Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Bikeemikey]

So its not really a marriage issue in the US then. All of the legal entitlements you mention can be resolved without having homosexual marriage.

That is correct - but for a number of those opposed to SSM are opposed to it as they do not want homosexuals to have these legal entitlements, especially equal tax status.

[Bikeemikey]

It can be demonstrated fairly easily, but many will reject that it has been demonstrated even after it has been demonstrated.

How about if we define harm as a loss, and in this case a loss of what those who engage in ssm could've had had they not engaged in ssm.

For those who know the truth of the gospel and God's laws concerning ssm, this is a no brainer, but aside from that it can also be shown as a loss in a sinful world where people don't accept or recognize the laws of God.

Let's start with the current laws of our land regarding marriage which state that a person can have only one legally and lawfully (and living) wedded spouse at a particular moment in time.

By defacto, that means people who have same sex spouses can't have their own (biological) children with their spouse, simply because our sexuality doesn't work that way. It takes 2 people of the opposite sex to create a child, and ss couples simply can't do that. That's a loss right there that is directly associated with having a ss spouse, rather than because of some other reason, and if you count each child as a loss or gain that's an infinite amount (or at least multiple counts) of harm and loss 2 people of the same sex are inflicting on each other simply because they will NEVER be able to create their own children together.

Now what do you want to bet that ss couples don't even think of that as a loss, or if they do, that they think they can somehow make up for that by adopting other people's children.

You could use that definition of harm... It would be more of a religious moral definition and one that's not currently accepted in first world democracy legal systems. If you would like to create a Christian religious legal morality to determine use court decisions you could, that would of course be sending back a few hundreds years in time.

[Ahab]

That is correct - but for a number of those opposed to SSM are opposed to it as they do not want homosexuals to have these legal entitlements, especially equal tax status.

I'm totally fine with all that stuff. The only thing I'm against is 2 people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other, which is what the core of marriage, or the marriage ceremony, is all about. It's all about solemnzing that sexual union between 2 people which without that ceremony would not be considered "good" in the eyes of most people. It would be considered either fornication or adultery.

Except for that, which I will never condone, I'm totally fine with 2 people of the same sex having hospital visitation rights and a common insurance plan and rights to social security benefits and the same last name and any of that other stuff given as a perk to people of the same sex who marry, and I'd even go so far as to condone them adopting children to be part of their own type of "family".

It's the idea of 2 people of the same sex having sexual relations! Take that out of the equation and all of the rest of it is hunky dory, to me, although I know it would be better yet for 2 life partners to be of the opposite sex so they can have their own children together. That's the big plus of a married couple who marries correctly. If they stay married and do what married people do, gradually, eventually, forever, they can eventually create enough children to fill up a planet, or 2, or without any end to their number! Any other kind of marriage, compared to all that, is second best at best.

[DavidB]

No? Really? You mean there is no way that laws could be repealed, modified and changed through legislature to give all persons equality of entitlements. It is equality of entitlement we are discussing here.

No it is not, if it was then we would not be having this discussion.

I suggest you verse yourself on American Constitutional law, marriage to a person of ones own choosing is very much a fundamental right subject to limited prohibitions. You should start with Loving v. Virginia, and the 13,000+ citations.

Edited November 19, 2012 by DavidB

[DavidB]

So its not really a marriage issue in the US then. All of the legal entitlements you mention can be resolved without having homosexual marriage.

That is correct - but for a number of those opposed to SSM are opposed to it as they do not want homosexuals to have these legal entitlements, especially equal tax status.

One of legal entitlements is the term "marriage" so no it is not possible. To get all the entitlements ssm is required.

[Bikeemikey]

One of legal entitlements is the term "marriage" so no it is not possible. To get all the entitlements ssm is required.

In my opinion marriage ought not be an entitlement.

The govt should stop using it entirely.

[Ahab]

One of legal entitlements is the term "marriage" so no it is not possible. To get all the entitlements ssm is required.

That's what they have already when they "hook up" together. That's what the "marriage" actually is, and whenever they do "that" they're getting "married" regardless of what type of sexual equipment they have. What they don't have and won't ever get is righteous approval for that act, ever, no matter how "legal" it is or ever becomes according to the laws of man.

... and our Father in heaven won't be changing his mind about it, either, so you might as well give up on the effort to get his approval on "that", too.

As it is now, and as it ever shall be, the only people who will ever give their approval on ssm are the reprobates and misguided who for some reason think it's good or okay when it's not and never will be... those who are seriously deluded.

[Nathair/|\]

Under Irish Brehon law, any relationship that could produce a child was considered a marriage. The reason for this is so the rights of the child could be protected.

[california boy]

That is just brilliant, it really is, the equivocation begins even before we really start. Shall we define what the word "specific" means before we continue? Then shall we define what the word "statement" means? I just want to make sure that we both understand what they mean before I give the specific statement.

You really are a barrel of laughs.

Oh brother. Obviously you are not really intersted in an answer to what ever question you wanted to ask me. It is more important to you to be "cute". I can't answer a question when I am not sure what you are asking.

[california boy]

It just never ends with you does it.

I made no reference to any court rulings, I made no inference to any court rulings, I didnt refer or infer to anything legal at all. Your response is a complete and total straw man. As such I dont need to give any legal evidence to support a position I never had. Nice try though, you had nothing to lose so I suppose it was worth a try.

What I was talking about was the fantastic job that the homosexual marriage propagandists have done in winning the hearts and minds of the people. That the use of "rights" as a smoke screen was extremely effective in controlling the nature of the debate and hiding the real agenda of the homosexual movement. I cant even begin to imagine how you misunderstood my post when I went as far as to describe the real agenda:

I think you are taking a leaf out of the homosexual propagandists book and trying to put up a smoke screen with regards to my post. Unfortunately for you, you are not very good at it.

So are you saying you think equality for gays is just propaganda rather than fact, even though the courts are confirming that gay rights advocates claim to equal rights is in fact what the laws of this country are upholding and guarentees for them?

You seem to be troubled that gay rights advocates are good at getting the truth out. Strange position to take. But to each his own i guess.

[Kemara]

I suggest you verse yourself on American Constitutional law, marriage to a person of ones own choosing is very much a fundamental right subject to limited prohibitions. You should start with Loving v. Virginia, and the 13,000+ citations.

Nonsense. If that were the case then homosexuals would have that right, but they do not, which is why the supporters of homosexual marriage are attempting to change the laws. I would have thought that was rather obvious.

[wenglund]

I suggest you verse yourself on American Constitutional law, marriage to a person of ones own choosing is very much a fundamental right subject to limited prohibitions. You should start with Loving v. Virginia, and the 13,000+ citations.

The term "marriage" in this and other cases where it may be cited, is self-evidently defined as between a man and a woman. O'Connor suggested as much in her concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas when she explicitly spoke of the "traditional institution of marriage." There is no fundamental right to SSM, as indicated in Andersen v. King County.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

Kemara, it is becoming increasingly apparent you are not interested in what is the law of the United States, but rather in spouting your own unfounded opinions.

Are you a sock puppet?

[Kemara]

So are you saying you think equality for gays is just propaganda rather than fact, even though the courts are confirming that gay rights advocates claim to equal rights is in fact what the laws of this country are upholding and guarentees for them?

You seem to be troubled that gay rights advocates are good at getting the truth out. Strange position to take. But to each his own i guess.

Even after being corrected twice you continue with the misrepresentations and the straw man. Not that I mind, I am happy to continue correcting you as often as you need.

Obviously you are not really intersted in an answer to what ever question you wanted to ask me. It is more important to you to be "cute". I can't answer a question when I am not sure what you are asking.

Its obvious is it? How can it be obvious to you when I have demonstrated the complete opposite. What I am not interested in, is playing your little game of equivocation.

[Kemara]

Kemara, it is becoming increasingly apparent you are not interested in what is the law of the United States, but rather in spouting your own unfounded opinions.

Are you a sock puppet?

Do homosexuals in the US currently have the legal right to marry another homosexual of their own choosing?

[wenglund]

One of legal entitlements is the term "marriage" so no it is not possible. To get all the entitlements ssm is required.

You are confusing things by equivocating the meaning of entitlements. You are equivocating between a given "right," itself, as an entitlement, and entitlements as guarantied access to the benefits associated with a given "right." We have been speaking solely in terms of entitlements as guarantied benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

kemara, to peadophiles have the right to marry children? Does a individual have the right to multiple living spouses? can a person marry their pet? None of those are permissible in the United States, yet none of those take away from the fact that marriage to a person of ones own choosing is fundamental right. good grief which part of "subject to limited prohibitions" do you not understand?

[DavidB]

and if we are going to discussion the "definition" of Marriage. Which definition do we start with? The only God Ordained, the one Moses bastardized? The one religious racist enforced for many many years? The one under which a woman was property? The one under which rape did not apply to man forcing sex on his female spouse? So many definitions where to start?

[Kemara]

kemara, to peadophiles have the right to marry children? Does a individual have the right to multiple living spouses? can a person marry their pet? None of those are permissible in the United States, yet none of those take away from the fact that marriage to a person of ones own choosing is fundamental right. good grief which part of "subject to limited prohibitions" do you not understand?

So that would be a "no" then wouldnt it.

[wenglund]

and if we are going to discussion the "definition" of Marriage. Which definition do we start with? The only God Ordained, the one Moses bastardized? The one religious racist enforced for many many years? The one under which a woman was property? The one under which rape did not apply to man forcing sex on his female spouse? So many definitions where to start?

Since this is a 21st century legal issue in the United States, I can't see intelligent people starting with the non-legal, ancient religious definitions of marriage, nor would it make sense for them to start with definitions that aren't really definitions, but rather restrictive practices associated with marriage. But, your list might well be starting points for the flippantly clueless, which may explain why you would ask.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 20, 2012 by wenglund

[DavidB]

So that would be a "no" then wouldnt it.

Don't change the subject or try to create a diversion. I asked again are sock puppet.

you need to focus on your contentions.

your contention is that marriage is not a fundamental and/or that marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a not fundamental right.

to understand that something can be a "right" but still have limitations, you can begin your understanding on Equal Protection and standards of review - in others words what must be shown in order for a right to have limitations on it.

[Kemara]

Don't change the subject or try to create a diversion. I asked again are sock puppet.

you need to focus on your contentions.

your contention is that marriage is not a fundamental and/or that marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a not fundamental right.

to understand that something can be a "right" but still have limitations, you can begin your understanding on Equal Protection and standards of review - in others words what must be shown in order for a right to have limitations on it.

So that would still be a "no" then wouldnt it.

[california boy]

A good summary on what is currently going on in regards to gay marriage.

Watch

[Nathair/|\]

and if we are going to discussion the "definition" of Marriage. Which definition do we start with? The only God Ordained, the one Moses bastardized? The one religious racist enforced for many many years? The one under which a woman was property? The one under which rape did not apply to man forcing sex on his female spouse? So many definitions where to start?

How about the one codified in Brehon law. I like that one.

[DavidB]

Kemara, are you the farmer from the book series "Peter Rabbit"?

Please focus on your own statement(s), look at your denials in post 346 and post 361. Thank you for unequivocally showing that you are not interested facts of the matters at hand.

Edited November 20, 2012 by DavidB