When Scalia asked “when did denying gay marriage become unconstitutional,” I wish the defense had said “at the same time that denying inter-racial marriage became unconstitutional.”
“Another boost to HIV.”And how will gay marriage be a "boost to HIV? I ask full well knowing you have zero intention of ever backing up any of your BS claims with a thought out, reasoned explanation.
We don’t do things like you suggest because most of us live in the real world, where systems are required to actually work to a certain basic standard.
Also, I continue to be flabbergasted by how many people don’t seem to understand that “two mutually consenting competent adults” doesn’t impinge on things like incest prohibitions, which ironically ARE the most universal prohibition that humanity has — given that there have been multiple cultures which accepted same-sex marriage, and not a single culture anywhere that had no incest prohibition.
(On an ironic side note, however, those people who defend “traditional” marriage based on Biblical definitions ought to have no problem at all with 1 man/multiple women marriages. Those were normal, in the Bible.)
Why not? It’s not my thing, but if a number of consenting adults want to enter a legal contract, all the power to them.-Check out the episode of “Family Values” from Penn & Teller’s Bull$hit!. Stats about straight, gay, and multiple parter families and children.
The right to marry has been established as a basic right in Loving vs. Virginia case, which concerned interracial marriage-Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.-Now, the question is if same-sex couple have the same rights.
Wow, you’re like a broken record. Same comment how many times today?If you want the government regulating our sex lives in the name of “defending marriage”, start with criminalizing infidelity.
SO those of us opposed to gay marriage should have it forced down our throats? The states should decide but oh wait why would we want to people to decide.
solarrhino about 11 years ago
Imagine how stupid you’re going to look in forty years, when people are marrying animals, the family is completely destroyed, and society is in ashes.
ARodney about 11 years ago
When Scalia asked “when did denying gay marriage become unconstitutional,” I wish the defense had said “at the same time that denying inter-racial marriage became unconstitutional.”
Jason Allen about 11 years ago
“Another boost to HIV.”And how will gay marriage be a "boost to HIV? I ask full well knowing you have zero intention of ever backing up any of your BS claims with a thought out, reasoned explanation.
lbatik about 11 years ago
We don’t do things like you suggest because most of us live in the real world, where systems are required to actually work to a certain basic standard.
Also, I continue to be flabbergasted by how many people don’t seem to understand that “two mutually consenting competent adults” doesn’t impinge on things like incest prohibitions, which ironically ARE the most universal prohibition that humanity has — given that there have been multiple cultures which accepted same-sex marriage, and not a single culture anywhere that had no incest prohibition.
(On an ironic side note, however, those people who defend “traditional” marriage based on Biblical definitions ought to have no problem at all with 1 man/multiple women marriages. Those were normal, in the Bible.)
Stormrider2112 about 11 years ago
Why not? It’s not my thing, but if a number of consenting adults want to enter a legal contract, all the power to them.-Check out the episode of “Family Values” from Penn & Teller’s Bull$hit!. Stats about straight, gay, and multiple parter families and children.
PepeLePew2010 about 11 years ago
Why can’t Americans have this problem solved? Like in Canada (years ago)?
pirate227 about 11 years ago
ZING!
Newshound41 about 11 years ago
The right to marry has been established as a basic right in Loving vs. Virginia case, which concerned interracial marriage-Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.-Now, the question is if same-sex couple have the same rights.
Uncle Joe Premium Member about 11 years ago
Wow, you’re like a broken record. Same comment how many times today?If you want the government regulating our sex lives in the name of “defending marriage”, start with criminalizing infidelity.
Newshound41 about 11 years ago
According to the Supreme Court it is, Lawrence vs Texas.
writchey1 about 11 years ago
SO those of us opposed to gay marriage should have it forced down our throats? The states should decide but oh wait why would we want to people to decide.