Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

This is not true. If the Supreme Court rules that such laws are unconstitutional, like they did concerning interracial marriage in Love v. Virginia (details previously posted in this thread), then State recognition stays in tact. Next issue...

So when the supreme court DOES rule that sexual behavior is the same as race but it to my knowledge it hasn't moreover the problem wit hthis argument is Blacks were kept from marrying because of race not because they couldn't qualify but they were told they couldn't marry the opposuite sex if she was white THAT is differen't no one is saying you can't marry a female because she is gay. If you make this about sexual preference to be equal then it opens the doors to polygamy and marrying sisters and brothers.

Now two gay guys should be able to marry their brother shouldn't they? why not? what reason would their be for not allowing it? They can't have children anyway?

OK, that is, as you say, BUNK! Perhaps you've heard of these little things like 'Gay Pride Week'? We have one every year. Parades, events, etc. The only homosexuals that are 'ashamed' are the ones that are still in the closet, and they are not vocal about this issue. Next issue...

If you need a week to show they are proud, Jaxon, why do you suppose that such a thing was even started to begin with ?

As to the first paragraph, also BUNK. Since you have no idea what my life experiences have been, you cannot say such a thing. It is not true. I have experienced plenty of hate and prejudice just because of my sexual orientation. Until you walk a mile in anothers shoes, don't assume you know what their life is like.

No one has told you to sit at the back of the bus Jaxon no one sees you hailing a cab and says Look gay to me and drives off unless you send some ques no one even knows. Gays are not discriminated against in the Job Market in fact they make more money than their hetero sexual counterpart, Gays are not turned away in the halls of academia, in fact they are more educated than their hetero counterpart. Gays date any race they want as many varieties they want a week that they want. So No, Your in correct.

As to the second paragraph, I don't ever expect to hear the 'sanctity of marriage' stance from you, since you are endorsing loveless marriages. Next issue...

Examples ? Can you show where I said people who are not in love should get married?

I don't think this should be 'taught' in schools. There should be resources for students dealing with their own homosexuality, but never taught to the masses. Sex education should only be about the reproductive process, and to tell you the truth, it belongs in biology class. I've never been a fan of 'Sex Ed'. Any homosexual who is for such a thing should be ashamed of themselves for such a position. Next issue...

Then you are an exception to the rule Jaxon but I have already posted many referances to that and it is true

Too long to quote, but let me deal with a few of the points made. One, what kind of marriage would be crystal clear. Either both would be present, thus identifying what kind of relationship it is, or a man refering to his 'husband' or a woman refering to her 'wife' would do the same. And quite frankly, it has nothing to do with the title, and everything to do with the protections provided by civil marriage. So why not civil unions? Because that would fall under 'separate but equal', and that is unacceptable. It's not really equality.

Why isn't it acceptable, give me the reason (this is where it gets good)

As to the idea that this will "diminish the meaning of married", only recently in recorded history has marriage been about romantic love. For most of history, marriages have been arranged and controlled by the womans father for profit or prestige, and not about love. It is a practice still followed in many parts of the world. If we really want to protect 'traditional marriage', this is the system that we would be protecting. Marriage based on romantic love is a rather new notion, and not a long standing tradition.

None of that has anything to do with why it would be diminished and even as "recent as what ;last year was it when Boss Hogg could give his dawtah one them thar shot gun weddins" it still would have diminished the way that traditional meaning of marriage is looked up. Jeez Jaxon why is this so hard to understand. They have communities called "Retirement Communities and they are real clean and lots of recreation golf etc. Thing is you have to be over 55 years of age to buy a house there . How does society put up with this kiind of HOUSING discrimination! The audacity.

Well its the same issue of access rules the laws provided circumstances like these. Now you don't see people arguing it is against equal rights, I can't help it how old I am etc. Doesn't matter they are't a senior citizen, they don't get the benefit of living there.

That question should never have been asked, and that frakkin' idiot should not even be famous. He does not speak for the Gay Community, just himself. I wish he and his stupid celebrity blog would dry up and go away! Next issue...

He DOES speak for gays JUST LIKE YOU jaxon because you have expressed the exact same vitriol and said the same opinions he did you both share the same ideals for same sex marriage the only difference is his statements which are similiar to yours, were televised and that is the only difference.

Originally posted by ZeeSquared

Sure, let's just keep on listening to that ol' book, shall we? While we are at it, why not take our morals from it too.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by ZeeSquared]

So you come back using a Characature of the "typical" bible thumpin milf because you are ? what ? cute? a funny guy? life of the party? or too lazy to engage me directly? It's pretty hard to debate a video, they never return my cross with a rebuttal.

Originally posted by Stylez
So when the supreme court DOES rule that sexual behavior is the same as race but it to my knowledge it hasn't moreover the problem wit hthis argument is Blacks were kept from marrying because of race not because they couldn't qualify but they were told they couldn't marry the opposuite sex if she was white THAT is differen't no one is saying you can't marry a female because she is gay. If you make this about sexual preference to be equal then it opens the doors to polygamy and marrying sisters and brothers.

Now two gay guys should be able to marry their brother shouldn't they? why not? what reason would their be for not allowing it? They can't have children anyway?

It will not be a decision based on sexual behavior. It will be a decision based on a citizen's right to equality. Read the decision rendered in Love v. Virginia. The rest is a straw man. 'We can't allow apples because it will lead to oranges' is a weak argument. C'mon dude! Surely your Kung Fu is not that weak!

If you need a week to show they are proud, Jaxon, why do you suppose that such a thing was even started to begin with ?

Ummm... Maybe it's in the title of said week???

No one has told you to sit at the back of the bus Jaxon no one sees you hailing a cab and says Look gay to me and drives off unless you send some ques no one even knows. Gays are not discriminated against in the Job Market in fact they make more money than their hetero sexual counterpart, Gays are not turned away in the halls of academia, in fact they are more educated than their hetero counterpart. Gays date any race they want as many varieties they want a week that they want. So No, Your in correct.

Back of the bus, no. Have I been nailed with a bottle in the head just for leaving a Gay Owned business? Yep! Got the scars from the fifteen stitches to prove it! And no, it wasn't a bar, it was a restaurant and in broad daylight! And there are many areas in this country where employment can be denied based solely on sexual preference.

Examples ? Can you show where I said people who are not in love should get married?

When you said this:

Originally posted by Stylez
He is not discriminated against because he is Gay and can marry anyone he wants as long as it is someone of the opposite sex and THAT has nothing to do with his civil rights

This would be a loveless marriage, which you seem to be just fine with.

Then you are an exception to the rule Jaxon but I have already posted many referances to that and it is true

The statement and positions of a few do not constitute the views of the majority. Do some idiots go overboard? Sure, but this does not mean that it is the position of all or most.

Why isn't it acceptable, give me the reason (this is where it gets good)

Does that really need to be explained to you??? The Supreme Court ruled that 'separate but equal' was inherently unequal and violated the 14th Amendment in the case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

None of that has anything to do with why it would be diminished and even as "recent as what ;last year was it when Boss Hogg could give his dawtah one them thar shot gun weddins" it still would have diminished the way that traditional meaning of marriage is looked up. Jeez Jaxon why is this so hard to understand... The audacity.

You really need to research history more. The audacity is yours, not mine.

They have communities called "Retirement Communities and they are real clean and lots of recreation golf etc. Thing is you have to be over 55 years of age to buy a house there . How does society put up with this kiind of HOUSING discrimination!

Well its the same issue of access rules the laws provided circumstances like these. Now you don't see people arguing it is against equal rights, I can't help it how old I am etc. Doesn't matter they are't a senior citizen, they don't get the benefit of living there.

Private property held by private citizens. Nice straw man.

He DOES speak for gays JUST LIKE YOU jaxon because you have expressed the exact same vitriol and said the same opinions he did you both share the same ideals for same sex marriage the only difference is his statements which are similiar to yours, were televised and that is the only difference.

So Obama speaks for you? So Richard Dawkins speaks for you? Perez Hilton speaks for himself, and just happens to have a soapbox to speak from. While he may support this issue, he still only speaks for himself, PERIOD!

Now, I have a question for you. What exactly is your 'agenda' here on ATS? I ask this because of what you said here:

Originally posted by Stylez
...one of my employers a Christian think tank funded by the late DR. Esty chair for the General Assemby of the Presbyterian Church in America commisioned a study on forums just like this one.

Why a study on us lowly ATS members and our silly opinions?? I'll let other members draw their own conclusions on that one...

[edit on 7-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

First, I'd like to applaud both Stylez and Jax for being not only civil, but thoroughly organized in their responses. 2nd I'd like to point out that while I've only recently registered, I've have been here for MANY many moons. I'm watching both of you as I like both of your styles (no pun intended Stylez...). I was hoping for something other than this, to be honest. Same arguments.

Jax makes an EXTREMELY good point in equating gay rights to interracial rights. I've yet to see a solid counter though I may have missed it. What would yours be, Stylez?

And Stylez made a good point when he said that the benefit to society within a gay marriage would be minimal. Can you expound on this one, Jax?

I'd like you both to comment on this one, though. Enumerated Powers, Article 1 Section 8 defines the limits of Congress. Anything NOT in this list falls into the authority of the States.

www.usconstitution.net...

The tenth ammendment backs this up:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

By what Authority would the Federal Government recognize marriage? There is no violation of the 14th ammendment here. Loving v. Virginia won't particularly apply to this case.

Stylez, if gay marriage were legalized, how would this affect you, personally. If gays were put in power and legalized same-sex marriage while banning heterosexual marriage under the pretense of 'population control', how would you react?

Jax, part of the equation when it comes to rebelling against authority is to accept the consequences. If certain people misused the marriage-equality struggle in an intelligent manner, they could theoretically strike down the recognition of marriage by the Constitution. Would you be prepared for that consequence?

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
And Stylez made a good point when he said that the benefit to society within a gay marriage would be minimal. Can you expound on this one, Jax?

I would say that the total effect of Gay Marriage to society would be minimal. Just as Interracial Marriage has had neither benefited nor detracted from society.

I'd like you both to comment on this one, though. Enumerated Powers, Article 1 Section 8 defines the limits of Congress. Anything NOT in this list falls into the authority of the States.

www.usconstitution.net...

The tenth ammendment backs this up:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It would only effect DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). It is unconstitutional due to this very section of the Constitution.

Jax, part of the equation when it comes to rebelling against authority is to accept the consequences. If certain people misused the marriage-equality struggle in an intelligent manner, they could theoretically strike down the recognition of marriage by the Constitution. Would you be prepared for that consequence?

I guess, but the Constitution has no effect on the legality of Civil Marriage. It does however, protect citizens from inequality with the 14th Amendment. Laws must equally apply to all citizens. In other words, we must all have the same rights. The States, however, could do such a thing, but that is highly unlikely. The majority is not going to give up rights and protections just to deny them to the minority.

reply to post by Stylez


Such an angry tone that I detect.

You stated an opinion that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman only. I formed the assumption that your view is taking from a Bible-perspective, since you were defending the ol' book in your post, thus I remembered a video (that's satire mind you) about a "typical" Bible marriage. I posted it. I was hoping to get the message across that we can't follow what the Bible states wholeheartedly, since there are some things in it that are questionable.

I suppose it was in a bad taste. If it truly made you that upset, then I was wrong for posting it.

I like discussions about religion and morals. Often I will read a post or claim (like yours) and scoff at the remark and type out a post right away without considering the poster's feelings. That just happened to be one of those times. It's bound to happen when talking about topics we feel passionate about. Perhaps I should have switched the into a in light of the satire.

Regarding a rebuttal ... IMO there's not much more that I can say that JaxonRoberts hasn't. It'll only end up causing the thread to double in size with 1 person debating two other people with the same views. Given that, I shall gladly step aside and continue reading, because both points are interesting.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


1. DOMA IS unconstitutional. As defined by the constitution, it is in violation of the enumerated powers. How in the world could you let this stand? I realize that this particular law is probably at the heart of the battle. Good counter.

2.

It does however, protect citizens from inequality with the 14th Amendment. Laws must equally apply to all citizens. In other words, we must all have the same rights. The States, however, could do such a thing, but that is highly unlikely.

The 14th Amendment provides for 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness', equal protection of the law, and states that no State shall abridge the privileges of anyone within the jurisdiction of the state without due process. There is no provision to protect anyone from inequality, but there are provisions to protect the equal rights of everyone. There is a subtle difference here. Please refer me to the law where marriage is a right or privilege. Without going through the laws of all fifty states, I can tell you that some will allow it, some won't. From the posting here, this is unsatisfactory?

3. Interracial marriage has provided many benefits to society. Namely: children. While I understand that people will have these children out of wedlock with or without a marriage certificate, the near-inevitability of the union of interracial couples having children is unavoidable. These children rarely become wards of the State. No excuse, I'm sure, but it would give the government a reason to not recognize the legality of gay marriage simply because the government and society at large will have gained nothing. Opposite sex marriages encourage the production of taxpayers, regardless of race.

Point one, you win hands-down on. Point two is in question. Point three is simply a matter of economics and a cold-hearted view of the situation. Please forgive me, just trying to be objective.

Not a problem, but let me address a few things:

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

2.

It does however, protect citizens from inequality with the 14th Amendment. Laws must equally apply to all citizens. In other words, we must all have the same rights. The States, however, could do such a thing, but that is highly unlikely.

The 14th Amendment provides for 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness', equal protection of the law, and states that no State shall abridge the privileges of anyone within the jurisdiction of the state without due process. There is no provision to protect anyone from inequality, but there are provisions to protect the equal rights of everyone. There is a subtle difference here. Please refer me to the law where marriage is a right or privilege. Without going through the laws of all fifty states, I can tell you that some will allow it, some won't. From the posting here, this is unsatisfactory?

The 14th Amendment was what was used to strike down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. Also, Virginia never denied that the Lovings were married, just that it violated the law. This is where Article IV, Section 1 comes into play in this case, due to the fact that there are States now where Gay Marriage is legal.

3. Interracial marriage has provided many benefits to society. Namely: children. While I understand that people will have these children out of wedlock with or without a marriage certificate, the near-inevitability of the union of interracial couples having children is unavoidable. These children rarely become wards of the State. No excuse, I'm sure, but it would give the government a reason to not recognize the legality of gay marriage simply because the government and society at large will have gained nothing. Opposite sex marriages encourage the production of taxpayers, regardless of race.

Children can be either a benefit or a detriment to society, depending on what type of individual they are. But this is not at the heart of the issue. There is no mandate for a married couple to have children. It is a choice. Many couples marry with no interest in having children, or are incapable of having children. Should the ability to marry be limited to only fertile couples who intend to procreate? Or is marriage much more than producing children?

reply to post by ZeeSquared


You have nothing to apologize for as the video you posted counters the argument of the Biblical view of marriage that Stylez has repeatedly supported in many posts both on this thread and on the God Commands You To Kill Gays thread. He has also shown no regards to the feelings of other posters, so to cry foul is disingenuous at best.

Jax,

If marriage were limited to only fertile couples, I would be excluded. Thing is, while I have children, I will never produce one. This, oddly, puts you and I in the same boat on the marriage issue. While I may not be with a man, the physical act of love will produce the same results.

There was a time when I believed that a marriage was not 'sanctioned by God' until it had been blessed with a child. But again, in that regard we're the same. I've adopted my children. I see no reason you couldn't because... I was adopted by my gay uncle and Aunt Kevin (THEY started the Aunt Kevin thing...). I turned out hetero. But my uncle is very unusual in his views of the gay community. As I see it, you should not be denied the same CHOICES and opportunities I am. But, you have the option to move to another state if yours won't allow it. Another country. But you keep trying to change things here. In the end, when the fight is over and you've won your battle, describe for me your perfect day.

On a side note... Taking your avatar in mind, if Spock were to drop in by surprise to read this thread and felt compelled to comment... what do you think he'd say?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Arrowmancer]

reply to post by Arrowmancer


Well, I already have a child and grandchildren, so my 'baby making' days have come and gone. In regards to 'moving to a state that allows it', this still does not cover federal protections and benefits, which I do pay for with my tax money for others. I'm paying for the feed in the trough, but not allowed to eat there.

As to what Mr. Spock might say... "To provide protections and benefits to most, but not all based solely on personal beliefs and prejudices seems highly illogical, Captain. The Prime Directive prohibits us from assisting or interfering in this less advanced culture."

Two Star Trek episodes that dealt with just such mindsets:

Let this be your last battlefield from the Original Series.

The Outcast from TNG.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


By your standard of the Trough, should those without children be exempt from school taxes?

Which marital benefit do you speak of? Taxes?

I figured Spock, being a master of emotional control wouldn't argue that side of the issue, but would be the illogical conclusion that two men joined in wedlock would not do anything to further the species as a whole. The Prime Directive forbade intervention in less advanced cultures. Not that that usually mattered to Kirk. They could still watch and comment

reply to post by Arrowmancer


Well I just wanted to chime in and thank you for mediating this discussion. It seems that you have helped make this thread productive instead of well, we all know what it WAS.

In any case, after reading through all the pages, I am at a standstill. Stylez has made some good points in regards to this situation. So has Jax.

My opinion is perhaps a little biased due to my own situation, however I will say what I have said for a while now.

So long as "Civil Unions" provide all of the protections under law that a legal "marriage" does, I do not see the problem here.

Some will say like Jaxon that it is equal but not equal, but I find that to just be an excuse to continue on a charade that won't ever end. The supporters of traditional marriage will never give that up.

It simply won't happen. Democracy and human interaction is about debate and then compromise. We never get anyhthing done if both sides just bang their heads on the walls opposite each other.

I live in Canada, where my union is an actual marriage. It has all the same benefits, it is called the same thing and nobody really minds. I think the biggest reason is that we don't view marriage in the same way.

You see in Canada after living together for more than 6 months, you automatically become what we refer to as "common law" which means you automatically gain all the benefits from being married.

It's a very nice thing to have and would work wonders in the US for homosexual couples who can't get "married" persay.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well, stated, sir. My intention was not to mediate, but to find common ground. Stylez will surely be on tonight to put his weight into the issue and I look forward to it. There is ALWAYS common ground, but the two sides have to be looking for it instead of standing in opposite fields unable to see beyond the gate.

As far as civil unions go, it's a name for the same thing. Wouldn't it be crazy if whites decided to force the 'African' part of 'African American' out of public use? It would falter before it ever started because of the passion involved in the black community. I'm not wanting the race issue to become a part of this thread, don't get me wrong here, but what has been offered has been rejected and I, in part, agree with it.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

By your standard of the Trough, should those without children be exempt from school taxes?

No, because we all benefit from an educated citizenry.

Which marital benefit do you speak of? Taxes?

I've posted this previously, but I'll post it again:

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Source.

I figured Spock, being a master of emotional control wouldn't argue that side of the issue, but would be the illogical conclusion that two men joined in wedlock would not do anything to further the species as a whole.

Spock would point out the lack of logic there. "By such standards, only those individuals capable of procreation should be allowed to engage in wedlock. Since this is not the core of such unions, this position is highly illogical."

Many hetrosexual couple practise anal sex. In contries or religions where contraception is either a no no or difficult to get it is often the norm.

I really don't understand anyone getting hot under the collar about gays marrying, as it affects no one but the couple.
It gives the couple the same legal equality as straight couples what is wrong with that.

Lets face it in many countries homosexuals are routinely beaten or put to death thank goodness the West has come a long way since that happened here.

By God, I love you Jax. It's like trying to play Chess with the guy who invented the game. You've done your research and believe strongly in it and you masterfully counter EVERY argument against your belief. You, sir, would be a VERY worthy opponent and I honestly feel a bit out of my league. Still, I must try.

No, because we all benefit from an educated citizenry.

And you put coin in the coffer that straight couples have access to and you do not. Please explain.

benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Source.
Some of these make sense. Some are a non-issue in Texas. Which of these is not provided for in a Civil Union?

Spock would point out the lack of logic there. "By such standards, only those individuals capable of procreation should be allowed to engage in wedlock. Since this is not the core of such unions, this position is highly illogical."

This is a matter of definition. Spock would get at the core of a marriage and it's original function, which was much more than a joining of a man to a woman, but the joining of possessions, families, and political and economic resources.

Finally, many of the provisions offered to married couples entail military or governmental service (from the original source). Should gays be OPENLY allowed in the military? I am a Marine. I know without doubt the guy I joined with, my best friend, was gay and there was never an issue in the four years we served together. He did state that if he fell in combat, he didn't want the core of who and what he was to die with his body. He wanted me to tell anyone that would listen. I never saw the reason for his passion here, but I'm not gay. Being gay didn't define him. His character did. To those of us who served with him, being gay was an attribute no different than the color of his hair. Part of him, but not the definition.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
By God, I love you Jax. It's like trying to play Chess with the guy who invented the game. You've done your research and believe strongly in it and you masterfully counter EVERY argument against your belief. You, sir, would be a VERY worthy opponent and I honestly feel a bit out of my league. Still, I must try.

I think Stylez would disagree with you, but thanks!

No, because we all benefit from an educated citizenry.

And you put coin in the coffer that straight couples have access to and you do not. Please explain.

As I approach the 'Golden Years', it will be the youth who run things. To have them well educated can only benefit me in that regard.

benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Source.

Some of these make sense. Some are a non-issue in Texas. Which of these is not provided for in a Civil Union?

These are just a few examples of the 1,138 of the benefits and protections provided by the Federal Government. They are given to married couples regardless of which state they reside in. Well, except for gay married couples from states that have allowed such unions because of DOMA.

Spock would point out the lack of logic there. "By such standards, only those individuals capable of procreation should be allowed to engage in wedlock. Since this is not the core of such unions, this position is highly illogical."

This is a matter of definition. Spock would get at the core of a marriage and it's original function, which was much more than a joining of a man to a woman, but the joining of possessions, families, and political and economic resources.

Let me don my 'pointy ears' again... "While this may be true in Vulcan culture, Human culture differs due to their inability to control their emotions. Coupling in humans is based on emotional attachments. One does not choose a mate based on procreation, but instead on the emotion of love. Humans seek a mate to 'grow old with', one that they deeply care about, not a mate that can 'produce proper children', or other trivialities such as the gaining of material goods or prestige and power that the species once used in it's infancy."

Finally, many of the provisions offered to married couples entail military or governmental service (from the original source). Should gays be OPENLY allowed in the military? I am a Marine. I know without doubt the guy I joined with, my best friend, was gay and there was never an issue in the four years we served together. He did state that if he fell in combat, he didn't want the core of who and what he was to die with his body. He wanted me to tell anyone that would listen. I never saw the reason for his passion here, but I'm not gay. Being gay didn't define him. His character did. To those of us who served with him, being gay was an attribute no different than the color of his hair. Part of him, but not the definition.

I absolutely believe that sexual orientation should not be a factor in military service. I am a veteran of eight years of service. My service was exemplary and I was highly decorated. My sexual orientation had no bearing on my service. Sex has no place when service members are 'on duty', and there are regulations against such activity in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, regardless of sexual orientation. The last line of yours, "Part of him, but not the definition." is one that most miss when dealing with homosexuals. One's sexuality is a part of them, but it does not define them. The reason for his passion is that he wanted to point this very thing out to all. That one can serve, and serve with honor, and still be a homosexual.

And you put coin in the coffer that straight couples have access to and you do not. Please explain.

As I approach the 'Golden Years', it will be the youth who run things. To have them well educated can only benefit me in that regard.

Sorry, I think you missed what I was getting at... I wasn't speaking about the educational system, though you are correct in this regard. I was asking about how you contribute to a system that you do not benefit from.
In what way do you contribute to the marital system that you cannot partake of? This isn't a challenge for you to prove anything, I'd just like your view on it.

These are just a few examples of the 1,138 of the benefits and protections provided by the Federal Government. They are given to married couples regardless of which state they reside in. Well, except for gay married couples from states that have allowed such unions because of DOMA.

Again, you and I have already established that DOMA is in direct violation of Enumerated Powers and holds no legal ground for Americans. The language of the constitution is clearly spelled out and there is no room for argument on the subject. I can't understand how this could have gotten WRITTEN much less signed into unconstitutional law.

Let me don my 'pointy ears' again... "While this may be true in Vulcan culture, Human culture differs due to their inability to control their emotions. Coupling in humans is based on emotional attachments. One does not choose a mate based on procreation, but instead on the emotion of love. Humans seek a mate to 'grow old with', one that they deeply care about, not a mate that can 'produce proper children', or other trivialities such as the gaining of material goods or prestige and power that the species once used in it's infancy."

Again, it comes down to the definition. The LEGAL definition of marriage is:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

I come back full circle that the only way to change this is to destroy the institution of marriage completely, as recognized by the state. If the US caved in and allowed you to rewrite the definition, what would it be?

Regarding gays in the military, I'd very much love to get more in-depth with you about the subject. This, unfortunately, is not the thread nor forum for it. Perhaps another day, my friend!

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Sorry, I think you missed what I was getting at... I wasn't speaking about the educational system, though you are correct in this regard. I was asking about how you contribute to a system that you do not benefit from.
In what way do you contribute to the marital system that you cannot partake of? This isn't a challenge for you to prove anything, I'd just like your view on it.

Fair enough. I pay federal taxes. The fed gives benefits to married couples. If I marry someone that I love in a state that allows such marriages (and must remain there for it to be 'recognized'), the fed does not recognize my marriage and I cannot enjoy the benefits that my tax dollars pay for.

Again, you and I have already established that DOMA is in direct violation of Enumerated Powers and holds no legal ground for Americans. The language of the constitution is clearly spelled out and there is no room for argument on the subject. I can't understand how this could have gotten WRITTEN much less signed into unconstitutional law.

If unconstitutional laws were not passed, being a Supreme Court Justice would be the easiest job in the world! But, keep DOMA in mind in the next section...

Again, it comes down to the definition. The LEGAL definition of marriage is:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

I come back full circle that the only way to change this is to destroy the institution of marriage completely, as recognized by the state. If the US caved in and allowed you to rewrite the definition, what would it be?

You do realize that you just quoted DOMA, right??? Since we both agree that it's unconstitutional...

Regarding gays in the military, I'd very much love to get more in-depth with you about the subject. This, unfortunately, is not the thread nor forum for it. Perhaps another day, my friend!

Yes, outside of the topic at hand, so another day...