You brought up icky. I dont care what they do to themselves in private.
Same Sex Marriages
- Thread starter Phantasmal
- Start date
You brought up icky. I dont care what they do to themselves in private.
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
'Nature' seems to have included homosexuality in all recorded societies (and species, probably), and as people get older, most of them prefer to settle in pairs. It seems sensible to set up appropriate institutions, surely?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Sorry but disagreed. This is about Constitutional rights. There are only two ways to keep within the Constitution: Either eliminate the benefits or apply them to all Americans. I'm good either way.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Natural, yes. Judging "beneficial arrangement for society" is a judgement call. Do you also favor "separate but equal"? Banning miscegenation? Weren't the same excuses you are using applied to Jim Crow?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. About 2% of the population throughout history. It's like saying Left Handers, 10% of the population, are sinister...which is what happened until about 50 years ago.
Human nature seems to favor companionship and stable relationships.
If you want to lock onto equal protection then you have to get rid of progressive income taxes, farm subsidies etc.
Homosexual couples do not support the desired model for society. They dont qualify.
lol........ I have not seen anyone point that out, other than myself 15 years ago..............
Now I think that claim is even more bogus then when I made it back then.......
Now there are companies, unions, insurance etc that cover domestic partners etc so for all tense & purposes they are already receiving those benefits & others..
Of course you do. You care so much you want to weaponize your religion against them and deny them the same rights that those of us who were born straight enjoy.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
How do straight or gay couples factor into farm subsidies? I'm not offering a trade. I'm saying this is about applying the Constitution as written. Please don't tell me the Constitution is defined by your ability to wheel'n'deal.
lol........ I have not seen anyone point that out, other than myself 15 years ago..............
Now I think that claim is even more bogus then when I made it back then.......
Now there are companies, unions, insurance etc that cover domestic partners etc so for all tense & purposes they are already receiving those benefits & others..
About 25 yrs ago some leader in the same sex movement admitted it.
At that time domestic partners were rarely allowed coverage in group ins plans. Same sex marriage was viewed as the quickest way to change the paradigm.
As we know now, companies especially in high tech started offering it for competetive advantage.
But the fact remains, it was aids which drove this. Early research into the homosexual community (M&J) found there was VERY little interest in same sex. And then healthcare got to be VERY important.
Marriage is not a right, its a privilege. Thats why you have to have a license to engage in it.
I AM applying the constitutional guarantee you are so worried about.
It gets ignored routinely when it gets in tge way of vote buying.
Well I could be wrong here, but I think all the costs & other reasons you mentioned really have nothing or very little to do w/ the reasons you want to discriminate against them.........
I use to find lots of "good reasons to" but when I finally came to realize that was the only thing I didn't like about some of them I had to be honest w/ myself.. They weren't the "bad person", I was...... I made fun of them etc.. & they never did anything bad or mean to me.......
Do you think Jesus would have discriminated against them??
Is this more circular reasoning??
I am sure you are aware that throughout much of history little or no licence or ceremony was used nor required........
What did Jesus prescribe?? If he didn't prescribe, perhaps we shouldn't either......
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Sorry, dude, but you took hard turn there that I can't follow.
The fact remains, all American citizens fall equally under the Constitution. Make the laws apply to all equally or get rid of those laws. Easy-peasy.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Ahh, now I see why are you confused. Sorry, but you are wrong. Marriage is an inalienable right. Obtaining the license means recognition by the government for those precious benefits you and I discussed. Benefits like rights of survivorship, parentage, Social Security laws, etc.
Example; a 21 year old man is betrothed and married to a 10 year old girl. No sex, just marriage in their church. The girl lives with her parents with supervised contact until she's of appropriate age whereupon a marriage license is obtained. Were they married before the marriage license was obtained? Yes. Was their marriage recognized for legal purposes, Social Security, etc by the State or Federal government? No, not until the marriage license was obtained and signed.
Some states have "common law" marriages, but that makes things murky. Again the difference is being married in accordance with their beliefs and being married for legal reasons. A lot of confusion comes out because the term "marriage" is used for both cases but obviously there is a major difference between the two.
And therefore the govt. should not be allowed to use it to favor one group over another when bestowing this "privilege."
BTW, in the opinion issued in Obergefell vs. Hodges, marriage is referred to as a "right," not a privilege.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Jesus was a jew and knew the law. He also died for our sins IF we repented and accepted him as lord and savior. If they did not its not him discriminating, its them saying thanks but no thanks.