Can opponents of gay marriage give a single way that it interferes in their lives?

You're still rambling and woefully failing to address the OP . The only thing that I'm getting is that we don't know if SSM will be "successful" That SSN might suffer the same pitfalls as other marriages Are you saying that for that reason, gays should not be allowed to marry? Not making much sense to me....sorry

 

It no more makes them second class citizens than it does the single mother and grandmother who live down the street together for over a decade, raising their children/grandchildren together, who are also excluded from marriage.

 

Because in a heterosexual marriage, a husband is presumed to be the father of any child his wife gives birth to. Two men, no one gives birth, two women, there is no man to presume is the husband.

 

If we're applying this to the USA, it is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic with democratic representation. There isn't a popular vote on most laws or legal definitions.

American football isn't rugby - the rules and pace of play differ considerably. I'm fully aware that much of the rest of the world refers to soccer as football, despite being an American. We aren't all ignorant of the rest of the world.

Not when they're defining things in the law without any legitimate purpose. The majority is not all-powerful in the USA.

No, we don't have to find that situation acceptable, and can use the political process to bring about change. Civil unions in the USA are not a "good compromise". They're a case of pretending to provide equality to same-sex couples without doing so, and for the main purpose of some people patting themselves on the back for being so 'tolerant'.

I don't see how it is just for the majority to vote away the rights of the minority. As for "minority-held definition", in some places it's actually the majority-held definition, and in others it is the courts' interpretation of the law and what it requires.

And I'm saying that the majority doesn't get to dictate the rights of minorities, and majorities don't get to toss aside the protections contained in the Constitution merely because they find them inconvenient.

 

traditional marriage was between a man and woman of same race

- - - Updated - - -

the same sex partner is obligated by birth just like a husband would be

 

Nope, there have been interracial marriages in the US since our beginning. Those laws were enacted by some but not all the states.

Nope, only men are presumed to be fathers. And if a married gay man were to impregnate a woman who gives birth, his spouse has no legal relation to the child. Just as if a married lesbian were to be impregnated by a man, her spouse as well has no legal relation to the child. Its biology that cant be altered with political correctness.

 

Of course it is, a liberal democracy. The best kind of democracy.

 

repeatedly refuted.

 

They don't want to get married either. Marriage should be open to any and all consenting adults who wish to be married.

 

As opposed to "gay marriage" which everyone advocates.

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly claimed to have been refuted. I haven't seen the refutation yet.

 

The US is a democracy. There's no incompatibility between a democracy and a constitutional republic. Of course there's not votes held on definitions of words all that often, because there's already a settled definition or because it's a trivial issue. Marriage, evidently, isn't.

American football and rugby isn't the same thing? Oh well, that reveals how much I care about sports I guess.

To be fair, they're working towards the status quo; you're the ones wanting to change the definition of marriage. Therefore, it's up to your side to provide the compelling argument for why the definition ought to be changed, and to convince the majority.

Of course you should use the political process. I'm not saying you should just sit there and accept everything. What I'm saying though is that you should accept the outcome of that political process which ever way it unfolds. Perhaps it's about making themselves feeling good about being tolerant, or more likely, because they do not share you definition of marriage. Their views counts as much as yours does it not?

They are not voting away any rights if civil unions with identical benefits are provided. To have it named marriage isn't a right. Yes, in some places the majority holds the view that marriage can include gays. And in those places, marriage includes gays. Simple isn't?

 

Of course you have

 

Not a democracy. The majority are constrained by the constitution, not omnipotent. While there are elements of democracy within the processes of the US political system, it is not a true democracy. In a democracy, the majority have sovereignty over individuals, and this is not the case in the US where the rights of the individual are protected. The US is governed by the rule of law, not the vote of the majority.

Not the same thing. I rather like rugby, actually. I would probably choose Australian Rules Football over the rest, though. Too much standing around in American football and the last two minutes of a game take forever.

Which is what we've been doing, and it's working, albeit at a glacial pace. Of course, there are some people who are entrenched and unmovable, but they will wind up being in the minority in the end.

No way. I'm not giving up my home, family, friends, and job to move halfway across the country just because the voters in my state allowed themselves to be fearmongered and fell for the political strategy of Karl Rove. A constitutional amendment may be extremely difficult to get rid of, and I may not live long enough to see it fall, but I nonetheless have hope that it eventually will.

Only in so much as I'm entitled to express my viewpoint to the same extent as anyone else. This is why it's important to understand that the US is not a democracy. Their "views" shouldn't be "counted" toward deciding whether or not I'm allowed to marry. It's not their marriage. It's mine. Whether or not the government recognizes my marriage is a legal matter. My 'view' or anyone else' isn't determinative. One hopes that the processes of representative government will eventually provide that legal recognition, and certainly we can all advocate for our positions. Failing that, the last resort may have to be petitioning the courts for redress and recognition of our rights.

Ultimately, I consider myself married whether or not the state, federal government, or any religious entity approves. As for busybodies who think it's somehow their right to determine whether or not I can be married, it's not, so they can get stuffed.

Which they aren't in the US, and my state has banned the recognition of any agreement between same-sex couples for any purpose, regardless of what it's called.

I'll call it a marriage if I damn well please. As for the recognition of it by government as a marriage being a right, that's a complicated matter in US law. Our constitution has an amendment that promises the equal protection of the laws. It's my position that denying my marriage recognition breaks that promise of the law.

Not in the least. You're still thinking in terms of pure democracy, and that is not how things work in the US.

 

No, several feeble attempts to do so but stil havent seen that refutation yet. I think those silly ideas bouncing around in your head only seem to you from the inside, to be much more impressive than they actually are. Sperm donors surrendering all parental rights and homosexual spouses voluntarily assuming those rights and responsibilities, Isnt the birth creating the obligations.

 

This whole thread is rambling, redundant and incoherent. I's full of non-sequitors and trying to address one or two of them only creates more.
Let's try it a different way.
Pro-gay marriage argument (as I see it):
Gays love their partner as much as any straight does.
Gays will love their adopted and inseminated children as much as any straight loves their traditionally conceived children.
Gays are sane and as normal as straights, so no one should consider them different except for a few statistically unusual inclinations and activities.
No one should object to those activities just because most religions and cultures have condemned them since recorded time.
No one should treat these people differently in any way, including acknowledging the full legitimacy of their relationships.
All governments should make these people as comfortable in their relationships as anyone else.
Laws should protect these people from any unkind treatment traceable to their differences.
Arguments against gay marriage:
Almost every religion and culture including mine consider their unusual inclinations and activities sins, abominations, unnatural and disgusting.
countries that allow gay marriage will be punished by God-perhaps to the point of annihilation.
Countries that endorse gay marriage will find new foreign enemies and may have to go to war because of it.
Passing laws for the happiness of a small set of people is not a country's mission.
Gay marriage was never a right nor a privilege, nor practiced officially anywhere ever.
A change in policy of the psychological organization does not make anyone sane, therefore gays are still insane.
Payment of Social Security benefits and other entitlements to gay spouses or widows will drain the treasury further, causing everyone to pay higher taxes.
Laws defending gays will be broken occasionally-perhaps by me-causing much personal hardship both in avoiding the breaking of those laws against my will and causing nausea and sometimes being penalized for breaking them.
Gays are already more intrusive in individual straight lives than their numbers justify and this will make them more conspicuous.
Homosexuality is probably chosen, and I don't want anyone I know to choose it.
If homosexuality is not chosen, it is a disease and possibly contagious, and I don't want anyone I know to catch it.

 

Happens often here.

Absolutely.

 

nope, you've seen the thorough refutation of every argument you've made. your just going to be reminded of the fact when you parrot the same tired bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

You cant refute the argument I just made and you quoted.

 

refuted the first time you made it.

 

No, all we get are these repeated claims that they have been refuted at some time in the past.

Let me check Califirnias statute to see if something has changed.

7540. Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife
cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is
conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.

7611. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he
meets the conditions provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
7540) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 7570) of Part 2 or in any
of the following subdivisions:
(a) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to
each other and the child is born during the marriage, or within 300
days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment,
declaration of invalidity, or divorce, or after a judgment of
separation is entered by a court.


Nope, still the same. Still only women give birth and only men are presumed to be the father. What part don't you understand?

 

That about sums it up..You can learn!! Proud of you

 

{ contagious?? Beyond moronic}

 

refuted

 

Your declarations are meaningless. The quoted statutes refute YOUR claim. The sly ideas that bounce around in that head of yours refute nothing.