Gay Marriage

When shall it ever be legal?

im in Canada so it already is but for Americains when they stop being hypocrites and listen to the works of John Stewart mill, that which does not harm another person the government should have no place in regulating, the very stuff their whole system is based on.

>>2
The thought of fagniggers shitfucking each other's stank assholes and getting the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples who wish to start a family and raise the next generation of wholesome full American red blooded god fearing children causes me great psychological harm.

Let's let it happen, one day a year, and call it "opposite day".

Nah, let's just say we'll do that, and then arrest them on the altar. Awesome.

>>3
"Great psychological harm"?  Rest assured that the "great psychological harm" inflicted on you happened long before gay marriage was an issue.

>>5
I have perfect mental health, I just oppose gay marriage like millions of other Americans.

>>6
I do as well. Civil unions are of a different story. I don't think it's the government's role to redefine marriage, the Federal government anyway.

the point is that civil unions dont offer the same benefit. what needs to happen is allow civil unions the same benefits of marriage, and take marriage out of the government. if people want the marriage ceremony, they can go and get it and get a 'civil union' at the churchs discretion; or they can just get it at a state office.

>>8
What same benefit? That they won't get taxed as if they were a married couple? Then complain to the IRS to reform its tax code to reflect "civil unions."

>>9

its a lot more than that, civil unions from one state arent recognized in all states etc

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
http://www.legal-database.com/civil-union-marriage.htm

>>10
I don't have time to read your links right now, but as a person who believes in states' rights, I can see why this is a contentious issue. Perhaps there needs to be some referendum among each individual state to decide on what to do. If one state doesn't want to recognize civil unions after a vote has been taken, then it's their constitutional right (Tenth Amendment, maybe Ninth as well) to deny that. Sorry if that offends people, but yes.

>>11

and why recognize marriage? why not limit marriage to the state level?

further, the 9th amendment would actually support gay marriage in protecting the legal right for them to form unions, correct?

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness right? our unalienable rights?

>>13
If a state votes on it and it become law in that state, then yes. It depends upon what each individual state wants to do. I don't believe that the Federal government should barge in and force all fifty states to comply with whatever decision they felt was right. That was my point.

>>14

realistically, the only thing that needs to be shown is that preventing them to be in an equal union is discrimination and that it is their right to do so. if thats shown, then its constitutionally protected, thereby allowing the federal government to 'force' the rest of the states to acknowledge that fact about the constitution.

in my view, DOMA is an unnecessary involvement in the issue to try and garner support from the christian right. really, if you want to take your opinion to the fullest, this law should be dropped as well. it was an intentional law to twist the laws so that the states would NOT have to obey the 'full faith and credit clause' which would force the states to accept civil unions or marriages of same sex couples.

so yeah, the federal government shouldnt barge in and force states to comply but it shouldnt barge in and allow them to escape complying with what the constitution states.

>>15 "so yeah, the federal government shouldnt barge in and force states to comply but it shouldnt barge in and allow them to escape complying with what the constitution states."

Okay, do you think states should recognize one another's concealed weapons permits, then?  Why or why not?

honestly, gay marriage shouldn't be legal.  you say its the persons right, but it should be the parents right to raise a kid in a world where things that are obviously wrong and are 9 times out of 10 a cry for attention, aren't waved in children's faces as being "ok" and "politically correct".  Being gay is wrong.  And as for marriage goes, it is a religious union between a man and a woman, what right does the federal government have to say that a man-man marriage is ok?  I think being gay should be treated the same way that other sexual deviants such as child molesters and people who have sex with animals.  IT IS WRONG!

I believe fags should have the same tax breaks and shit with their civil unions as heteros have with marriages, except under no circumstances are they to call it marriage.

>>18
So they'll be called...Butt Buddies?

>>16

HR 4547

>>17

best be trollin nigga

>>18

i dont think the federal government should be worried about marriage. make them all unions, and marriage just a ceremony. there are some gays (for whatever reason) that want a marriage ceremony, and there are some churchs that are willing to perform it. just let them do what they want, but all the legal aspects and paperwork should simply be based as the same thing, unions. let churchs worry about regulating it themselves, this helps reduce federal involvement (always a good thing) and promotes a more 'free market' approach to churchs.

>>16

also, heres an interesting article concerning DOMA, CCW, and the FFCC, by a gay newspaper no less

http://gaycitynews.com/articles/2009/12/03/gay_city_news/editors_latest/doc4a70c1f28a2e3102061458.txt

>>20
HR 4547
This is from the 109th congress, and it didn't appear to get past committee (unless it was amended as part of a larger bill, that passed).

>>22

yeah, i was just showing you that there are attempts to get it passed. i dont see a problem with it, but think it would be unfair to force states to recognize gun certificates but not marriage/union certificates

>>23
I think it would be unfair if either one were forced. I think abortion should also be left up entirely to the states as well, but that's getting off topic.

IMPOSSIBLE by definition

No more possible than can a hexagon be a square.


Pointless as faggotry is an evolutionary dead end.

>>25
Yeah, um... whose definition?

>>25

how enthnocentric

you realize that homosexual unions are older than christianity and judaism right? many cultures accepted it, even if the union couldnt have children.

also, are you suggesting that we prevent people that are infertile/impotent etc from getting married?

>>many cultures accepted it

Name three.

>>28
greece, japan and uh.. damn you got me, I guess you win the argument

>>28

many native american cultures, thai cultures etc

>>29
That's only 2, I accept your admission of guilt.
>>30
That's only 2, I accept your admission of guilt.

>>31
Polynesian(particularly Tahitian, they would actually raise second sons as females)
Yes, also many native American cultures, ancient Greece, feudal Japan(yup, many of them Samurai had, shall we say "unions", with students, and it was "accepted"), And lets not forget the Spartans, among whom male homosexual relationships were mandatory. How about Sodom?  
You can't win.  They're everywhere, they always have been, and they always will be.  Sometimes the people around them care, and sometimes they don't.  And with all this information you still choose to care.  I don't.