Those who oppose marriage equality have tried every argument known to man, but
their point boils down to this: they believe that civil law should reflect their
religious view of morality. LGBT supporters see such views as arbitrary,
capricious and discriminatory. A SCOTUS ruling supporting LGBT rights would send
a powerful message about the limits of religion in America's public life.
I welcome such a message. No specific religion ought to dictate the
basis of the civil laws we all share.
To Embarcadero: I need that you say that marriage equality have tried every
argument know to men. Interesting. I believe that marriage is decided by God,
not man. Either you believe in the Word of God, or you don't. We'll
see what the Supreme Court decides, but still, it will only be the mortality of
To Embarcadero:Your ignorance of the variety and depth of arguments
which counter your preconceived notions is sad commentary on the state of the
debate on this issue. This is not a mere question of morality, but one of
changing millennial of established legal, social, political and even biological
precedents. Unfortunately, many on your side only are there because they see the
zealots on the other side of the question and "don't want to be on the
wrong side of history". They never realize that the presuppositions of the
LGBT arguments are flawed and not universally accepted, even by many in their
There is only one decision the Supreme Court can come to if this country is to
survive as a nation... support Prop 8 and the Federal DOMA...(the later signed
into law by Clinton).All other combinations of marriage will doom
this country.If marriage is opened to same sex, then all other
combinations of human relationships will require legal recognition of marriage
as well... such as polygamy, adults marrying kids even of the same gender, group
marriages such as two guys and five ladies... or vice versa.As to
the financial and social benefits of marriage... gays/lesbians seeking such
benefits can realize them by simply finding someone of the opposite sex to
marry. You say, well, they don't love each other. What has love go to do
with it (as Tina Turner asks)? Many heterosexual marriages have no love in
Simple solution: get the government out of the marriage business. Want a tax
deduction, inheritance rights, hospital visiting rights, etc? Go to the
courthouse and get a civil union. Want the blessing of your chosen God (or
Gods)? Go to the church, temple, synagogue, or mosque of your choice, who can
then apply whatever standards they choose, without fear of having their terms
dictated by government.It's long past time we recognized that
what we've defined as marriage as two distinct institutions. Separating
them lets government be faithful to its guarantees of equal rights, and lets
religious believers be faithful to their doctrines.
@Clarissa" believe that marriage is decided by God, not man. Either
you believe in the Word of God, or you don't."That's
exactly the point. You don't have an argument that isn't religious in
nature. That's why Prop 8's side lost the first two rounds in the
court. What God says is irrelevent when it comes to Constitutional law. @Radically Moderate"This is not a mere question of morality,
but one of changing millennial of established legal, social, political and even
biological precedents. "Well if you've got a good
non-religious argument then you best inform the Prop 8 team because they
haven't managed to find one yet.
To Radically Moderate:Embarcadero made a very well reasoned point.
You on the other hand have not made any specific point whatsover as to why same
sex marriage should not be legal. give me one good reason why you should be able
to dictate who can and cannot marry.
To Clarissa,Which God in particular are you referrring to? Zeus, Thor,
Woden, Ra, Allah, Yahweh, the Great Spirit, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Mars, Anu,
Brahma, Loki, Isis, Vishnu, Shiva, Osiris, etc., etc.... My God believes that
two consenting adults should be able to marry. What you really mean is that your
beliefs should be able to dictate how others live.
Bye-bye DOMA. And good riddance.
The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to determine who can and
cannot marry. Why do conservatives feel differently?
Question: Let's hope that SCOTUS refers it back to the states, as the
constitution dictates, then I can take great consolation that it will never be
changed here in Utah! Good luck with the rest of society, as the states have to
decide on polygamy, bigamy, or any other form of 'marriage' that
someone wants. Thank God there is a God and it is His view that counts most in
@ Candide. The same God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for what you are
supporting. Yep, that God!
bandersenSaint George, UTQuestion: Let's hope that SCOTUS
refers it back to the states, as the constitution dictates, then I can take
great consolation that it will never be changed here in Utah!
----------------You then have to deal witha the Full Faith and
Credit Clause of the constitution. All gays need to do is go to California and
marry and because of that clause, they MUST be recognized as married here,
correct? It does not matter what law Utah passes since the constitution is the
supreme law of the land.I don't think you can do anything about
that. They will be married here too, just not able to marry here.
Embarcedero does a good job of bringing the dispute down to a single point. I
see no reason why Goverment should be making decision for God and our citizens.
If your a religous person and your church defines marriage as between a man and
a women, live that way. The company I work for and most other Fortune 500
companies already lets their employees define their mariiage in any way they
choose, and they provide the same benefits to both hetero and homosexual
Ezekiel 16:49"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom,
pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her
daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."----------Mountanman,You need to read a little more
into what the sin of Sodom really was. It is in the Bible, if you read it and
not what someone told you in a church meeting. Read about ancient times and how
important it was to show hospitality to those in this desert region.You might be surprised that we are headed towards Sodom - but it is because we
are starting to refuse to take care of our poor and needy!
@wrz --"If marriage is opened to same sex, then all other
combinations of human relationships will require legal recognition of marriage
as well... such as polygamy, adults marrying kids even of the same gender, group
marriages such as two guys and five ladies... or vice versa."I'm really tired of hearing this old claim over and over again. It simply
isn't true.Here's the truth:Some people are
already allowed to marry men. Other people are NOT allowed to marry men. The
distinction is based solely on gender. That is called "gender
discrimination". Gender discrimination is unconstitutional. Therefore,
marriage discrimination is unconstitutional.NOBODY is allowed to
marry multiple partners. NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, there is
no discrimination. These laws ARE constitutional.If you'll try
for once to use logic instead of religious dogma, you will be able to see the
difference very easily.
@ Lane Myer. Nice try but totally inaccurate!
Gay marriage is not equal to straight marriage for roughly the same reason a
toaster is not an aircraft; a dog is not a cat; a tuba is not a hose.It
isn't the same, simply because it isn't (which is obvious to anyone
paying attention).Those who compare gender to skin color merely
prove they are not smart enough to tell the difference between pigment and
genitals (as a society we no longer have colored bathrooms, but we DO
discriminate between genders – hence men’s and women’s
bathrooms, sports teams, etc – because gender matters)I am
homosexual - yet I don't need straight social convections to validate my
life, nor do I need pretense of equality as a bully pulpit. I am not the same.
Since a very low percentage of actual gay couples in areas where marriage or
unions are allowed actually do get married (and most are lesbian couples - not
gay men) and considering that (according to San Francisco State University) more
than 50% of gay couples openly confess to not being monogamous- with spouse
approval; my position is not as radical as gay activists (aka bullies) would
have everyone believe.
@Counter Intelligence --"a very low percentage of actual gay
couples in areas where marriage or unions are allowed actually do get
married"When gay marriages were legalized in Washington, more
than 800 gay couples got married THE FIRST DAY. And if you look at video of the
waiting lines, you'll see that a very high percentage of them were men, as
well.If you don't want to get married, then don't. But
people who DO want to get married deserve to share the same rights and benefits
as every other married couple in the nation."as a society we no
longer have colored bathrooms, but we DO discriminate between genders –
hence men’s and women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc – because
gender matters"Gender matters in SOME things -- where safety or
strength play a part. Nonetheless, gender is irrelevant in the context of
forming committed relationships -- and therefore discrimination in areas which
depend on committed relationships, as opposed to strength or safety, is
unconstitutional. For a related example, consider age discrimination. Age
matters in some contexts, yet age discrimination is also specifically disallowed
in constitutional law (refer to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
Contrarius: In regards to your position about how it is
'unconstitutional' for someone to marry their cat, I have two
questions. Why would I feel secure in any 'constitutional' opinion
when the SCOTUS can change the constitution on whim, including who or what
constitutes 'marriage'? If, in fact, we were living under the
constitution, states would have the say on what constitutes a
'marriage' or not. We aren't! Given your opinion, however, why
would I feel secure in believing that SCOTUS won't redefine marriage as
between plants and humans 10 years down the road? Sorry! Considering that 30
years ago Homosexuality was considered by most as deviant and an affront to
civilized society, a person would have to be delusional not to believe that 10
years from now any form of marriage will be acceptable.
Counter IntelligenceThat is the argument you would put in front of
the Supreme Court? Really?Having had both a heterosexual marriage
and lived in a homosexual relationship for years, I can tell you that there is
not much difference. We go to work. We raise our kids. We worry about
finances. We go to church. We take care of our housework and yardwork. We
have friends and family that we love and cherish.The main difference
is that a homosexual couple in Utah must spend over $5,000 to receive 5 of the
benefits of a $50 marriage license. Can you tell me how that squares with the
14th amendment? Is that treating each citizen equally under that law? Just because you do not want to be equal does not mean that homosexuals should
not be equal per our divine constitution. Just because you believe something
does not mean that by our laws it is correct or just.It does not
matter how many gay couples want to wed. As long as there is one couple not
treated equally under the law, it is unconstitutional, right?
Lets hope the Supreme Court is not swayed by public opinion but rather the rule
Despite the assertions from so-called "experts," it is easy to see the
social harm that comes from gay marriages. Experts claim that there is no
negative impact on children, common sense clearly demonstrates otherwise. As
teenagers go through puberty, they need the guidance of a loving parent of the
same gender more than anything. It takes far more than love though. A teenage
girl with two gay parents and no mother will have difficulties in the maturation
process. A gay father cannot sympathize or even truly understand what a teenage
girl is going through with her first period. With this absence, it falls to the
schools or society in general to raise children. The same situation occurs with
a boy and two lesbian parents, though with less emotional impact. Opposite
gender parents are essential to the healthy physical and emotional states of
children. Ask teenagers in those situations and they will admit concerns. Watch
homosexual families and it is clear that something is missing. Any
"experts" that claim otherwise have an agenda and truly don't care
or understand the impact on children.
@banderson --"SCOTUS can change the constitution on whim,
including who or what constitutes 'marriage'?"Nobody
is redefining marriage, any more than universities were "redefined" when
women started being admitted -- or any more than elections were
"redefined" when blacks started being allowed to run. Removing discrimination is not redefinition. Allowing gay marriage is simply
an acknowledgment that the essence of the institution -- and in the case of
marriage, that essence is love and commitment -- transcends gender as much as it
transcends age, or religion, or race, or ethnic group."why would
I feel secure in believing that SCOTUS won't redefine marriage as between
plants and humans"Because plants can't consent. Informed
consent is a fundamental component of all contract law. It can't be removed
from our legal system. But discrimination **can** be removed. One step at a
time.@ExecutorIoh --"Experts claim that there is no
negative impact on children, common sense clearly demonstrates
otherwise."You are simply wrong. The American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the
American Medical Association, and multiple other medical and scientific groups
all support gay marriage."Common sense" once told us that
the world was flat.
Thank goodness we don't live in a theocracy.@ExecutorIoh;"Common sense" isn't proof of a thing, nor frankly, is it
all that "common".@Pat;Do you mean the "rule
of law of the Constitution" or the "rule of the majority"? The two
are not the same thing, nor is the latter actually the "rule of law".
MountanmanHayden, ID@ Lane Myer. Nice try but totally inaccurate!•9:28 a.m. March 25, 2013==========Mountman, You realize Lane Myer gave you the BIBLICAL scripture as to why Sodom was
destroyed.You realize you are arguing with the Bible, not with Mr.
Myer?[No, I didn't think you did.]I call yours nice try,
but totally inaccurate. Score:Lane Myer - 1Mountanman -
Ranch Hand - What I mean is that I hope the US Supreme Court will not be swayed
by politics and national public opinion polls in deciding these cases, but
rather by Calif case and statutory law re initiative, referenda, etc, and
Federal and Constitutional case and statutory law as applicable. It is my
understanding that laws banning same-sex marriage do not rise to the level of
strict scrutiny (like race discrimination) nor even mid-level scrutiny (like
If you can't say no to gay marriage, you won't be able to say no to
anything in life; and why stop there, why not have polygamy next, the
"super smart elite" attorneys in our country (Obama, Clinton, Biden,
Schumer, Harry Reid) should all say today they are all for polygamy too, why
favor the number 2 in marriage and discriminate any higher number of people in a
marriage?? They only support something when it gets above the 50 percent
approval mark. The Bible is more important than a law degree and popularity.
Prophets speak a higher law than the Constitution. Thank you Al Gore and John
Kerry for being the last smart Democrats to keep the faith, and not change with
The three big enemies of life ( media, Hollywood and universities) are entities
none of us should ever fear since they are all lacking in leadership and unity,
unable to ever speak as one consistent voice.
The Bible (or religion) aside, what do your own moral intuitions tell you on
this?And for those who think this cannot be done (i.e., we must
consult our holy books to know right from wrong), please consider what the Bible
says about love on the one hand and slavery on the other; and how it is you know
one is a "higher" teaching than the other.
I still don't know why the LDS church is so involved in this.
We live in historical times, I'm looking forward to tomorrow and
Wednesday's hearings by the SCOTUS on Prop 8 and DOMA.On this
paper there are several comments against SSM. These comments I'm sure are
well meaning for what the writers perceive to be the good of society.What I don't understand and would like to understand, is why those
against SSM don't use secular reasons to support their claims.Is it
possible they don't exist?Another thing I don't get, is
the fallacy that "Marriage" is a religious contract. In most
countries around the world, the only valid marriage is the one signed in the
Court House. People who want a religious ceremony have a "symbolic"
marriage at a church of their choice.The USSR had godless marriages
that were fully accepted all over the world. Marriages in China are civil
contracts, in Cuba there is no valid religious marriage. However, they are still
valid marriages.Personally, I hope soon I can have a religious
marriage in a church that supports it. Being raised as an LDS is sad I will not
be able to do it in the faith of my family.
Mountanman: In other words, your God, correct?
@wrz"All other combinations of marriage will doom this
country."Massachusetts doesn't seem doomed. Utah
pre-1890ish didn't seem doomed. @Mountanman"The same
God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for what you are supporting."I can't speak for everyone but I'm pretty sure we all oppose
attempted rape of angels (or really any rape). Also we believe offering
daughters to rapists is immoral but that's what Lot, the one allegedly
moral guy in the city did. Are you sure you really want to use this story as
your moral argument?
@ExecutorIahFriend,I'm glad that you express your concern
for children. More than that, I think your concerns are valid. We live in a
society in which our kids are exposed to perhaps too much unfiltered
information. The family should be the main source of strenght and values for the
next generation.You express that somehow, gays parents are lacking,
""With this absence, it falls to the schools or society in general to
raise children". Well, that concept is nothing new. It takes a village.Nobody claims that gay parents are perfect or even better than
heterosexuals. However, statistics may show you that gay parents seem to be more
sensitive to individuals needs of children. They are not trying to force their
children into stereotypes.Besides,most children facing Juvenile
courts are children of heterosexual parents. Most teen suicides related to
homosexuality take place with children of heterosexual parents. I
share your concern for children. But we, all parents, homosexuals and
heterosexuals, face the challenges of growing children. Hopefully, relative and
friends, school and society can provide all of us with the support we need when
confronted with the challenges you mentioned and others that are lurking around.
ExecutorIoh: "A gay father cannot sympathize or even truly understand what
a teenage girl is going through... Opposite gender parents are essential to the
healthy physical and emotional states of children."And yet the
law allows divorce, which results in children not having the full gender
complement of parental modeling and support, and the law allows single
parenthood (indeed, the pro-life movement insists that single pregnant women
must bear a child even if the father is absent). The "two parents of each
sex is optimal for child welfare" argument fails because the law allows many
suboptimal family arrangements. Whether or not it is true, for the argument to
be persuasive, you must demonstrate that gay parents are worse for children than
all other legally sanctioned family arrangements.
@atl134--There are several very solid arguments that are not religion-based. The
DesNews won't allow us to post links, but if you are really interested in
this topic, you owe it to yourself to search for: marriage facts harvard law
school. You will find an exhaustive treatise on the subject published in the
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Yes, it's written by an attorney,
but since we're talking here about legal arguments that's what you
get. It is readable by laymen and worth the effort.There is also an
excellent article published a couple of weeks ago (also not from a religious
standpoint) by Doug Mainwaring, a gay man. To find it, search for: i'm gay
and i oppose same sex marriage mainwaring. There is an important
distinction to be made here. Most of the truly salient arguments are not AGAINST
same-sex marriage, but rather FOR traditional marriage, for maintaining what has
worked well for millennia in rearing and safeguarding children.
@Pat;So, you're saying that you prefer mob rule over the
Constitution of the United States?Article 4 Section 1:"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by
general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings
shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."--- GLBT Marriages are
"public acts, records." Is your marriage recognized when you cross
state lines? So should the marriages of GLBT couples be recognized as well - or
yours shouldn't (equal treatment).The 1st Amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"--- The God I believe in
doesn't care about the genders of a couple in a marriage. Your religious
beliefs do NOT trump any other's.The 14th Amendment:"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..."--- GLBT Americans are citizens as are you and are entitled to the
"privileges or immunities of citizens". Majority rule is nothing more
than mob rule. Freedom applies to ALL Americans.
I hope the court sends it back to Congress and California. DOMA was passed by
Congress: and if current members of congress no longer agree with DOMA,
introduce a law to repeal the law. If members of congress who believe DOMA is
wrong and aren't willing to stand up for their belief, then the Gay lobby
should find a candidate who will commit in public to support their position and
work to get them elected.The people of California put this on the
ballot and a majority voted for the law. If the Gay lobby doesn't like the
law, put an initive on the ballot to repeal the law.I wish the Gay
Lobby would stand-up and take their case to the people and let the people
decide. Please don't compare this to slavery, because it's not the
same. In most states civil unions are permitted, which grant you all of the
same rights as married couples. If the reason you want it recognized is for the
tax deduction (loophole), then change the tax code.
@AceroInoxYou wrote: "There is an important distinction to be
made here. Most of the truly salient arguments are not AGAINST same-sex
marriage, but rather FOR traditional marriage, for maintaining what has worked
well for millennia in rearing and safeguarding children."My dear
friend, then we should unite our efforts. You see, NOBODY is against
heterosexual marriage. Because as you say, it has worked for millennia ( worked
well...that is arguable)LGBT are FOR marriage, so much, that we would like
to enjoy the same protection, rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy
with the spouse/partner they love.Many of us have children and we
love them very much. SO much that we would like to give them the same protection
that children of married couples enjoy.We are not asking to deprive
anyone of their ability to marry. We are asking to expand that ability.
CPA Howard;Can you guess why rights are called rights? We shouldn't put rights up to a majority vote in this country; your own
rights may be the next set up to someone's vote. How would you like it if
gays got to vote on heterosexual's marriages?
@Baccus0902: I gather you did not read either article. At the very least read
Doug Mainwaring's piece. I've voiced many of the same concerns he
does, but having lived it, he has more credibility.
@Contrarius:"I'm really tired of hearing this old claim over and
over again."I'm really tired of hearing over and over the
claim that certain people are not allowed to marry. Everyone can marry. The
only criteria is that you marry someone of the opposite sex. And it applies
equally to ALL, so there's not discrimination, whatsoever."Here's the truth: Some people are already allowed to marry men.
Other people are NOT allowed to marry men. The distinction is based solely on
gender. That is called 'gender discrimination.'"I'd call it foolishness. Because that's what it is.Here's some more foolishness similar to yours... some people can bear
children (women) others can't (men). That's called gender
discrimination."NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners.
NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, there is no discrimination. These
laws ARE constitutional."Oh you foolish soul. Multiple and
'incest' marriages are governed by law. Laws can be changed. If the
law (DOMA) is changed allowing same sex marriage, it can (and should) be changed
for any other combination of marriage dreamed up by the participants. Else you
@aceroinoxI'll be rather busy with assignments and classes this week
so I think I'll hold off on reading the 50 some page document until I have
more free time this weekend. @CPAHoward"Please don't
compare this to slavery, because it's not the same"I'd
compare it to interracial marriage. Mostly because it involves marriage, bans,
and the idea that everything is equal (after all white people could marry
someone of the same race and black people could marry someone of the same race).
Plus...@wrz"If the law (DOMA) is changed allowing same sex
marriage, it can (and should) be changed for any other combination of marriage
dreamed up by the participants. Else you have discrimination."...interracial marriage opponents used the same slippery slope logical
As I have said in previous posts relating to this issue - this boils down to
treating all consenting adults “Equally” - no more and certainly no
@ AceroInoxI just read the suggested article. What a sad
and insecure man. You see, as a devoted LDS young man, I had to
question and think, pray, fast, go to my churh leaders, see psychologists, I
even subjected myself to reparative therapy (electric shock and others). I was engaged to marry. However, I made the decision that I
wouldn't marry unless I was cured. I wouldn't deceive the mother of my
future children. I found out that There is no cure because there is
no need.Mainwaring is a repressed soul, he equates homosexuality
with sex. I have been with my partner for 31 years. I must admit that sex is
important, but not the most important part of our relationship.Mainwaring's article is summed on this sad statement: "My
varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a
pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen."He
doesn't dare to kiss his son, why not? French, Italian, Arabs, Latins, we
are all crazy kissers. We may be macho oriented, but we love our families and
express it with filial hugs and kisses.
‘Supreme Court set to hear gay marriage arguments’They
may hear, but they don't listen. It's already been voted against.
I tried to post this comment last night, but it seems to have gotten lost.
Trying again!@aceroinox --I did read the Mainwaring
article.First he says that denying children the right to grow up
with parents of both sexes is "evil". He says this despite the fact that
he himself adopted a child while he was married, and **then got divorced** --
thereby denying his OWN child the right to grow up with both his parents.Then he criticizes gay marriages because gay couples are unable to have
biological children within the marriage. He says this even though he himself
adopted a child.Can you get much more hypocritical than that??As for that Harvard Law paper you referenced -- it hinges on the
argument of reproduction within the marriage. The paper has been thoroughly
debunked in other publications -- and the reproduction argument has been
countered many times in DN's own comment sections as well. In
essence: many straight couples can not or choose not to reproduce, but that
doesn't make their marriages any less valid. Unless you want to outlaw all
non-productive straight marriages, you can't legitimately use that argument
against gay marriages.
@wrz --"I'd call it foolishness. Because that's what
it is."Nope. Insulting a logical argument won't make the
logic go away. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to have logic
on your side as well. And right now, you don't.Fortunately,
I'm sure that the Supreme Court justices understand the concept of
discrimination very well. And they're quite good with logic, too.Arguments beginning today! I can't wait to read some of the transcripts!
The fact that this revolting law suit is even being heard by the Supreme Court
proves the steady decline of America continues.America, America, oh,
how the mighty have fallen....
The Caravan Moves OnEnid, OKI am sure that is what the South
thought when we did away with segregation laws.In fact, this makes
me proud to be an American. It is truely what we represent: Freedom for
everyone, even those who are not like us and do not believe as we do. If I
remember correctly, that is why many came here in the first place. Good to know
that we still hold dear to those values!
This issue is not for the Supreme Court, but individual states.
bandersen, I think we can be quite certain that the idea of anyone who is not
old enough to buy a xylophone factory isn't likely to be able to marry, in
most states, any time in the distant future. Okay, so they aren't likely to
buy a xylophone factory. But consenting adults who can sign a contract should be
able to sign one to marry whichever other consenting adult who can also sign a
contract they wish, should they not? Is that so hard to comprehend? And frankly,
if three people who can all sign a contract want to get married, does that hurt
you? I don't see people marrying cats anytime soon. For one, they
can't sign anything. And it's easier to buy a xylophone factory.
@Contrarius:"Nope. Insulting a logical argument won't make the
logic go away."You need to have a logical argument to have it
insulted... which you don't."Fortunately, I'm sure
that the Supreme Court justices understand the concept of discrimination very
well."There is no discrimination in our marriage laws... Anyone
can marry provided they can find someone of the opposite sex to marry. This
applies to all, ALL citizens. No discrimination there. "And
they're quite good with logic, too."They are quite good at
dodging the issue as we can see in the Obamacare ruling."Arguments beginning today! I can't wait to read some of the
transcripts!"I think you'll be disappointed with the
@kargirl:"I think we can be quite certain that the idea of anyone who
is not old enough to buy a xylophone factory isn't likely to be able to
marry, in most states, any time in the distant future."The
eligibility to buy a xylophone factory is a function of law. If the law can be
changed re same sex marriage, it can be changed for buying factories."But consenting adults who can sign a contract should be able to sign one
to marry whichever other consenting adult who can also sign a contract they
wish, should they not?" You got that right. And they
shouldn't have to be consenting adults since such a requirement is
discriminatory."I don't see people marrying cats anytime
soon."To the best of my knowledge, there is no law against it.
And if there were, it can and should be changed. I'm quite positive there
are people who want to marry their cat for a number of reasons including leaving
it a fortune upon death."For one, they can't sign
anything."Who's saying you have to sign something? That
too, is discriminatory and can be changed.
@ Lane Myer - "Salt Lake City, UT, 2:27 p.m. March 26, 2013 - I am sure that
is what the South thought when we did away with segregation laws. In fact, this
makes me proud to be an American. It is truely what we represent: Freedom for
everyone, even those who are not like us and do not believe as we do. If I
remember correctly, that is why many came here in the first place. Good to know
that we still hold dear to those values!"Values? What
"values" are you talking about Lane?Sadly, Lane, you have
absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is not a "value" to
call evil, good. Time, and truth, will prove those on my side correct.How long, Lord, how long?
@The Caravan Moves On – “Values? What "values" are you
talking about Lane?”Freedom, equal protection under the law,
that we are free to believe what we want and live our own lives as long as
we’re not harming others. I actually thought Lane was pretty clear about
it.The rest of what you said strikes me as simply… well, sad.
What “evil” are you talking about?
@The Caravan Moves On;Bigotry and discrimination are evil. You are
calling it "good". Love and commitment are good and you're calling
it "evil". You really need to apply your scriptural references more