Antonin Scalia's Gay Marriage Dissent

[knkali]

If homosexuals weren't concerned about social acceptance they would be going for civil union status rather than marriage status. There is that little book called the Bible that stands in their way. Of course, if you take God out of the equation then anything goes, along with the country. Don't kid yourself social acceptance is key to their goals. If not the liberal media wouldn't keep quoting statistics on how many Americans now approve of homosexual marriage.

It is not that simple Mugs. Bottom line: Civil unions do not provide federal benefits that marriage does and are not valid from state to state.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedd...rriage.htmThis link will succinctly provide the differences between marriage and civil unions and why gays are pressing for marriage. So my question is: if civil unions had the same benefits as marriage and differ in name only, would gays still want the term "marriage" used? I think I know Mugs's answer.

[LorenzoB]

Antonin Scalia's Gay Marriage Dissent

Even domestic partners are even starting to get the same benefits. If they truly wanted the same benefits, then they would stump for that. Equal benefits would probably be easier to get support for, because it sounds "fair". And lots of people vote for what sounds "fair".

[Deano]

I can't fathom why gays would want anything to do with marriage. Haven't they suffered enough already?

[muggsy]

I can't fathom why gays would want anything to do with marriage. Haven't they suffered enough already?

Now there's a valid point id I ever heard one. Right on, Deano, as my friend Knkali would say.

[muggsy]

Gays are seeking social acceptance to widen the field. If homosexuality were socially acceptable young men and women who weren't quite sure of their sexuality might be inclined to dabble. Even the homosexuals can agree if their homosexuality is by choice or chance. And who ever heard of equality based on sexual preference. Quite frankly at my age I can take sex or leave it, so in what position does that put me. Don't answer that. Jocko.

[knkali]

Gays are seeking social acceptance to widen the field. If homosexuality were socially acceptable young men and women who weren't quite sure of their sexuality might be inclined to dabble. Even the homosexuals can agree if their homosexuality is by choice or chance. And who ever heard of equality based on sexual preference. Quite frankly at my age I can take sex or leave it, so in what position does that put me. Don't answer that. Jocko.

So to paraphrase "widen the field". Gays want to recruit more people to gayness and if being gay was more socially accepted their recruitment process would be easier? Is this the thrust(sic) of your post?

Equality based on sexual preference---- while never heard of until more recently, does that negate the benefit of its consideration or its lack thereof.

Muggs, you really do not need to reply to me on this. I know you are a man of deep personal moral convictions. I am merely posturing for others to pause.

[muggsy]

That is the basic "thrust" of my position, so to speak. You can't choose what race or gender that you been born into, but you can choose your sexual preference. Homosexuals claim that homosexuality isn't an abnormality, but they want to have it both ways. Especially the bisexuals, so to speak. Quite frankly, Jocko and I are more into chickens and sheep. Do you think that our rights are being violated or those of the animals. I'm sorry but I don't consider homosexual liaisons a marriage no matter how much they claim to love each other. I love my dog, but we can't be married. Sometimes life's unfair.

[Bad Cheese]

Gays only want the financial benefits, nobody needs to be married, Adam and Eve were never married.

[knkali]

yeah I am wondering if the business aspect of this(benefits) were equal to hetero unions and it was called something else other than marriage when homosexuals commit to one another, if this matter would be less interesting to people. Is the term "marriage" the sticking point for many?

The argument about marrying your dog ect is so out there that I wont comment on that more than this sentance.

[Bawanna]

The idea of gays getting married was waaaaay out there 20 years ago, except for California where nothing has been waaaay out there since we took it from Poncho Villa. Sometimes I'd like to give it back, actually we probably already have.

Do something strange, immoral and unethical long enough and it becomes unstrange, no long immoral and no longer unethical.

Aw crap, what am I doing in the politics area again. I'm headed back to the emporium.

[muggsy]

Every time you think you're out they pull you back in again, Bawanna.

[muggsy]

yeah I am wondering if the business aspect of this(benefits) were equal to hetero unions and it was called something else other than marriage when homosexuals commit to one another, if this matter would be less interesting to people. Is the term "marriage" the sticking point for many?

The argument about marrying your dog ect is so out there that I wont comment on that more than this sentance.

The problem is that a marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. When you change the definition you change the meaning and marriage becomes meaningless. Every great nation has fallen from immorality going back to the Roman Empire. I for one do not want this great nation to fall. There used to be laws against infidelity. You could go to jail for fornication. Now everyone is fornicating and they think nothing of it. It's a wise man who knows his father. Half the country doesn't have a clue who their father is. Were well on our way into the abyss.