There is no justification for the abolition of the bride-plus-groom legal requirement. The gay emphasis is no justification for the imposition of the SSM idea. The asserted supremacy of gay identity politics is as harmful as the long-repudiated assertion of the supremacy of white racist identity politics. The SSM side insists that gay is a race-like identity group and so it concedes it is making a racist-like assertion of supremacy over marriage and much else.

There is harm but the hardline SSM advocate would claim such harms as somehow positive benefits to society. That is also a huge concession for they knowingly advocate the social cost that they expect society to pay.

approximately 40% of LGBT intimate interactions have inter-personal violence. This means there are literally millions of violent, disgusting LGBT individuals running about society, hurting other LGBT individuals (aggressions, beatings, sexual assault, etc.).

This LGBT majority believes, like you, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The number of heterosexuals that beat LGBT adults is very small, in fact, it's comparatively tiny (a few thousands).

So the people not only fostering the violence, but largely practicing it, are people with your "homosexuality is normal" views. Needless to say, given how corrupt liberals are, the majority of these LGBT individuals are never brought to justice and have total impunity.

And that's not counting all the disgusting LGBT individuals that sexually harass, demean, and assault children and heterosexual adults.

Having a corrupt "homosexuality is normal and harmless" ideology is very destructive, and it does great harm is society, starting with the denial of all the violence and harm that LGBT individuals and their supporters do, and ending with the actual violence itself.

SSM and traditional marriage cannot exist side by side. It the definiton is changed, then it will not longer be traditional marriage. As far as SSm not harming anyone, I do suggest Priya google some of the articles many of us have done which show that, once the definition of marriage has changed, those who hold to the traditional view are fined, fired, threatened and prosecuted by the government and the HRC. THAT is how it affects my marriage. It I can't work or am penalized for my beliefs, it affects me personally, and society as a whole.

I am not arguing for the promotion of the lifestyle. What I was saying is that if it is just done between the two people then it isn't hurting anyone. This is where the left(and even libertarians) fall flat when they spout the whole "you can't legislate morality" diatribe. Their ideologies fail to account for the human condition. Liberalism seeks to control or even correct it or-in most cases-permit it, Libertarianism lets it run amok, but Conservatism tames it.

Must be a weekend. . .

Wow!

Sometime, maybe explain to me how you can say: "I am Catholic and I have no problem practicing my faith in this country."

but:

The Pope (head of the R. Catholic church) doesn't see SSm as marriage.

So, how can you practice your faith, when the Pope is implying you are not?

I would be interested in your answer, out of curiosity. Thanks.

"It is perfectly moral to do whatever a person wants as long as they are not harming others."

That's a rather broad brush there. Moral standards induce order, lack of morals lead to chaos. It is why several nations in Western Europe are on track to being Muslim Majority countries in the next 30-40 years. Arguing from a relativist standpoint does not give one the moral high ground. You fail to acknowledge the human condition. Morals seek to keep this fatal flaw in man in check.

" Gayness harms no one and is by definition perfectly moral."

I would suspect at the individual level between the two people engaging in it, you are correct. However in the grand scheme of things, where ever people seek to maintain the traditional definition of Marriage, people have been punished.

For instance, on morality, you'd dictate to others. Your moralism has no sound argumentation. Your reasoning is superficial and self-refuting.

Your comments invite dissection.

Do you expressly invite others to test of your comments in the way that you have posed here to contend against our defense of marriage (the union of husband and wife) or are you here to just make noise instead? Will you subject your comments to your own stated standards or will you rely on double-standards?

Where you have erred, will you correct yourself? Before proceeding further, you have the opportunity to self-correct. Review your comments.

That's an outrageous lie. You sir, have no morals whatsoever. You obviously seek to promote violence against innocent people by falsely claiming they seek to harm children. You are a psychopath.

"Even you know your proclivity is indefensible on its own merits".

You are delusional. It is perfectly moral to do whatever a person wants as long as they are not harming others. Gayness harms no one and is by definition perfectly moral. You seek to destroy gay relationships and foster violence against gays by telling outrageous lies about them, your behavior is by definition immoral. It is your proclivities that are indefensible.

See how twisted by hate your mind has become?

In your bizarre world those who harm no one are depraved, evil and should be deprived of fundamental human rights..

And you who seeks to deny them the same rights you have and promote violence against them insanely claim you are the victim when innocent people seek those rights and object to slander.. You seek to harm innocent people and in your twisted mind your actions are good and moral

Your "noted trait is accusing their victims of the crimes they themselves commit. In addition to their principle goal of creating willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them."

You call good evil and evil good. It is you, a psychopath, who is tragically bastardizing the meaning of words.

And in this case you seek to exploit other peoples children.

Not to mention your insistence on referencing perverts as though they are a species of man unto themselves. Even you know your proclivity is indefensible on its own merits.

You are unconcerned with the well-being of gays and lesbians and seek to harm them by preventing and destroying their marriages for the trivial gain of feeling you are superior to them.

Gays and lesbians support and defend your right to marry the consenting partner of your own choosing. I and gays and lesbians are concerned for your well-being, we don't seek any gain at your expense.

It is you who is the sociopath, not I.

Depraved: marked by corruption or evil.

Evil is the harming of others. Same sex sex between consenting adults harms no one and is by definition not depraved. Your attempts to prevent and destroy same sex marriages harms innocent people, your actions are by defintion depraved. You are putting your depravity ahead of the well-being of children.

Noted trait is accusing their victims of the crimes they themselves commit. In addition to their principle goal of creating willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.

I never said any such thing. You can't win an argument honestly so you have to lie.

Any reckless pair of heterosexuals can create a pregnancy Randy. It takes responsible, dedicated and concerned adults to be parents. Creating a pregnancy is the fun and easy part. What seperates good from bad is the many difficult and demanding years of parenting.

A very large percentage of the children of heterosexuals are accidental, unplanned, and unwanted. Gay couples are often adopting the offspring of irresponsible and incapable heterosexuals. Gay couples frequently adopt disabled or problem children from orphanages that heterosexuals turned up their noses at. Gay couples don't have children by accident, They plan for them, they want them, and they are prepared for them. That's why their children often do better than the children of heterosexuals.

If you honestly cared about children you'd be demanding gays and lesbians have the right to marry. But that's not what its about for you. For you its about your need to feel there is someone you're better than. Its very sad and incredibly selfish.

By your own admittance you value your depravity over life itself.

Right, that's why everyone knows men and women don't deserve the same rights [/joke].

Everyone is different Randy, but we all deserve the same rights.

We are also the people Randy, its not just you and yours and the majority of Americans now support marriage equality.

The gay couple down the street getting married in no way interferes with the union of any man and woman springing forth proceeding generations.

But we all know your claim to be concerned about marriage for the sake of children is fake. Up to 1/3 of gay couples have children and if you really cared about children you'd want the children of gay couples to have the rights and protections that married parents bring. The creation of a baby is but a trivial part of creating a society, the real job is done in the rearing of children and virtually every study shows the childen of gays and lesbians do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexuals.

Now please don't try to deceive people by referring to studies that compare single parents to married heterosexual parents as the anti-gays always do when they misleadingly claim "Decades of social science research show children do best with a mom and a dad." Such studies don't compare same sex parents to heterosexual parents.

Love is neither quantifiable, measurable, or verifiable. much like the bastardized word "Gay" it is only known by being declared.

We the people have no interest in who or what you may or may not love, but we do have a vested interest in proceeding generations that can only spring forth in the union of one man and one woman.

Your argument strains credulity beyond its breaking point.

Obviously the joining of a same sex couple is a great deal more like the joining of an opposite sex couple than the joining of a car body and engine, or pole and socket is so the term marriage is appropriate.

Dictionaries now commonly define marriage as "the union of two people". The meaning of words change over time with usage and it is now common around the world for gays to marry so marriage is the correct description of the union of two people.

Who are you trying to convince with your lies Priya?

That is a false stereotype. The truth is:

"LGBT Americans Tend to Have Lower Levels of Education and Income

Gallup's analysis shows that identification as LGBT is highest among Americans with the lowest levels of education -- contrary to what other, more limited, studies have shown."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

Pervert: a unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual.

I did not set the guidelines for marriages; these were established thousands of years ago.

The word "Gay" that you bastardize was used exclusively as an adjective in reference to sexual promiscuity up until the mid 1970's when it was first used as a noun in reference to men who like to rub against other men.

Up until 1997 the definition of the word marriage was rooted to the joining of opposites.

As an engineer I know that in order to marry two parts one part MUST have a male connector and the other part MUST have a female connector. In order to connect two parts with similar surfaces you must bond said parts by their pre-defined faying surfaces, but we know this bond is incapable of ever becoming a marriage - the joining of opposites.

You hind behind words that do not mean what you think they mean.

Nonsense.. Gays aren't asking for "special protections", they're asking for the same rights everyone else has. The foundation of justice is "innocent until proven guilty". The American constitution grants rights to everyone as a matter of course, no one is required to prove they deserve a right before they are given it. If anti-gays want to deny gays the same rights everyone else has its up to them to prove there is justification to do so - there is not now, has never been, and never will be justification for denying gays the same rights everyone else has.

THAT is dictating to someone who they may or may not marry. You are trying to tell Tom he can marry Jane but he can't marry Joe - you are a wannabe DICTATOR.

That is no different than christians in a muslim country being told they have equality. Everyone is free to be Islamic and no one has the right to be be christian - christians and muslims have equal rights.

Obviously, that argument AND yours are nonsense and you know it just as well as I do but you're too dishonest to admit it.

I have not bastardized any words, it is you who is bastardizing words. The only time sex is depraved is when it harms others. Consentual same sex sex between adults is by definition moral, your attempts to destroy gay marriages is by definition immoral.

Homosexuals will need to prove that they need "special protections"

Let's see....

Gays have been winning elections individually and statewide on changing the definition of marriage.

That is called "POWER"

Gays also have MONEY and JOBS.

I'm sorry BUT you , as a group, have done SO WELL that you don't need any protection.

THE UNEMPLOYED DO!

No one is dictating to you who you can and cannot marry. You are demanding for yourself the right to declare any relationship you choose to be a marriage.

You are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex of your choosing who is not a blood relative, under-aged, or already married just like everybody else.

Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself. If you truly believed your depravity were acceptable you would not be insisting words be bastardized just so you can feel better about the choices you made.

I happen to be older then bastardized forms of the words you use to justify your depravity; these words hold no power over me so go sell crazy somewhere else.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Gays and lesbians marrying doesn't stop you from believing whatever your little heart desires.

The essence of morality is "Do whatever you want, but harm no one.". Gays marrying is by definition moral and your attempts to destroy their marriages is by definition immoral.

Gays marrying changes nothing for anyone but the gays and lesbians that marry. I live in Canada. Just like in the United States the ant-gays screamed it would be the end of society of gays were allowed to marry. Now gays have been marrying for many years and life for the anti-gays goes on as it always has. They live, they love, they enter into their one man/one woman marriages and continue to rant about how disgusting and immoral gays are and how their marriages aren't real. Everyone is happy in Canada after gay marriage was legalized, the sky didn't fall- it'll be the same way in your country.

You have the right to define marriage for yourself, you don't have the right to define it for everyone.

Demanding public acceptance, recognition, and support only to turn around and scream that it is nobody else's business.

Sociopath: Sociopaths have little regard for the feelings of others and manipulate others in order to get what they desire.

You are being blatantly and unapologetically disingenuous when you claim changing the meaning of marriage will change nothing; you cannot have one without the other.

You are the ones seeking to re-define marriage for everyone; you are the ones demanding your depravity be declared moral by the laws of nature and natures God for everyone.

Thank you for allowing me to live my life as I choose; just so long as I do not publicly disagree with this travesty.

Travesty: a grotesque immitation

No, it is you who wants to stop people from marrying because your religion says gays should not marry. It is you who is trying to force people to live according to your religion, not us.

You are free to live your life as you choose, but you are not free to dictate to others how they should live.

You do not have a right to define marriage for everyone, you only have a right to define it for yourself. If you wish to define your marriage as one man one woman, that is your right but you don't have the right to tell gays and lesbians that they can't define their marriages as "two people".

Yet you see nothing wrong with forcing others to live according to your religion?

How very hypocritical of you.

"It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins"
Benjamin Franklin

No one is trying to deny you your right to "biblical" views about marriage, they're just trying to prevent you from forcing others to live according to your religion.

Yes, good point.

FemEagle wrote: The Girl Scouts are already doomed; it's accepted gays already.

The American Heritage Girls have continued the mission of integrity that used to be the Girl Scouts.

And some people wonder why the Boy Scouts want to keep the gays out of its organization. Gays are infiltrating previously wholesome institutions and corrupting them. They're corrupting marriage, they've corrupted the Church, and they want to corrupt an organization meant to help young boys become men. (The Girl Scouts are already doomed; it's accepted gays already. God knows what's going on in scout troops as a result, but I'm sure we'll be hearing about it). This plague has to stop. Good people have to shrug off the labels and the guilt trips and take a stand. For our families and our children, we have no choice now. It's all gone too far. We have to use the power of our voices and our votes to stop this gay "marriage" farce. Enough is enough!

Yet here you are demanding your faith be imposed on everyone; demanding that the government deem your ideology as equal to the Judea, Christian, and Islamic faiths.

"By their fruits you shall know them"

You profess to be a Christian yet you champion an ideology that stands in opposition to the faith you claim to hold.

Your whole argument is based on the Justice Kennedy opinion that personal religious animus is an insufficient reason to deny people their constitutional rights; yet there is no constitutional right to have your depravity deemed moral and acceptable - Kennedy was referring to the right of association.

If you want to count yourself with the heathen you are free to do so, but the consequences for that choice is yours; not societies.

All people carry some sort of faith, and profes some sort of morality (perhaps feigned), so other people trust them.

All people have a philosophy, and according to SCOTUS all philosophies fall under the category of religion of sorts. A case in point is Lawrence v. Texas.

Once we contrast "people of faith" with "people of no faith", we are setting up exactly the dichotomy which gives SSm credence, thought its advocates have no rational arguments of why it should be considered equal to opposite-sex marriage.

I'm just trying to help. Everyone has some sort of faith, or couldn't make decisions in life. It's possible to talk about people members of religious denominations or official religions in America, but the phrase "people of faith" includes all voters, so it is not selective.

All adult citizens have a right to vote, and all of them vote according to their type of faith.

Amen.