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

nope. your argument was refuted a very long time ago, and I told you all you get is a simple reminder when you parrot the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) over and over again.

 

Nope, just baseless claims repeated again and again. Lets see the statutes. I can support my assertions with the statutes which confirm my claim. You have nothing other than the silly ideas in your head to support yours.

 

nope. your argument was refuted a very long time ago, and I told you all you get is a simple reminder when you parrot the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) over and over again.

 

Groundhog Day starring Rahl and Dixon >_>

 

As with the other half of my post you quoted above, the list is not limited to things I personally believe. Others may add to either list and argue the details ad infinitum.
I assume those 14 countries' laws were all passed quite recently.
Please tell me what portion of the US Constitution makes marrying a same-sex partner a right in the US nationally?
I think your best argument is not found in the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence "pursuit of happiness." Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian, but the document was passed by those Christians in the Continental Congress who understood "nature's God" as the one found in the Bible. Jefferson could have spent the next 50 years listing the differences between the two deities, but he decided to spend the plurality of his time helping to develop a great nation.
Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" depended heavily on his ownership of slaves, without which he would be a debt-ridden farmer, trying to understand-with limited education-books on meteorology and agriculture in a desperate attempt to make his farm profitable. Eventually he might have succeeded and left a breakthrough volume on agriculture. We can only guess what the Declaration of Independence might have looked like, but it would surely be more legalistic and less poetic.
Our whole country might be very different, with the Mississippi River as our western border, Mexico the continent's superpower and Russia stretching to Oregon.

 

Not all have been recent. Here they are , the first country, legalized some 12 years ago. Do I have to list the states too? You should be better informed if you're going to argue this stuff.

 

I didn't say that same sex marriage was in the constitution. For that matter, the word marriage does not appear in it at all, but straight people assume it's a right. However, equal protection under the law is and SCOTUS will soon establish the right nationally....they stopped just short of that in overturning DOMA

 

\

 

12 years is recent. I thought I missed something reading history books. My 1980 prediction was that the Supreme Court would declare marriage illegal about now and it could happen.

 

Actually the Supreme Court ruled marriage as a right, but they did not give a set definition of marriage as part of that ruling, allowing states to decide their own definition.

 

Wasn't that 1984? What sort of strange legal theory could have brought you to that conclusion?

 

Well, lets see what they say

Sounds like they are talking about traditional marriage between a man and a woman to me. Especially considering that when they said it there hadn't yet been a single marriage between two people of the same sex in the history of the nation.

 

because you have a clear comprehension problem. they never made any such statement in their ruling.

no prohibition existed at the time of the ruling.

 

Only marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family and society. Marriage between two people of the same sex didn't exist in that society.

Only men and women produce children to "bring up". Only procreation is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,"

Only men and women procreate. I think its pretty obvious who it is with trouble with comprehension. No doubt yours is blurred by your ideology.

The word "marriage" prohibited marriage between two people of the same sex

Only men are husbands and only women are wives. Because only men and women become fathers and mothers to their children.

 

Nothing prohibited it

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry

No it didn't

Irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Which part don't you understand?

 

And nothing prior to this ruling prohibited it.

 

S.S.M is legally recognized in Minnesota now.

 

That's nice. Irrelevant to Rahls claim that

No doubt the irrelevancy is what attracted you.

 

No, I just mentioned it because it seems silly referencing a decades old case that concerns a jurisdiction which has now completely changed its laws with regard to the very matter in question. I'm sure it's perfectly valid from the perspective of a history lesson but what's the point if that's completely irrelevant to the facts on the ground today?

A prohibition was challenged on the basis that there was no expressed statutory ban on persons of the same sex marrying. It was all based in assumption. The plaintiffs challenged the vagueness of that assumption and the court responded by outlining a de facto statutory ban within its ruling. That statutory ban has now been overturned. Time to shape up and move on!

 

The operative words that escape your grasp were "at the time of the ruling".

Actually they described the de jure statutory ban

 

It was a homework assignment to write my own obituary. I die on October 29, 2040 as the sixth oldest man alive because the US by then executes people over71unless they move to one of six designated locations. My commune in Rehoboth, Kansas, founded in 2029 was one of those refuges,also sparing the religious from execution because the court had also made religion illegal. It was only a projection of how things would proceed toward totalitarianism while therest of the world crumbled due to a series of strange wars, including Britain versus Argentina, and another messy war begun and ended in the same claendar year in the 1990s.

 

I've seen plenty of gays holding signs crying over "marriage rights".

But I'm with you... marriage isn't in the constitution so it isn't a "right".

In fact, neither is the word "gay", so..... "gay rights" is also a misnomer.

Funny that....

 

That tough "reading" part.

 

I'm sure you would be whining pretty loudly is the law forbade you from doing some thing that everybody else was allowed to do, for some arbitrary reason, like being left handed.......which by the way used to be considered an abnormality to the point where kids were forced to be right handed doing great emotional damage to them