Wrong. You mis-stated it. A straight person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex of their choice. The same as a gay person. Whether or not you "like" reality doesn't make the principle unreal.

Frankly, I really don't give a damn one way or the other on the issue. That being said, this judge was out-of-line. I guess that most people have an inability to reconcile what they WANT to be true with what reality dictates is true.

If it were up to me, gays would have the same rights to unions as heterosexual couples, but it would be termed differently, and I think it is small and trite of gay activists to repudiate such a gesture repeatedly simply because they want a term traditionally applied to straights.

How does it harm anyone if gays are allowed to marry?

Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. James Madison didn't want a Bill Of Rights at all, because he firmly believed that ALL rights belong to the people and none to the government, and that if he left anything out somewhere down the line someone would say "They didn't mention that one, therefore they didn't want it there!" The Ninth Amendment was Madison hedging his bets against that very argument.

"It is to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men." I'm sure I read that somewhere.

As I've said before, and will continue to say, I have the right to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same. We create govenments to protect our rights, and we make laws to protect ourselves from each other. Anything more is an attempt to legislate morality.

I myself would like to know the answer to that, but nobody has presented one yet. :hmmm:


EDIT: What I've been able to surmise so far is that it scares the bejeezus out of those who oppose it. That leads to another question of: Why?

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

Because separate but equal is inherently unequal.

But it's not. Any restrictions from marrying a person of the opposite sex are self imposed. It's more like demanding that Ford produce Buicks because that's the car they prefer.

That implies that gay marriage is a right retained by the people. I submit that it was never a right to begin with, and therefore the 9th does not apply. Furthermore, the 9th Amendment has generally been applied to limiting the expansion of government RESTRICTIONS - defining marriage doesn't expand any restriction that hasn't already been in place. Rather, it merely better defines it.

Umm, no, because it IS separate by nature - please don't make me get into how all the "parts" work here...

Then i'm sure you are in favor of unisex public toilets. :DL

Homosexuality does occur in nature.

But not marriages. :salute:

It is what it is.

Personally, if you want to call it something other than marriage, that's fine. Just so long as it is open to all. If you want to call everything that happens in a religious setting "marriage", then that's fine. After the couple finishes their "marriage" at the church, they can go to the courthouse and have their civil union ceremony. Of course, until they have the civil ceremony, they won't have the benefits that are currently reserved for married people.

That way, everyone is happy. Churches don't have to deal with gay marriage, and people who are not religious will be able to have a civil union without the church. People who are against the government having anything to do with it can have their marriage, and the government won't get involved.

By the way, what was the answer? Who does it harm if gays get married?

Wrong. You mis-represented it. Rights are inherent. Laws are not made to create or allow rights, they are made to restrict them. Usually this is done for protection. You want to do it for moral reasons, and this is wrong.

Then why the hostility, and the insistence? It looks like you care about it a great deal.

How was he out of line? A case was brought before his bench and he ruled on it, and created a very detailed explanation of why he ruled what he did.

You now need to explain why, if you don't care about the issue, you feel the need to attempt to dismiss it with an intentional insult to everybody who disagrees with you. How exactly does reality dictate that what you believe is true? It may be true on the face of it, but so were laws that advocated racial discrimination.

Because it's true does that necessarily mean it's right? If a law is wrong should it not be resisted because it exists? And does not your statement also apply to yourself? Are you not also unable to reconcile yourself with what is versus what you want to be true?

Tradition is not always right either. Is there a possibility that you are so upset over this because you find homosexuality offensive and hate to see any concession in that direction.

Well guess what? I find the act itself not only offensive but revolting, and I hate seeing men holding hands (and fondling each other) in public. But I also realize that my morality and sensibilities might just be skewed by what I've been taught over the years.

To badly paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to love another man. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

Bad paraphrasing, I admit, but also true.

So? That's not my point at all.

Even in nature, homosexuality is different that heterosexuality ... please, please don't make me explain how the parts work.