Same-sex couples wed in Washington state for first time

[Jane Dough]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
The restriction to two people does not alter the fact that "each person" has the same fundamental right. More than one person is a different argument..

sounds like a "quota" argument to me....

[Rainbow Kid]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
bigot.

No
.
If you want to legalize group marriage; first you have a parade

[Eric Gustafson]

Cat74 wrote:

It is not a Catholic school. It is a private conservativ school.

A Brown Shirt Academy? If you practice self sufficiency, why didn't you home school? Also, Catholic Schools are private.

[Not Yet Equal]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
sounds like a "quota" argument to me....

Then what is the number of individual Americans that are allowed to exercise the fundamental right of marriage?

[Jane Dough]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Then what is the number of individual Americans that are allowed to exercise the fundamental right of marriage?

your quota is per marriage...which you claimed could not be the basis to limit a right...

[neutral observer]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
You aren't making sense. If same sex couples can legally marry, this is just as wonderful for Bisexual people. Now any one of them will be able marry the unrelated adult person of their choice, in the same way that any straight person already can, regardless of gender.

Why would they need to change orientation?

Because by choosing the person of their choice they are being forced by big brother government to commit to either a normal lifestyle or to a queer one. Obviously they should be allowed to marry one of each if you really believe in the rights of sexual minorities.

Why are the rights of homosexuals to be catered to while the rights of the much larger bisexual community are rithlessly suppressed?

[neutral observer]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, heterosexual people as well as gay people can be attracted to more than one person at a time. Just as they must choose only one, bisexual people must make the same choice. Marriage equality does not require changing any of the requirements beyond the gender of the two parties involved.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. It does not matter how many people might exercise that right. There are no quotas on fundamental rights. They are the rights of "all persons".

You would squeal like Ned Beatty if someone suggested forcing you into a heterosexual lifestyle (newsflash... there is no such thing... not a lifestyle choice) yet you wish to force bisexuals to suppress a part of their inborn sexual identity (whatever a sexual identity is)?

Such moral inconsistancy. Once gay marriage is ok then...

[barefoot2626]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
bigot.

Sometimes it is a 5 way intersection with people trying to beat the yellow.

[Not Yet Equal]

neutral observer wrote:

<quoted text>
You would squeal like Ned Beatty if someone suggested forcing you into a heterosexual lifestyle (newsflash... there is no such thing... not a lifestyle choice) yet you wish to force bisexuals to suppress a part of their inborn sexual identity (whatever a sexual identity is)?
Such moral inconsistancy. Once gay marriage is ok then...

It is the same choice everyone else must make. Marriage equality does not require changing any of the other rules, while changing the numbers would. These are two separate arguments. You are simply looking for an excuse to justify your denial of equality. Your fear of the unknown future is no excuse for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.

[fedupwiththemess]

Brenda Lee Johnson wrote:

This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

This is correct.

[fedupwiththemess]

tha Professor wrote:

<quoted text>
In a word, "baloney."
When sexual attraction or behavior IS identity, then the two realities become essentially identical. And for homosexual couples, that is the case. They ARE homosexual, that's their identity, they can't simply change it at will any more than black people can suddenly decide to be white - or vice-versa.
And given that "nature" has been providing examples of gay people for thousands of years, that argument is essentially bunk, too.
You may not WANT there to be gay people, or gay people to marry, but that's solely a funciton of your heterosexuality and Christianity. Which should not make a whit of difference to society at large, or to the law.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex. That's my best advice.:)

What you wrote is baloney!