But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

[USFREEDOM911]

You haven't answered my question, you continue to argue and avoid it. You continue to insist I am advocating something I haven't. You simply don't get to "choose" the criteria of what qualifies as marriage. No one does! EVER! Marriage is the union of a man and woman, that's the criteria that has to be met to call it marriage, anything else is not marriage.

And at one time marriage was the union of man and any number of women, in certain cultures and still is today.
But that's not what we were discussing.
I have explained that I have rejected your offerings; because they are un-necessary.
Soon everyone will just have to embrace the fact that marriage is between two adult's, who love each other.
Stop being so scared of this.

I don't have to prove the 75% number, but think about it... in the most liberal of states, 70% of the voters REJECT gay marriage, over and over... 71 times and counting! I think it's relatively safe to conclude, red state America is much higher than 70%, maybe as high as 90% in some areas. So, yes.. A Constitutional amendment is a very real possibility, and will likely happen if we continue to see this issue not resolved.

It's not that you FEEL you don't have to prove the 75%, it's because you can't; ergo you fail in your angst.
But you go ahead and keep clinging to your comfort blanket of believing that the Constitution is going to be amended in your favor.
It may be amended; but only to finally define that marriage is between two consenting adults.

Now, I presented a resolution, I gave you a viable and reasonable solution, but for some odd reason, you've yammered on for another page without answering as to why you are opposed to my suggestion... so, we'll just pass the amendment, and then maybe we can have some kind of reform. Bottom line, you are not going to ever get what you want here, it ain't going to happen. If we have to pass a Constitutional amendment to eventually get you to see the light, then so be it, we can certainly do that. It's a shame we have to drag you kicking and screaming to the 21st century, but I guess it's always been like that for some.

I can always tell when you've finally realized you've lost the debate; but just can't bring yourself to admit it. Your posts tend to get longer and more repetitive.

The only one that needs to be dragged into the 21st Century, are those like you that hold to old biggoted ideas and beliefs.

Stop acting so scared.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again, for those who may have lost my proposal amidst all the yammering back and forth...

My compromise solution which gives everyone what they claim to want, and solves all the problems:

1. Governments no longer issue "Marriage" licenses.
2. They are replaced with a Civil Union contract instead.
3. Churches can continue to "marry" whoever they please.
4. CU contracts would be between two consenting adults regardless of their relationship.
5. Tax breaks, insurance, and other benefits associated with "married" couples, would then apply to any couple with a CU contract.
6. Old "Marriage Licenses" would be recognized as a CU contract.

This solution removes any issue of sexuality, and any issue of religious beliefs. It puts the issue of "gay marriage" to rest forever, and removes our government from the sanctioning of a religious tradition and custom or basing laws on sexual behaviors. There is no 'slippery slope' and there is no 'discrimination' and everyone is happy! Problem Solved!

WHY are you opposed to doing THIS?

They are un-necessary; because same sex marriages are going to allowed and ruled to be legal.

 

[Timshel]

I always find it fascinating how the "gay" civil rights issues eventually are equated with the Civil Rights movement of black folk.

Yes, civil rights of citizens is an equalizer...but gay folk are NOT a race of people. Period. FOR THE MOST PART, YOU CANNOT TELL A GAY PERSON FROM A STRAIGHT PERSON UNLESS THERE IS A PHSYICAL DISPLAY TO INDICATE SUCH.

Big freaking difference from a race of people who were enslaved, segregated and discriminated on sight.

So? You can't tell a Catholic from an atheist. Does not mean the state may discriminate against either. You can't tell a rich man from a poor man. Does not mean the state may discriminate against either. You can't tell a Republican from a Democrat, a person just over 60 from someone just under 60, you often can't tell a handicapped person from one without a handicap, on and on. Being able to visually identify the persecuted has nothing to do with it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not scared a bit, I have 75% (or more) of the country firmly behind me. You can live in a fantasy world all you like, there isn't enough support for Gay Marriage to ever make it the law of the land, and it won't be. The only places it does exist in America, is where a court ruled it into law, and even then, some of the people went to the polls the first chance they had, and rescinded the decision. This is not a popular idea, nowhere close to it. On the other hand, a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage has been widely talked about.

Seems to me you really have two options as to what is going to happen.. You can compromise and find a solution to satisfy everyone involved, or you will get a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

 

[Timshel]

There is no discrimination NIMROD! You've not shown ANY discrimination! Gay people can go to any fucking courthouse in America and obtain a Marriage License, subject to the exact same conditions as you and I have... there is NO discrimination, in fact, they aren't even asked if they are homosexual!

Is it okay for the state to require that marriage be between people of the same race, religion, general age group (not talking about those too young to consent), caste, political affiliation or geographic area? Are any or all of those discriminatory? If they are then how are they different than your requirement, since they would apply to all equally?

 

[Timshel]

I'm not scared a bit, I have 75% (or more) of the country firmly behind me. You can live in a fantasy world all you like, there isn't enough support for Gay Marriage to ever make it the law of the land, and it won't be. The only places it does exist in America, is where a court ruled it into law, and even then, some of the people went to the polls the first chance they had, and rescinded the decision. This is not a popular idea, nowhere close to it. On the other hand, a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage has been widely talked about.

Seems to me you really have two options as to what is going to happen.. You can compromise and find a solution to satisfy everyone involved, or you will get a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

The amendment will never pass. The movement on this issue is all towards allowing gays to marry. It will happen, probably within our lifetimes.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The amendment will never pass. The movement on this issue is all towards allowing gays to marry. It will happen, probably within our lifetimes.

I doubt it. Even in liberal California, 70% of the voters rejected Gay Marriage. Now... if this were some 'issue' that people were somewhat wishy-washy about, or prone to change their minds about, I might could see where it had some chance of one day getting there, but this isn't one of those kind of issues, the opposition is strong and convicted in principle, and it's not likely that 20-30% of those who oppose Gay Marriage are going to change their mind, which would be what is needed to change the dynamic.

You can keep fighting, and keep dreaming, and gay couples can keep on not realizing the benefits of traditional married couples... we can do this another decade, another century... doesn't really matter to those who oppose Gay Marriage, it only effects gay couples who can't get the benefits they desire.

Bigotry is the stubborn belief that YOU are right, and everyone else is wrong. That seems to be the case with the "pro-gay-marriage" crowd, you aren't willing to compromise or find a reasonable solution to the problem, you are completely intolerant to the viewpoint of others, and you continue to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[DamnYankee]

Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, John and Kate have 8 kids then split, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is what is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? REALLY??

Promiscuity, as per your examples, does harm to the institution. How is enabling perverted promiscuity going not going to harm it further?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Is it okay for the state to require that marriage be between people of the same race, religion, general age group (not talking about those too young to consent), caste, political affiliation or geographic area? Are any or all of those discriminatory? If they are then how are they different than your requirement, since they would apply to all equally?

I don't have a "requirement" just a definition of marriage. It's not okay for the state to make those requirements because they all discriminate. They make no requirement that one must be straight or can't be gay to get a marriage license, therefore, there is no discrimination.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm not scared a bit, I have 75% (or more) of the country firmly behind me. You can live in a fantasy world all you like, there isn't enough support for Gay Marriage to ever make it the law of the land, and it won't be. The only places it does exist in America, is where a court ruled it into law, and even then, some of the people went to the polls the first chance they had, and rescinded the decision. This is not a popular idea, nowhere close to it. On the other hand, a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage has been widely talked about.

Seems to me you really have two options as to what is going to happen.. You can compromise and find a solution to satisfy everyone involved, or you will get a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

But you are scared; that's why you keep trying to assure yourself with this 75% fairy tale and your fantasy that the Constitution is going to be amended in the way you imagine.

 

[Timshel]

I don't have a "requirement" just a definition of marriage. It's not okay for the state to make those requirements because they all discriminate. They make no requirement that one must be straight or can't be gay to get a marriage license, therefore, there is no discrimination.

No, that doers not work and you know it.

In my examples, there is no requirement that one be a certain race, religion, caste, political affiliation or geographic area. Whites and blacks would be able to marry, just not each other. Jews and gentiles, poor and rich, Democrat and Republican, Californian and New Yorker all would still be able to get a marriage license.

Try again, same question.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, that doers not work and you know it.

In my examples, there is no requirement that one be a certain race, religion, caste, political affiliation or geographic area. Whites and blacks would be able to marry, just not each other. Jews and gentiles, poor and rich, Democrat and Republican, Californian and New Yorker all would still be able to get a marriage license.

Try again, same question.

Nope. I am not answering anymore stubborn bigot's questions until you answer mine. YOU try again!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Nope. I am not answering anymore stubborn bigot's questions until you answer mine. YOU try again! :tantrum:

Fixed that for you.

 

[Timshel]

Nope. I am not answering anymore stubborn bigot's questions until you answer mine. YOU try again!

What question? I have already told you I would support your "solution" but while the state controls marriage licenses it must not discriminate.

Now, can you give an honest answer of why these conditions are discriminatory, but yours is not?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What question? I have already told you I would support your "solution" but while the state controls marriage licenses it must not discriminate.

Now, can you give an honest answer of why these conditions are discriminatory, but yours is not?

The state doesn't discriminate. They issue Marriage Licenses under the exact same criteria for all people, regardless of their sexuality, and you have not demonstrated where there is any discrimination whatsoever. You are claiming 'discrimination' because someone doesn't meet the criteria everyone has to meet, and that is not discrimination. Sorry!

 

[Timshel]

The state doesn't discriminate. They issue Marriage Licenses under the exact same criteria for all people, regardless of their sexuality, and you have not demonstrated where there is any discrimination whatsoever. You are claiming 'discrimination' because someone doesn't meet the criteria everyone has to meet, and that is not discrimination. Sorry!

So the criteria I mentioned would or would not be discrimination? You said it would, even though all would be just as equal to marry under those criteria. How are those criteria any different from requiring a man and a woman?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So the criteria I mentioned would or would not be discrimination? You said it would, even though all would be just as equal to marry under those criteria. How are those criteria any different from requiring a man and a woman?

But the criteria was not equal when people were discriminated against because of their race, it was racially discriminatory. A black person was not allowed to do what a white person could do. Homosexuality is not visual, you can't determine whether someone is homosexual by looking at them, so the only way you could know is to ask, and they do not ask if you are homosexual when they issue a marriage license. There is no "requiring" of a man and woman, that is the definition of what marriage is, regardless of your race or sexuality.

Why are we still arguing about something I proposed a solution for? Is there something wrong with my solution? Does it not give you what you want? Is there something more you hope to gain through arguing silliness? Perhaps you just NEED the ISSUE, because it gives you the platform to continue railing on religious people and claiming false discrimination against those who disagree with your viewpoint? Is that what's wrong? You're too bigoted to accept a solution to the problem because then the problem is solved and you don't get to remain bigoted anymore?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I always find it fascinating how the "gay" civil rights issues eventually are equated with the Civil Rights movement of black folk.

Yes, civil rights of citizens is an equalizer...but gay folk are NOT a race of people. Period. FOR THE MOST PART, YOU CANNOT TELL A GAY PERSON FROM A STRAIGHT PERSON UNLESS THERE IS A PHSYICAL DISPLAY TO INDICATE SUCH.

Big freaking difference from a race of people who were enslaved, segregated and discriminated on sight.

So? You can't tell a Catholic from an atheist. Does not mean the state may discriminate against either. You can't tell a rich man from a poor man. Does not mean the state may discriminate against either. You can't tell a Republican from a Democrat, a person just over 60 from someone just under 60, you often can't tell a handicapped person from one without a handicap, on and on. Being able to visually identify the persecuted has nothing to do with it.

String, your paragraph just repeats a point I already made.....YOU CANNOT COMPARE RACIAL SEGREGATION/PREJUDICE TO SEXUAL SEGREGATION/PREJUDICE. Given the history of this country, it continually fascinates me when gay activists and their supporters keep making this erroneous analogy.

I didn't say the State could discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. To me, arguing on the basis of state marriage vs. legal union is just silly, because the former is just an attempt to equate and normalize marriage with "gay marriage". Saying it doesn't make it a reality......until you can produce the first child born of sexual relations between same sex couples.

 

[Timshel]

But the criteria was not equal when people were discriminated against because of their race, it was racially discriminatory. A black person was not allowed to do what a white person could do.

According to you, yes they were. All were allowed to marry within their own race. A black man could marry a black woman and a white man could marry a white women. How is that different than a gay man being able to marry a woman and straight man being able to marry a woman?

Homosexuality is not visual, you can't determine whether someone is homosexual by looking at them, so the only way you could know is to ask, and they do not ask if you are homosexual when they issue a marriage license. There is no "requiring" of a man and woman, that is the definition of what marriage is, regardless of your race or sexuality.

So? Discrimination based on things that are not visually apparent is not any less discrimination than discrimination based on things that can be seen. Both violate the concept of equality before the law.

Besides that, I gave several examples of things you cannot see, e.g., religion, political affiliation and/or caste. Are those sort of criteria okay? You are evading.

 

[Timshel]

String, your paragraph just repeats a point I already made.....YOU CANNOT COMPARE RACIAL SEGREGATION/PREJUDICE TO SEXUAL SEGREGATION/PREJUDICE. Given the history of this country, it continually fascinates me when gay activists and their supporters keep making this erroneous analogy.

No, I pointed out the fact that just because your reason for discrimination is not visibly apparent does not make it any less discrimination.