Same Sex Marriages

[ThatOwlWoman]

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.

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.

[AProudLefty]

No. They still support the family construct and infertility while fairly well diagnosable now is not perfect.

LOL. "Family construct".

[Celticguy]

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?

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.

[Doc Dutch]

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.

The obvious pitfalls in traveling "the Road of Good Intentions". It's killed a lot of people and always ends in a cliff.

[Doc Dutch]

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.

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.

[Bill]

I think it's also difficult to impart knowledge and not put your own personal spin on it too.

True...

When I give my opinions-when they ask, to my kids & like on Sunday to a special needs guy I take walks w/ I tell them how I see the issues on the ballot in Calif, maybe offer some pros & cons. I emphatically reiterate, this is how I see it & what I see as the good, the bad & ugly..

My/our opinions evolve over time & change..

Like this issue... 15 years ago I would have been against it...... Now I feel it isn't my or the states business. Oddly enough, or not those that want the states out of our lives etc want the state to discriminate against these ppl regarding a civil act..

My middle daughter w/ two kids helped me along the way... While not gay she was always outspoken about them having rights, their own choices etc..

[Bill]

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?

It seems to me as a means, via law, to try & force their behavior-make it hard on them, deny them etc.

These & other forms of encouragement aka harassment is designed to coerce..

[Bill]

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.

You have the law, & the law is the law

What is the down side of this civil act for you??

[Bill]

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.

& it is a civil act so what do your beliefs have to do w/ someone elses civil acts??

[Bill]

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.

What is he moving on from??

[Celticguy]

Your rationale boils down to "They are not entitled to the same benefits because they're icky."

And this is why the founders desired to keep a strong wall between church and state.

Wrong. Icky has nothing to do with it, try biology.

[Celticguy]

Thank you for backpedaling on your claim marriage is for procreation.

Note he says zero PLANS. Still supports the construct.

[Celticguy]

You have the law, & the law is the law

What is the down side of this civil act for you??

It costs me money.

[Celticguy]

& it is a civil act so what do your beliefs have to do w/ someone elses civil acts??

Nothing.
But they are unqualified for the benefits.

[Doc Dutch]

It costs me money.

How does the lifestyle of married gay couples in San Francisco or New York cost you money?