In response to:

Super Bowl or Gay Equality Bowl

Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:44 PM
Tinsldr2, you ask; "please answer this, If two women walk into a government office that issues marriage licenses and ask to get married to each other in most states can they get married" No. In most states 'marriage' is...what your mother said it is. A multi-gender endeavor. The Constitution dictates individuals be treated equally. You know that. Before I'm able to 'marry' I've gotta find an eligible gal to join me. About 18% of the population is legally qualified to become my spouse. This percentage doesn't change whether I have homosexuality or not. Those available spouses are a constant percentage also. It matters not their orientation. Again, equal protection is obeyed to the letter. Am I wrong?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:03 PM
My positions on all things are consistent.

It can be summed as "that gov is best that governs least , but NO gov is just as bad as to much"

As a Conservative I own a shotgun and handgun but have no desire for an AR-15. I support others right to buy one even though i dont want one. A lib wants to deny you that right because they dont like it

I eat meat but if I didnt, I wouldn't care if you did. A lib that doesnt eat meat doesnt want you to eat it either.

I dont want to marry a man, my mother, my sister etc but if you do you should be able to.

See it is Consistent with my conservative view. Who you marry in a CIVIL ceremony hurts no one (as long as we are talking consenting adults)

Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:20 PM
"Who you marry in a CIVIL ceremony hurts no one"

Default position when arguments crumble. It's the change advocate that must present their reason for said change. You cannot Tinsldr2. I rest my case.
Man/man marriage is pointless.
Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:22 PM
Tinsldr2, our President could concoct his reason for his new position over
his old position either. You're in presidential don't feel bad.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:28 PM
How did my argument crumble?

You deny someone equal protection under the law, and admit it.

I want to ensure equal protection under the law. I presented a case and you are unable to defeat it other then to say "we have always had unequal protection under the law so we should continue to have unequal protection under the law"

Is that really your default position? That since we have had injustice for centuries we should continue to have injustice?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:56 PM
You are correct that two consenting adult women are denied the right to marry each other in most states.

My mother was married to dad for 50 years before he passed away and I am married to my wife for 25 years and will be married to her til death due us part.

My mom wishes my sister could get married and enjoy the same legal benefits with her lover that my parents had and I have with my wife and my brother has with his wife.

So while you don't care that others are denied the right to marry the consenting adult they love, some people do care when people are denied their rights
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:06 PM
Your sister does not have the right to marry someone of the same sex - she's not being denied a right because no such right exists. There is no basis for such a right as there is no Constitutional protection for sexual preference, a changeable behavior.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:19 PM
The right to marry a consenting adult you love is a fundamental right.

In 1967 people in some states said a black did not have the right to marry a white and was not denied a right because they could marry another black, Hispanic or Asian.

The right to choose the person you marry is a fundamental right.
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 4:55 PM
Race is an innate characteristic - sexual preference, a chosen behavior, is not.

Race is protected from discrimination according to the Constitution - sexual preference is not.

Marriage may be a "fundamental right," but marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and a woman.

Everyone has the same right to marry the person the choose so long as both persons meet the same requirements: opposite sex, legal age, consent and unrelated by blood. If changing one of these requirements, to suit the demands of sexual perverts, is acceptable, what preserves the other requirements from similar change?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:01 PM
So according to this poster "Anominus" it is ok for the gov to discriminate as long as it is against a group he does not like ????

Well I dont think it is ok to discriminate without a compelling reason to do so.

In the case of denying the same sex couple the fundamental right to marry there is no compelling reason to do so/.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:55 PM
marriage has NEVER been "marry the one you love",there always have been qualifications,and the MAJOR qualification is and has always been MAN-WOMAN.
then they must also non-related,over a certain age,etc.
Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:53 PM
Tinldr2, on most issues you're rather logical and practical. On issues involving your children you are not. But then again...who is?
Your boy has lost all gay pride. He thinks the straight label will help him feel better about himself. Like any Dad, you want your son to be less miserable. I understand this.
Trouble is, your argument makes no sense. You've focused on the legalities of gender when you've admitted government can discriminate in such a way. Your arguments are so torchered.
Call your boy. Tell him you're proud of him no matter what he does in private. That will be a good start.

Is it too much to ask that the focus of this Sunday be on football and not on “gay rights”? Will I be branded as a homophobic bigot for daring to make such a request? (I can answer that already: Yes!)

Last week, Fox News ran the headline, “Baltimore Raven linebacker [Brendon Ayanbadejo] uses Super Bowl spotlight to promote gay marriage,” reporting that, “Hours after Ayanbadejo’s team beat the New England Patriots on Sunday, paving their way to football’s biggest game, the three-time Pro Bowl special teams player wrote an email to gay marriage proponents asking how he could use...