Same Sex Marriages

ThatOwlWoman said:
Of course they do, as long as they are American citizens living under our laws. Why shouldn't they be, just because you find SSM "icky"? If a couple has made vows to each other to stay together, remain faithful, pool their resources, adopt children, build equity in their property, put themselves out to others as a team, etc. -- why then should they be denied the legal benefits of marriage under our laws?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Their choice, not anyone else's. The wisdom of Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous poem comes into play just as it did when the fucking Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, IL.

Too many political partisans want to dictate a universal point of view. A view that often exceeds common sense. The next four years will show We, the People whether or not we are still headed in the wrong direction.

I sincerely hope Trump's legacy will be that of a turning point. A watershed moment for the nation. Not just something worse by 2030.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Thanks for the clarification. Agreed about churches.

Why do you believe "same sex couples" are not American citizens who fall under the Constitution? Specifically the Equal Protection Clause. Is there something in the Constitution that specifies Same Sex couples which I missed?
Click to expand...
Citizens are citizens.

But if i am a mechanic i have no right to govt protections for farmers because i am not a farmer.
All govt protections have qualifying terms.
In the case of marriage that is that they are for opposite gendered couples of a qualifying age with no prior marriage in effect.
Tens or hundreds of thousands of years of human history in cultures around the world bear this out.
Homosexuals simply do not qualify.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Of course they do, as long as they are American citizens living under our laws. Why shouldn't they be, just because you find SSM "icky"? If a couple has made vows to each other to stay together, remain faithful, pool their resources, adopt children, build equity in their property, put themselves out to others as a team, etc. -- why then should they be denied the legal benefits of marriage under our laws?
Click to expand...

Because they dont qualify. See other post.
 
Cypress said:
You are really reaching by linking the Caesar quote to civil unions

The bible says nothing about civil unions. Civil unions are a secular legal framework to give legal rights to same sex couples.

We are all sinners. The Bible does not even consider homosexuality a top tier sin. It is not even mentioned in the ten commandments. Adulterers and dudes who lust for the wives of others are greater sinners than homosexuals by the framework of the Commandments.

That means Donald Trump and every rightwing poster here who ever expressed lust for Melania Trump is a more egregious sinner than same-sex couples. But no one is actively working to deny Trump or rightwing forum posters equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Civil unions would be those mandated by govt (Ceasar).
And those are governed by qualifications to enjoy the rights or provilidge attached to it.
Homesexuals do not qualify.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I think it's also difficult to impart knowledge and not put your own personal spin on it too.
Click to expand...

Agreed....which is why, in tribal culture, there was a round table consensus on major issues. That's impossible in human groups larger than a city....and very difficult in anything larger than a block party. ;)
 
Celticguy said:
Citizens are citizens.

But if i am a mechanic i have no right to govt protections for farmers because i am not a farmer.
All govt protections have qualifying terms.
In the case of marriage that is that they are for opposite gendered couples of a qualifying age with no prior marriage in effect.
Tens or hundreds of thousands of years of human history in cultures around the world bear this out.
Homosexuals simply do not qualify.
Click to expand...

Agreed citizens are citizens. Why should you be treated differently for taxes or legal agreements regardless if you are a mechanic or farmer?

Cypress has the right idea: You are pushing your beliefs onto "Caesar" instead of following the advice of Jesus.

Cypress said:
You are really reaching by linking the Caesar quote to civil unions

The bible says nothing about civil unions. Civil unions are a secular legal framework to give legal rights to same sex couples.

We are all sinners. The Bible does not even consider homosexuality a top tier sin. It is not even mentioned in the ten commandments. Adulterers and dudes who lust for the wives of others are greater sinners than homosexuals by the framework of the Commandments.

That means Donald Trump and every rightwing poster here who ever expressed lust for Melania Trump is a more egregious sinner than same-sex couples. But no one is actively working to deny Trump or rightwing forum posters equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed citizens are citizens. Why should you be treated differently for taxes or legal agreements regardless if you are a mechanic or farmer?

Cypress has the right idea: You are pushing your beliefs onto "Caesar" instead of following the advice of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Any farmer shoukd have equal access as any other farmer for farm related legal aspects. The same for mechanics, etc.
Marriage is by the definition of mellinia comprised of a man and a woman because the protections and favors are specific to such unions.
It WAS ordained by God however the civil aspect of marriage is about property to be very blunt and more personally about potential procreation.
Homosexuals do not qualify.
Has nothing to do with icky.
Has everything to do with benefits.
 
Celticguy said:
Any farmer shoukd have equal access as any other farmer for farm related legal aspects. The same for mechanics, etc.
Marriage is by the definition of mellinia comprised of a man and a woman because the protections and favors are specific to such unions.
It WAS ordained by God however the civil aspect of marriage is about property to be very blunt and more personally about potential procreation.
Homosexuals do not qualify.
Has nothing to do with icky.
Has everything to do with benefits.
Click to expand...

Does that mean infertile couples do not qualify?
 
Celticguy said:
Any farmer shoukd have equal access as any other farmer for farm related legal aspects. The same for mechanics, etc.
Marriage is by the definition of mellinia comprised of a man and a woman because the protections and favors are specific to such unions.
It WAS ordained by God however the civil aspect of marriage is about property to be very blunt and more personally about potential procreation.
Homosexuals do not qualify.
Has nothing to do with icky.
Has everything to do with benefits.
Click to expand...

Dude, are you honestly conflating the concept of a marriage in the "Eyes of God" with recognition of a federal legal contract and appropriate taxation?
 
AProudLefty said:
Celticguy said:
Any farmer shoukd have equal access as any other farmer for farm related legal aspects. The same for mechanics, etc.
Marriage is by the definition of mellinia comprised of a man and a woman because the protections and favors are specific to such unions.
It WAS ordained by God however the civil aspect of marriage is about property to be very blunt and more personally about potential procreation.
Homosexuals do not qualify.
Has nothing to do with icky.
Has everything to do with benefits.
Click to expand...
Does that mean infertile couples do not qualify?
Click to expand...
An excellent question I've never seen a single person answer. Never.

My wife and I got together in our fifties with zero plans of procreation. Those who claim marriage is only for procreation are claiming my marriage is invalid.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Dude, are you honestly conflating the concept of a marriage in the "Eyes of God" with recognition of a federal legal contract and appropriate taxation?
Click to expand...

Yes, he is. He is using his personal beliefs and trying to deny benefits to others based on them -- wanting govt. to violate the separation between church and state.
 
Celticguy said:
No. They still support the family construct and infertility while fairly well diagnosable now is not perfect.
Click to expand...

Thank you for backpedaling on your claim marriage is for procreation.
Dutch Uncle said:
An excellent question I've never seen a single person answer. Never.

My wife and I got together in our fifties with zero plans of procreation. Those who claim marriage is only for procreation are claiming my marriage is invalid.
Click to expand...
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Yes, he is. He is using his personal beliefs and trying to deny benefits to others based on them -- wanting govt. to violate the separation between church and state.
Click to expand...

Agreed and, IMO, that's clearly wrong per the Constitution.

BTW, I'm watching Trump's Michigan rally live on Fox. The guy is truly a great showman who knows how to read a crowd. Interestingly, he's not getting the same cheers for certain subjects as he did a month ago. He's experienced enough to quickly move on but it's interesting how he knows when to stick with topic and when to move on.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
An excellent question I've never seen a single person answer. Never.

My wife and I got together in our fifties with zero plans of procreation. Those who claim marriage is only for procreation are claiming my marriage is invalid.
Click to expand...

Ditto with us. My father remarried at age 68 after my mom passed away. His bride was 69. Was their marriage invalid because obviously they were unable to have kids?

People like Celtic and other SSM opponents, simply want to codify their religious beliefs in our secular laws. Saying "marriage has been man and woman for thousands of years" is just a cop-out and an attempt to deflect from the fact that these ppl want their beliefs enshrined in law.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Dude, are you honestly conflating the concept of a marriage in the "Eyes of God" with recognition of a federal legal contract and appropriate taxation?
Click to expand...

People forced govt to have a role in marriage long ago and there is no going back on that. The religious did predate but not by much.
However they are connected rather coincidentally as it is not necessary to involve any church for it. An odd and occasionally uncomfortable couple.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Ditto with us. My father remarried at age 68 after my mom passed away. His bride was 69. Was their marriage invalid because obviously they were unable to have kids?

People like Celtic and other SSM opponents, simply want to codify their religious beliefs in our secular laws. Saying "marriage has been man and woman for thousands of years" is just a cop-out and an attempt to deflect from the fact that these ppl want their beliefs enshrined in law.
Click to expand...

The obvious pitfalls in traveling "the Road of Good Intentions". It's killed a lot of people and always ends in a cliff.
 
Celticguy said:
People forced govt to have a role in marriage long ago and there is no going back on that. The religious did predate but not by much.
However they are connected rather coincidentally as it is not necessary to involve any church for it. An odd and occasionally uncomfortable couple.
Click to expand...

Taxing and notarizing marriage is not the same as declaring "marriage is between a man and a woman". Dude, you're smarter than that. Show it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top