Same-sex marriage was always legal – its judicial and political enabling legalized institutional...

[Contradiction]

...inequality, injustice and corruption

Everyone familiar with the public narrative that supports the so-called legalization of same-sex marriage knows that this narrative always boils down to the question of equality. This was formally confirmed when the U.S. Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution in enabling same-sex marriage across the U.S. But, a lot of people are not familiar with the fact that this narrative is entirely bogus. Namely, in this article, we will show that the judicial and political enabling of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with equality but it has everything to do with inequality. Further, we will provide a simple and undeniable proof that same-sex marriage was always legal. Finally, once we explain the government’s role in marriage it will become obvious that the judicial and political enabling of same-sex marriage is actually the legalization of inequality, injustice and corruption. ...

The rest you can read here: Same-sex marriage was always legal – its judicial and political enabling legalized institutional inequality, injustice and corruption

 

[Speedwell]

Certainly the author is correct in his assertion that the issue of gay marriage turns around the question of who should be able to form a legal household and why. But there are evidently problems with the suggested basis for it that go beyond gay marriage, as so many people involved in parenting are content to forgo the benefits of a legal household.

 

[FireDragon76]

This article is just intellectually dishonest obfuscation of the actual issues that prompted gay people to seek legally-recognized marriages.

 

[Contradiction]

This article is just intellectually dishonest obfuscation of the actual issues that prompted gay people to seek legally-recognized marriages.

Why "gay people" should have the right to legal and tax benefits simply because they made love promises to their same-sex partners, while all other people must do something that is rationally related to providing for or protecting the general population, in order to get same benefits? Why do you think that "gay people" should have more rights than others?

 

[JackRT]

Why "gay people" should have the right to legal and tax benefits simply because they made love promises to their same-sex partners, while all other people must do something that is rationally related to providing for or protecting the general population, in order to get same benefits? Why do you think that "gay people" should have more rights than others?

I have no idea what you are speaking of.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why "gay people" should have the right to legal and tax benefits simply because they made love promises to their same-sex partners, while all other people must do something that is rationally related to providing for or protecting the general population, in order to get same benefits?

Justice Kennedy already settled that one.

The state has an interest in protecting covenanted gay relationships by recognizing them as marriage. Marriage involves commitment to caring for another person, and that is a good thing, whether you are gay or straight, and regardless of whether such a union can naturally produce children or not.

 

[Contradiction]

Justice Kennedy already settled that one.

The state has an interest in protecting covenanted gay relationships by recognizing them as marriage. Marriage involves commitment to caring for another person, and that is a good thing, whether you are gay or straight, and regardless of whether such a union can naturally produce children or not.

Translation: the state has an interest in protecting gay people by recognizing and recording their love promises. Tell me, are you joking or being serious?

I will repeat the question: Why "gay people" should have the right to legal and tax benefits simply because they made love promises to their same-sex partners, while all other people must do something, or have a status, that is rationally related to providing for or protecting the general population, in order to get same benefits - as explained in the article?

 

[Contradiction]

I have no idea what you are speaking of.

That is your problem.

 

[Desk trauma]

That is your problem.

If you’re seeking to get a point across it is very much your problem.

 

[durangodawood]

Translation: the state has an interest in protecting gay people by recognizing and recording their love promises. Tell me, are you joking or being serious?

I will repeat the question: Why "gay people" should have the right to legal and tax benefits simply because they made love promises to their same-sex partners, while all other people must do something, or have a status, that is rationally related to providing for or protecting the general population, in order to get same benefits - as explained in the article?

I always thought that marriage was considered a stabilizing force in society generally. This would apply for both straight and gay couples. I'm not seeing the vast difference between the two re "protecting society".

 

[FireDragon76]

I always thought that marriage was considered a stabilizing force in society generally. This would apply for both straight and gay couples. I'm not seeing the vast difference between the two re "protecting society".

In the words of the late NYFD chaplain, Fr. Mychal Judge, "Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against this type of love?"

 

[comana]

Translation: the state has an interest in protecting gay people by recognizing and recording their love promises. Tell me, are you joking or being serious?

I will repeat the question: Why "gay people" should have the right to legal and tax benefits simply because they made love promises to their same-sex partners, while all other people must do something, or have a status, that is rationally related to providing for or protecting the general population, in order to get same benefits - as explained in the article?

What is ithis something that all other people must do or what is this status they must have? Also, I'm really not clear on how any marriage is providing for or protecting the general population. People fall in love and get married for their own benefit not for everyone's else's benefit.

 

[GACfan]

@JackRT, I think your post about entitled Christians would be beneficial in this particular thread. It's the first thing I thought of when I read the OP. I thought your post was really spot on, btw.

 

[JackRT]

@JackRT, I think your post about entitled Christians would be beneficial in this particular thread. It's the first thing I thought of when I read the OP. I thought your post was really spot on, btw.

At your request:

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

 

[GACfan]

At your request:

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

Thank you, Jack.