feel that is not derogatory but it is. Even if you don't agree with calling same sex marriages "marriage" it really does not justify you creating a neologism just to disparage people and their relationships. There are plenty of widely accept terms you could use. "Domestic Partnership" "Civil Union" "Civil Marriage" Etc. I suspect you intentionally use that term as a way to belittle and demean gay people.
Obviously you are predisposed to see evil where there is none.

Creating a new term for SS committed monogamous civil union domestic partnerships is simply appropriate, as the use of a proper name to accurately describe something is a modern, civilized and intelligent thing to do.

We've used the word "marriage" for 12,000 years to reference the OS committed monongamous civil union domestic partnerships between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Since the word "marriage" does not apply for SS couples, a new word needs to be coined, as we simply don't have a word yet coined for their relationships, understandably.

I suggested "homarriage", drawing the analogy between "man" and "woman" to apply here: "marriage" and "homarriage" -- quite applicable and descriptive.

If you prefer another new term, then suggest it and justify its usage.

That you suspect me of "belittling and demeaning" is simply ludicrous.

I'm searching, as we centrists often do, for win-win scenarios, and win-win scenarios that rightly respect definitive propriety, as respecting definitive propriety creates progress whereas disrespecting definitive propriety causes regression, regression that most often ultimately gets corrected anyway and was nothing more than a waste of time against progress.

That you see my efforts as "mean-spirited", in effect, .. well, perhaps I need to remind you that your entire position is one of being "I don't give a damn" uncaring about an entire class of people and their 12,000 year-old institution, just as long as you get what you want, you don't care who and how many people you have to, in effect, steal from in order to get it.

All in all, it's best that the new term for SS relevant relationships be both employed and as accurate as possible.

That the term I suggested includes the word "marriage" should be at least somewhat satisfying for you.
 
Wow...paranoid much? It is one thing to blame gays for undermining the moral fabric of society, but now we get part of the blame for the destruction of individual rights? I really need to get a copy of the Gay Agenda! How are we doing all this nefarious stuff!


Paranoid? The now repeated determination of the federal government to dictate the terms of our lives, even take over de facto ownership of each citizen's body, and willingness to violate state sovereignty and separation of powers at its will, with laws being written that Congress does not read, but prohibits congress to act, or even remove members of boards at will... and my recognizing that this is NOT at all the Republican form of government which we're guaranteed.... is paranoia?

You need to reintroduce yourself to your dictionary.
 
Obviously you are predisposed to see evil where there is none.

Creating a new term for SS committed monogamous civil union domestic partnerships is simply appropriate, as the use of a proper name to accurately describe something is a modern, civilized and intelligent thing to do.

We've used the word "marriage" for 12,000 years to reference the OS committed monongamous civil union domestic partnerships between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Since the word "marriage" does not apply for SS couples, a new word needs to be coined, as we simply don't have a word yet coined for their relationships, understandably.

I suggested "homarriage", drawing the analogy between "man" and "woman" to apply here: "marriage" and "homarriage" -- quite applicable and descriptive.

If you prefer another new term, then suggest it and justify its usage.

That you suspect me of "belittling and demeaning" is simply ludicrous.

I'm searching, as we centrists often do, for win-win scenarios, and win-win scenarios that rightly respect definitive propriety, as respecting definitive propriety creates progress whereas disrespecting definitive propriety causes regression, regression that most often ultimately gets corrected anyway and was nothing more than a waste of time against progress.

That you see my efforts as "mean-spirited", in effect, .. well, perhaps I need to remind you that your entire position is one of being "I don't give a damn" uncaring about an entire class of people and their 12,000 year-old institution, just as long as you get what you want, you don't care who and how many people you have to, in effect, steal from in order to get it.

All in all, it's best that the new term for SS relevant relationships be both employed and as accurate as possible.

That the term I suggested includes the word "marriage" should be at least somewhat satisfying for you.

links? facts?
 
Huh? How did that change in November?

Factbox: List of states that legalized gay marriage

* MINNESOTA: 2013 - After Minnesota voters became the first to reject a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman in 2012, the state legislature proposed a same-sex marriage legalization bill in 2013. The bill was approved and takes effect on August 1.
REFERENDUMS
* MAINE - When supporters of same-sex marriage put the issue on the ballot in Maine, it marked the first attempt to legalize same-sex marriage in a popular referendum. It was approved by voters in the November 2012 elections.
* MARYLAND, WASHINGTON STATE - After the state legislatures in Washington and Maryland voted in favor of same-sex marriage, the laws were blocked from taking effect until state voters were given an opportunity to decide the matter in ballot initiatives. The issue went to voters in November 2012 and in both states voters sided with legalizing same-sex marriage.
 
Paranoid? The now repeated determination of the federal government to dictate the terms of our lives, .

In the context of gay marriage what is being dictated that chnges your life?
 
Back
Top Bottom