1.) “Loving v Virginia”, “Zabloki v Redhail”, “Turner v Safley” are SCOTUS rulings that all address marriage as some level of fundamental right and limit the state’s ability to restrict it.

All of these cases deal with normal couples, i.e. a man and a woman getting married, because this is what is considered marriage.

2.) There is gay marriage in 4 states, while NY recognizes gay marriages from other states. Churches and individuals are free to not recognize those marriages.

They call it “gay” “marriage,” but that doesn’t make it marriage–it’s a travesty thereof.
You don’t have to belong to a church to believe that either.
Homosexuality is unnatural, belief systems aside.

3.) My contention is that religion should be outside of the state criteria. However, others cite Jude-Christian teaching as a barrier to gay marriage.

While I am a Christian and hold such teachings to be truths, same sex “marriage” is against nature and also a public health risk when it comes to male homosexuals–this isn’t based on religious beliefs.

4.) Gay people already have a constitutional right to have children. The law can choose to not recognize their family, but there will still be kids.

Not only do they not have a “constitutional right” to have children, but it is biologically (you might say constitutionally) impossible for 2 people of the same sex to produce a child.
The main purpose of marriage is to provide a stable, loving environment in which the natural children produced by that union can be raised.
It’s not primarily about the sexual congress, but same sex “marriage” would be and is only about the sex.

Jenfidel on April 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM

On each of your replies by number:
1.) “Loving v Virginia”, “Zabloki v Redhail”, “Turner v Safley” are SCOTUS rulings that all address marriage as some level of fundamental right and limit the state’s ability to restrict it.
2.) There is gay marriage in 4 states, while NY recognizes gay marriages from other states. Churches and individuals are free to not recognize those marriages.
3.) My contention is that religion should be outside of the state criteria. However, others cite Jude-Christian teaching as a barrier to gay marriage.
4.) Gay people already have a constitutional right to have children. The law can choose to not recognize their family, but there will still be kids.

1.) The Supreme Court does recognize a fundamental right to straight marriage.

???

Gay marriage is for people unable to have a physically intimate life with the opposite sex.

“Gay” “marriage” isn’t for anybody.
There is no such thing.

Christian tradition opposes both, and Jesus identified the first as a sin.

Why drag religion and the Lord into it?
Homosexual behavior is perverse, unnatural and deviant, even without the religious prohibitions.

4.) If a gay couple is raising children, it is difficult to argue that those children deserve less of a benefit than the children of a straight couple.

dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM

“Gay” couples shouldn’t be raising children, if it can be helped–they’re not stable enough psychologically and children can only be profoundly confused in their sexual and personal identity by 2 “mommies” or 2 “daddies.”
All children deserve a happy, stable home where there is a loving mother and a loving father and preferably, their biological parents.

The most relevant to me is that the households are stable.

dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Homosexual couples haven’t shown that they are stable; in fact, they’ve proven to be quite the contrary.
This is in addition to the fact that male homosexuals pose a considerable public health risk which same sex “marriage” doesn’t promise to mitigate.

Before we destroy the institution of traditional marriage, a paradigm that has existed for thousands of years, homosexuals must prove that the benefits and rewards of changing marriage laws to benefit them are in the public good or general welfare to do so and this they cannot and have not done.

Just because homosexuals are pushing for the “right” to marry each other doesn’t presume a commitment to monogamy; they want to be able to “marry” just to say they can (not that they will), but in the states that have made that possible, not that many homosexual couples have utilized the privilege once granted.

Jenfidel on April 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM

I live in a state with civil unions and gay marriage already ordered by the state court, soon to be implemented. It hasn’t affected my marriage and I doubt it will regardless of what the legislature does, or how many gays eventually marry.

There are already different types of marriage–they vary based on what church one goes to, how a couple perceives the roles of husband and wife, and the strength of commitment. The state could recognize “covenant marriages”. I’d be OK with that but whatever the state does I still need to focus on being a good husband and tending to the kids, regardless of whether the other couples on the block are married, divorced, gay, or shacking up. The most relevant to me is that the households are stable.

What is being fought is recognizing their commitment to a monogamous relationship.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Just because homosexuals are pushing for the “right” to marry each other doesn’t presume a commitment to monogamy; they want to be able to “marry” just to say they can (not that they will), but in the states that have made that possible, not that many homosexual couples have utilized the privilege once granted.

Divorce is for those marriages that fail and for every marriage that fails, there are many more that succeed.
That is why the traditional marriage and family are so valuable and must be preserved.
The 3% of the population that is homosexual (I don’t think it’s as high as 5%) isn’t being prevented from marrying.
Homosexuals can marry.
They just aren’t allowed to marry someone of the same sex and have it be legally recognized.
(They can even be “married” in private and have always had the freedom to do so–I know a lesbian who “married” another lesbian 30 YEARS AGO.)
It’s not a marriage and never will be a marriage.
There is no “right” to marry.
Nor should they have the right to be taxed like a married couple, who receive preferential tax treatment to help in the raising of their natural children.

Jenfidel on April 20, 2009 at 3:36 AM

Some thoughts on your post:
1.) The Supreme Court does recognize a fundamental right to straight marriage.
2.) The gay population may be 3% or 5% I doubt there are accurate numbers, but I’m happy to use your figure.
3.) Divorce is for people who are unable to manage their commitment. Gay marriage is for people unable to have a physically intimate life with the opposite sex. Christian tradition opposes both, and Jesus identified the first as a sin.
4.) If a gay couple is raising children, it is difficult to argue that those children deserve less of a benefit than the children of a straight couple.

But the militant gays do not care what the effects will be on society as long as they get their extra special rights. The evidence of this is their current stances toward said deviant behaviors. They practice tacit approval by saying nothing.

csdeven on April 20, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Your concern about deviant behavior is more related to the overturning of anti-sodomy laws. If it could be demonstrated how that has led to a recent increase in the public acceptance of pedaphilia or beastiality (especially gay bestiality) maybe it would show a compelling state interest in the matter.

Gays evidently are having plenty of sex. What is being fought is recognizing their commitment to a monogamous relationship. Does marriage tend to lead to a net increase in sexual perversity?

No but adult males taking trips to Thailand for sex with under-age girls would be, or a man molesting his adolescent step-daughter.

dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 8:17 AM

Are you purposely being obtuse? The point is that once the gays get to be “married”, the flood gates to all those deviant behaviors open up and the push for normalization goes in to overdrive.

But the militant gays do not care what the effects will be on society as long as they get their extra special rights. The evidence of this is their current stances toward said deviant behaviors. They practice tacit approval by saying nothing.

Moral relativity moron. So guys jerking off to the Olsen twins is the same as adult males chasing little boys and people marrying their pets.

csdeven on April 20, 2009 at 1:39 AM

No but adult males taking trips to Thailand for sex with under-age girls would be, or a man molesting his adolescent step-daughter.

And this is done by allowing divorce for the 95% of the population that is straight but attempting to balance that by preventing 5% of the population from marrying at all?

dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Nope. Divorce doesn’t factor into it.
Divorce is for those marriages that fail and for every marriage that fails, there are many more that succeed.
That is why the traditional marriage and family are so valuable and must be preserved.
The 3% of the population that is homosexual (I don’t think it’s as high as 5%) isn’t being prevented from marrying.
Homosexuals can marry.
They just aren’t allowed to marry someone of the same sex and have it be legally recognized.
(They can even be “married” in private and have always had the freedom to do so–I know a lesbian who “married” another lesbian 30 YEARS AGO.)
It’s not a marriage and never will be a marriage.
There is no “right” to marry.
Nor should they have the right to be taxed like a married couple, who receive preferential tax treatment to help in the raising of their natural children.

dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Moral relativity moron. So guys jerking off to the Olsen twins is the same as adult males chasing little boys and people marrying their pets.

You liberals are certainly psychologically damaged.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but, you didn’t answer the questions before.

And I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I don’t know how to answer your question. The party Platform gives a clear, detailed statement on a vast array of policy positions. Are you asking me to list specifically what I agree with? Ok… abortion, national security, homeland security, strength of military, limiting social programs, reducing taxes and federal spending, our position in the UN and other groups, support of Isreal, treatment of enemy nations, “rights” of enemy combatants, the appointment of Constitutionalist Supreme Court judges, protecting the Census, increased drilling for domestic oil, making health insurance portable through competition, not funding human embryonic stem cell research… I can go on if you need me to.

So suppose you and I agree on all of the issues I just listed (and we quite possibly do, as well as many more). Does that fact that we probably disagree on gay marriage make me unfit, in your mind, to be a Republican? Am I “cherry picking” and, therefore, just another RINO you want to leave the party? And if you get your wish, what then? How would such a turn of events effect the RNC and the nation?

But, apparently you aren’t interested in calling them out, so long as it serves your personal interests.

And all this time I thought you guys were trying to expand the GOP.

I’m so gullible.

Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 7:23 PM

The issue doesn’t serve a personal interest much.

I’m interested in seeing the GOP win elections in the North East and compete better for younger and urban voters. Usually, GOP politicians in the North East need to back off some of the social conservative positions to win elections.

In the meantime w/o equal tax treatment the courts are more likely to continue to weigh in on the side of gay marriage.

dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Oops…..

Well, the courts are an ass, then.

But, apparently you aren’t interested in calling them out, so long as it serves your personal interests.

And all this time I thought you guys were trying to expand the GOP.

I’m so gullible.

In the meantime w/o equal tax treatment the courts are more likely to continue to weigh in on the side of gay marriage.

dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Well, the courts are an ass, then.

But, apparently you aren;

Seems to me a lonely row to hoe when you could use the gigantic force of a unified party pursuing equal tax liability for all Americans by repealing the 16th amendment. Think of the economic and social liberty that would unleash, while simultaneously crushing the Left’s goal of destroying the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Sign me up for a financial contribution to the cause and I’ll lobby my congressman, senators and state reps.

In the meantime w/o equal tax treatment the courts are more likely to continue to weigh in on the side of gay marriage.

Black even makes Shamu look a little more slender….maybe it can help Porkchop McCain.

HornetSting on April 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM

-
Too funny.
-

Would you be OK with the IRS recognizing gay unions?

dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM

If they want to lobby Congress for special tax considerations, I don’t see why that is any different than all the rest of the thousands of special interests forced to do business under the extortion clause in the Constitution.

Yes, why not?

Why not lobby for total income tax exemption?

Go for it.

Seems to me a lonely row to hoe when you could use the gigantic force of a unified party pursuing equal tax liability for all Americans by repealing the 16th amendment. Think of the economic and social liberty that would unleash, while simultaneously crushing the Left’s goal of destroying the greatest nation in the history of the world.

You prefer legislating morality and divisiveness over an umbrella unification regime.

Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 6:17 PM

You spoke to the tax issue. Would you be OK with the IRS recognizing gay unions?