This simple question is at the core of the dispute. The superficial answer, of course, is “5.” The correct answer is “4.”

And the reason is simple: a tail is not a leg. You can call it a leg, but you can’t make it a leg.

The same-sex marriage advocates universally adopt the position that if the government decides two men can be married, then it’s a marriage. In effect, marriage is whatever the government calls it.

It’s not a states’ rights issue. It’s not a federal issue. It’s a “none-of-the-government’s-business-in-the-first-place” issue.

Marriage is not a creation of government. It’s the other way around. The first governments were extensions of the family — first of the tribe, then of the community.

Family created government, not vice versa.

When a government declares two men to have a marriage, the only thing it accomplishes is to hurt itself and everything it touches. It can’t magically create a marriage simply by declaring two men “married.”

The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.–Gal 5:14

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loves another has fulfilled the law.–Rom 13:8

JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Nice quotes but that means we need to determine what God means when He commands us to Love one another. You are insinuating that those that oppose Gay Marriage aren’t loving their neighbor or loving one another. That argument doesn’t follow from those verses.

It’s because married people are more stable, produce offspring which become future taxpayers and are generally more productive. All of those are social benefits gay couples can and do provide, so there’s no reason to exclude them.

Is there evidence that gay couples are more stable, produce offspring and are more productive? I highly doubt it.

Sorry…but if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. I don’t like scrapple…it disgusts me just thinking about it. But I don’t want to see it outlawed, some people actually like that garbage *shiver* so hey, go buy it and eat it. And it won’t affect me a bit.

JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Oh, but if you have a grocery store and you don’t stock scrapple, I will sue you because I have a right to it.

Gay couple don’t inhibit straight couples from popping out offspring. Heck, how do think us gays got here?

The term “marriage” doesn’t inhibit anyone from coupling together.

Although gay marriage is a secular idea, not a religious one, I have to add: God’s greatest gift to mankind is love…like the love Jesus Christ has for all His children, saints and sinners alike.

JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM

What is the etymology of the word marriage? Is it more important for a nation of law to protect/abide by Amendment I than it is to play semantics with a term that has no bearing on whom one chooses to couple?

Oh how cute, the little Satanist can make up slander against a man he’s not worthy to shine shoes for.

MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 11:02 PM

What the heck does this even mean? Are you mentally stable and healthy?

Did you just ask me if I was worthy to shine shoes for satan?

good grief.

“Marriage” has been redefined again and again around the globe over the centuries…both in secular and religious contexts. Tell any bride-to-be that she better be a virgin on her wedding day or else…and that she’s to be the property of her husband…and you’re likely to get yourself a black eye. But that’s what marriage was at one time…but that’s changed. So the whole “redefine marriage” shtick is a moot point.

JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Interestingly enough, though, not a single one of those changes has affected the basic formula: male-female.

Think about that. Has every single civilization prior to you been emphatically stupid? Or, more likely, did they try promoting gay-sex relationships and find out it didn’t work?

But, the core of the gay marriage debate is about constitutionality…specifically the Equal Protection clause…therefore making this a federal issue. States may have differing criteria for issuing a marriage license, such as minimum age requirements, but marriage in one state has to be recognized by all of the states, should a couple move from one to another.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is established law and constitutional right, but states are under no compulsion whatsoever to recognize each others’ gun ownership laws, or to grant “full faith and credit”. This despite it being a CLEAR Federal law that the right of people to bear arms shall not be abridged.

There is no Constitutional guarantee or right to marriage to whatever you are sexually attracted. Therefore, the fact that states may CHOOSE to recognize each others’ marriage ceremonies does not COMPEL them to recognize each others’ definitions of marriage.

I swear, gay-sex marriage supporters are completely ignorant of biology.

northdallasthirty on November 16, 2012 at 11:23 PM

They are not ignorant.

They are simply lying.

Normal course of events my sister and brother in law wouldnt have had her twins, the owner of my gym and his wife wouldnt have had his daughter, multiple friends wouldnt have had their kids. Many on the “last try” too.

Dash on November 16, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Uh huh. Everyone you know has abnormal fertility and could never have conceived a child on their own; furthermore, this is generalized to every single heterosexual everywhere.

If that were truly the case and every single heterosexual couple was as completely infertile as a same-sex couple, we wouldn’t be here. But since we are, how about coming back to the reality and admitting that same-sex couples are ALWAYS infertile, while opposite-sex ones are RARELY infertile?

I swear, gay-sex marriage supporters are completely ignorant of biology.