Is gay marriage a Trojan horse?

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


if this were facebook i would like this

reply to post by discharged77

Not according to the SUPREME COURT:

Finally, on 2003-JUN-26, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas state law: Lawrence v. Texas.

One effect of this law was to declare all 13 state sodomy laws unconstitutional.

Another effect was to declare a new principle of constitutional law: states are now severely restricted in criminalizing private, consensual sexual activity by adults.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives.

The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Linda Greenhouse, a reporter for The New York Times, said: "A conservative Supreme Court has now identified the gay rights cause as a basic civil rights issue."

www.religioustolerance.org...

LOL Trojan.....

Someone is sneaking in the backdoor

Im all for everyone living their own life and letting them be to it...

Do not become one of those people that believe gay is contagious and seeing a happy couple on the street is going to make your kid like musicals....nothing wrong with musicals either
lol so funny!!!

musicals are a Trojan horse...a gateway drug to homosexuality...cant you see it folks? it is so obvious

Originally posted by buster2010

Churches are not above the law. If marriage were made legal for gays and a church refused to marry them then they should be stripped of their tax exempt status.

This is not true:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Churches are allowed to decide for themselves whom they wish to marry. Currently in the Catholic Church, both parties must be Catholic and attend 6 months of marriage classes prior to being allowed to marry in the Catholic Church.

There are plenty of churches out there that would happily marry gay couples should they choose a religious ceremony. That is not the issue. It is the civil right to marry that is.

Here's some food for thought on this issue:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8586a0f19ede.jpg[/atsimg]

Allowing homosexuals the civil protections of marriage will somehow erode society, but hitting your family reunion looking for a date so that you can create a generation of inbred imbeciles is no problem at all!

I've said this before in this type of debate... Go get your own house in order before you come around complaining about how I keep mine...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Here's some food for thought on this issue:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8586a0f19ede.jpg[/atsimg]

Allowing homosexuals the civil protections of marriage will somehow erode society, but hitting your family reunion looking for a date so that you can create a generation of inbred imbeciles is no problem at all!

I've said this before in this type of debate... Go get your own house in order before you come around complaining about how I keep mine...

Yeah way to make the amazing comparison of gays to married first cousins.

Good one, I laughed.

reply to post by MasterGemini


Way to dodge the issue posed by the post, but then again, you have proven to be an expert at this. You have yet to address a single point brought to your attention. How does being an internet troll pay these days?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37f6a231266b.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


LoL that troll must be the offspring of one of those first cousins.

Okay.

I propose we ban first cousin marriage due to health reasons.

So now that gays are no better than married first cousins should we send you all to Texas?

How does gay marriage help the State, which makes and enforces all the laws?


I asked several pages back about the State's point of view and you never answered you just used capital letters rhetoric.

reply to post by MasterGemini


How does gay marriage hurt the State, to which homosexuals pay taxes? Also, same sex couples earn more than their heterosexual counterparts, thus pay MORE in taxes, and yet are denied the same tax benefits.

Average household income: $76,460 for same-sex couples who live with nobody else.

Average household income for total adult population: $41,994.

Source.

And the crack about homosexuals being no better than cousins who marry was a.) a cheap shot, and b.) further proof of your lack of decorum in a site such as ATS which tends not to tolerate such behavior.

Also, you have yet to answer whether or not you are ready and willing to strip marriage rights away for anyone who does not procreate.

And while you are at it, how does heterosexual marriage benefit the State? The benefits are given to those who enter said contract, not to the State.

I can understand how you can easily recognize rhetoric. You appear to be quite the expert at using it.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by discharged77
I am fine with making all marriages civil unions, it wouldn't matter to me either way. I'm sure if it was up to religions to marry gays in churches they would be hard pressed to find a church that would do it?

And I support that 100%. Churches should have the right to decide without fear of litigation who they can perform a religious ceremony for/to/on.

Churches are not above the law. If marriage were made legal for gays and a church refused to marry them then they should be stripped of their tax exempt status.

The only reason for a church to be tax exempt is if they are a non-profit. If they *are* a non profit, then their tax exempt status should be irrelevant to their views on performing religious ceremonies. It is a simple matter of seperation of church and state.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Hetero sexual marriage = offspring = future tax payers.

That is how the State sees it.

Now I am not going to explain the tax laws to you as they are probably different where you are then where I am but if you go to the federal level you can expect it to be very similar across the states.

Look at the demographics of the hetero and homo population and you will realize why money is a big issue here.

And a marriage is just a promise to be with another, I could care less if hetero marriages where called civil unions or if gays got civil unions and said they were married.

Copulation is NOT the same as mating so it should be taken into account for biological reasons.

Now if the gay couple wanted to adopt then I would see serious difficulty from the State's point of view in denying them the special legal and tax benefits.

Originally posted by MasterGemini
Yeah way to make the amazing comparison of gays to married first cousins.

Good one, I laughed.

And just a few pages ago someone made the hyperbolic jump to marriage between a man and his horse.

Now I actually cannot think of any legal construct that would justify restricting marriage between first cousins. Same argument. If 1st cousins want to bump uglies, I sincerely doubt the lack of a marriage license will stop them.

What Jaxon's point is, I think, is that there is no national anti-1st cousin marriage movement.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by MasterGemini
Yeah way to make the amazing comparison of gays to married first cousins.

Good one, I laughed.

And just a few pages ago someone made the hyperbolic jump to marriage between a man and his horse.

Now I actually cannot think of any legal construct that would justify restricting marriage between first cousins. Same argument. If 1st cousins want to bump uglies, I sincerely doubt the lack of a marriage license will stop them.

What Jaxon's point is, I think, is that there is no national anti-1st cousin marriage movement.

true. there are also no marry your cousin marches, no marry your cousin protests, no demanding to have marry your cousin flagse flown over town halls....

reply to post by MasterGemini


Well, in that mindset, then, if Marriage is only intended in the eyes of the state as being a vehicle for expansion of the tax base, all couples should be required to have at least one child in order to stay married (or get marriage related benefits). If they cannot or choose not to produce new tax payers, then the marriage is void.

reply to post by rogerstigers


You want laws for EVERYTHING

go read a dictionary

With your mindset we should make laws so we are allowed to breath and fart!

Originally posted by chrissiel123

Originally posted by rogerstigers
And just a few pages ago someone made the hyperbolic jump to marriage between a man and his horse.

Now I actually cannot think of any legal construct that would justify restricting marriage between first cousins. Same argument. If 1st cousins want to bump uglies, I sincerely doubt the lack of a marriage license will stop them.

What Jaxon's point is, I think, is that there is no national anti-1st cousin marriage movement.

true. there are also no marry your cousin marches, no marry your cousin protests, no demanding to have marry your cousin flagse flown over town halls....

Indeed. There doesn't seem to be any serious organized movement to support 1st cousin marriage rights. I would support their right to it if it came about, though.

Originally posted by maus80
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

I don't know what kind of crazy-nonsense world you live in, but in this one - children and animals CANNOT enter into legal contracts - PERIOD!

There is a HUGE difference between whether the sexual organs of two consenting adults can determine their eligibility to enter into a legal contract with each other, and the unprecedented ability to sign a legal contract with a child or an animal.

THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

Rocket science is NOT Politics OR theology!
Akushla

reply to post by rogerstigers


I would support their rights as well, though i would only be supporting a person's constitutional rights to first-cousin marriage (as I do for gay couples) not their religious right.

Originally posted by MasterGemini
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

You want laws for EVERYTHING

go read a dictionary

I am not sure what your point is here.