Marriage is a constitutional right and not for the purpose of procreation

That is the part that is discrimination.

Nobody can marry their siblings or an animal. That is not discrimination. You know why? Because nobody can do it. If only straight people could marry their sibling then that too would be discrimination. That is how it works. When you deny another the same rights you have based on race creed or sex, you are discriminating against them. Same thing the military did for years until they let women in.


It is really a stupid uneducated argument. Using the exact same stupidity, we could deny whites from marrying blacks, oh wait, at one point in our bigoted history we did that exact thing. People like you used that same ignorant defense.
Marriage is between two people, the state should not interject themselves into a contract between two people. I thought you were a Conservative. No self respecting Conservative would deny another the exact same right they had, which is to marry the one person you love. Not being able to do so denies gay people many privileges that other married folks have. It is discriminatory in nature. If you are for blatant discrimination then you are not a true Conservative. Originally Posted by WTF

every reason you gave in support of your position is discriminatory

and additionally, everyone RIGHT NOW has the same right, which is non-discriminatory, which is you can marry someone of the opposite sex who has attained a minimum age

i was listening to a program. this man asked a woman lawyer, who was arguing for homosexual "marriage" as opposed to some sort of contractual thing, what would be the limiting principle of government should it be allowed, why couldn't three people get married or more or why cant anyone marry anything? and she thought for a moment, and what she said almost caused me to fall off my chair. she said, well, TRADITIONALLY it has been between two people.

crazy to use the word tradition dont you think?

"? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

There was a tradition on not allowing blacks to marry whites, it was discriminatory. Not allowing gays to marry is the exact same thing.

Not allowing three people to marry applies to all races, religions and sexes. Not being allowed to marry 'anything' applies to all. Not just straight people or gay people, all people. What you are for discriminates aganist a class of people. Just like not allowing blacks to marry whites did.

what about marriage being the traditional thing that brings forth the next generation? and what about it should be guarded by government for it's the basis of society and be protected and held with specialness in law, not because of people loving, which is allowed, or people being able to give durable power of attorney to another or leave things in a will or living with someone which already is allowed, but because a man and a woman really are complimentary in the raising of children, together bringing a fullness that apart would be lacking? in other words, in the words of famous democrats everywhere, "for the children"? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

So if you do not have children, you should not be allowed to marry?

There was a tradition on not allowing blacks to marry whites, it was discriminatory. Not allowing gays to marry is the exact same thing.

Not allowing three people to marry applies to all races, religions and sexes. Not being allowed to marry 'anything' applies to all. Not just straight people or gay people, all people. What you are for discriminates aganist a class of people. Just like not allowing blacks to marry whites did.




So if you do not have children, you should not be allowed to marry? Originally Posted by WTF

so little time..see above post

as to have to have children as a requirement to be allowed to get married i guess my preference would be to let them get married first and then have children after marriage.

every reason you gave in support of your position is discriminatory
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Don't just say it, prove it. Debate it. How so? Why do you think so? I stand with baited breath in anticipation

and additionally, everyone RIGHT NOW has the same right, which is non-discriminatory, which is you can marry someone of the opposite sex who has attained a minumum age Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Yes and if we still had a law against blacks and whites marrying , you could make the same bigoted argument. You are not a true Conserative on this issue. Everyone had the exact same right to marry within their own race, just not outside it. That was discrimination, just as this is, if you are for it based on tradition, ok. Folks who did not want blacks and whites to marry felt the exact same way.

There was a tradition on not allowing blacks to marry whites, it was discriminatory. Not allowing gays to marry is the exact same thing. Originally Posted by WTF

Sexual behavior is manifestly different from skin color and gender (congenitally determined); thus, incomparable.

That is the part that is discrimination.

Nobody can marry their siblings Originally Posted by WTF

the incest taboo iz in place 2 prevent birth defects. since fags & lezzies cant reproduce thru gay sex, they should b allowed 2 marry same sexed siblings, parents, aunts/uncles/nieces/newphews/pets/cousins. LOL!

fags & lezzies get married all the time in every state. nobody is denying them the right 2 marry. i personally know 3 dudes married 2 ugly ladies who actually have kids with them & i sware these dudes r fags. doesnt everybody know somebody whos married with kids & u suspect them gay?

marriage is guvmint regulation ov a personal relationship. its purpose iz 2 protect children & protect people who leave themselves vulnerable due 2 their parenting commitments. i luv the dumbazz buttfuckers who think they have a constitutional right 2 guvmint regulation. LOL! i also luv the hypocricy ov the conservatards like CreepyOldLoser who like no regulation 4 the people they like & regulation ov those they hate & want 2 murder.

thoze who think banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, just dont understand the constitution & how constitutionality is determined. wutta bunch ov dumbazz crackers. LOL!

Don't just say it, prove it. Debate it. How so? Why do you think so? I stand with baited breath in anticipation
Originally Posted by WTF

"Nobody can marry their siblings or an animal"

thats discriminatory for those who wish to. you are discriminating, which is making a decision as to who may marry.

need i go on? you discriminate thats simple enough

when it comes to logic WTF, as much as i love you, you are weak in that regard

Sexual behavior is manifestly different from skin color and gender (congenitally determined); thus, incomparable. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

We are talking about marriage, not sexual behaviour. What you do sexuall after marriage is up to you. It would be like saying that having a threeway is aganist the law after you get married. There is nothing in the law that says you must have kids after marrying. All these arguments fall flat.

No true Conservative would want to impose his personal views on others.

There was no tradition against marrying someone not of your race, it was a local custom which is not the same thing. For one thing a marriage on the wilderness would be almost unrecognizable with its lack of a central authority to oversee the union. Many times people were married because they said they were married (always between one man and one woman except for Mormons and some Indian tribes). You can look around to see how many descendants of white-mexican, mexican-indian, black-mexican, black-indian, white-indian, white-asian, etc. that there are out there to see that it wasn't traditional. It wasn't common but it was not unheard of. Marriages could also be dissolved easier as well.

You know it seems to me that it was government involvement that screwed up even marriage. Maybe this is good reason for government to get out of the marriage business completely.

We are talking about marriage, not sexual behaviour. What you do sexuall after marriage is up to you. It would be like saying that having a threeway is aganist the law after you get married. There is nothing in the law that says you must have kids after marrying. All these arguments fall flat.

No true Conservative would want to impose his personal views on others. Originally Posted by WTF

But true conservatives will.object to having the LBGT community impose their unnatural world view on them.

I don't care who marries who but marriage is not a constitutional right for anyone. Marriage is a local issue, one that you have to get a license for which can be denied and pay a fee. Marriage is more analogous to hunting, driving, and fishing, it is a privilege. One I think everyone should have but it is a privilege none the less.

"Nobody can marry their siblings or an animal"

thats discrminatory for those who wish to. you are discriminating, which is making a decision as to who may marry.
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You forgot the part that we base discrimination on. Race creed or sex.

Nobody can marry their siblings or animals. Blacks, whites, gays or straight. Nobody can marry a dog or sibling.. No exceptions.

You discriminate by saying that two people can marry but only of the opposite sex. That is discrimination. Just as saying that two people can marry but only if they are the same skin color.

You need to learn what discrimination is it is the part after 'but' . As in "Two people can marry but they must be of the opposite sex.''

"

need i go on? you discriminate thats simple enough Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

When you discriminate against everyone , is it discrimination.

Nobody can marry their dog but nevergaveitathought. He can. See that is discrimination. You are the exception. That is why it is discrimination. You have an age of consent that everyone has to abide by. Not just black people or gay people, everyone.

But true conservatives will.object to having the LBGT community impose their unnatural world view on them. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Gay community is not wanting you to marry a man! If they were doing so I certainly would object (Though I might wait 'till the marriage was consummated before trying to save ya!). They are wanting the exact same right you have. To marry the one they love. No biggie in my book. Now if only gay people could marry, would you folks think that was discrimination?

There is nothing in the law that says you must have kids after marrying. All these arguments fall flat.
Originally Posted by WTF

you misunderstand the argument of why government should protect and hold special by law arrangements between a man and a woman and promote that.

its much like why everyone pays property tax to support the local school district even if you have no kids, because its good for society.

and even though kids can be had out of wedlock, and more and more that happens, but why promote that? and even though some marriages dont bring forth children, potentially they could. do you want to micro-manage that?

what is the reason we have so many societal problems as it is? feral kids. why not give benefit to something that is better, better for society and the kids themselves, and promote that. thats not to object to arrangements between consenting adults as they wish, its just to have a uniqueness in law that promotes and protects an arrangement between a man and woman, for that is uniquely different.

The Gay community is not wanting you to marry a man! If they were doing so I certainly would object (Though I might wait 'till the marriage was consummated before trying to save ya!). They are wanting the exact same right you have. To marry the one they love. No biggie in my book. Now if only gay people could marry, would you folks think that was discrimination? Originally Posted by WTF

No, WTF, you are wrong, and you are quibbling.

The LBGT community is seeking to universally "redefine" marriage. They wish to impose their unnatural world view on society as a whole. If the LBGT community truly wanted the same rights enjoyed by the rest of society, they should choose (a behavioral act) to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And again, sexual behavior is manifestly different from skin color and gender (congenitally determined); thus, incomparable. So your, and SE1's, argument that "marriage" is a "civil right" is bogus.