Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

[Stellonia]

No, polls said the majority of A[m]ericans supported recognition.

And equality before the law for same sex couples is well before that point[.]

Irrelevant. The interests of children in being raised in a manner that benefits them is more important than "equality before the law." And every child has the right to a mommy and a daddy.

To Jews. We do not have the same values as you. For one thing, here in the US most of us are very much for separation of church and state since that protects us from the rest of society. The majority of Jews where also pro recognition...

I would assume, then, that most Jews in the U.S. are secular Jews.

[Arcturus Novus]

The "eyes of the law" are often dependent upon Judeo-Christian or traditional values.


I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

Um.. that's the exact same difference, worded differently. So we're at one difference, and not a very big one at that.

I mean, sex =/= gender, but let's save that for the transgender thread.

[Othelos]

Of course not. But there is a point when rights end.

Marriage is well before that point.

Being able to be with your life partner strikes me as something that should be protected.

[Dazchan]

Um.. that's the exact same difference, worded differently. So we're at one difference, and not a very big one at that.

I mean, sex =/= gender, but let's save that for the transgender thread.

I made no comment whatsoever on whether sex and gender are the same. Perhaps you should read posts before responding to them.

[Apollinis]

Is there a fundamental difference between an interracial marriage and a marriage between two people of the same ethnicity?

Think carefully before you answer.

There is a difference, but not a fundamental one.

How is the two partners in a marriage being of different ethnicities less fundamental than them being of different sexes? (Especially given that, for a considerable period of time in the South, it wasn't considered less fundamental.)

After all, Adam was probably black (Genesis 2:7 states, "[T]hen the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."), and Eve was probably white (Genesis 2:22 states, "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.").

Somehow I doubt that your particular interpretation of Genesis 2 is a good argument to deploy in a secular nation.

[Stellonia]

Marriage is well before that point.

Being able to be with your life partner strikes me as something that should be protected.

One can "be together with [one's] life partner" without being married to said partner, unless you're using an expression for marriage (not the civil sort, but the far more important sort).

[Neutraligon]

No, polls said the majority of A[m]ericans supported recognition.

And equality before the law for same sex couples is well before that point[.]

Irrelevant. The interests of children in being raised in a manner that benefits them is more important than "equality before the law." And every child has the right to a mommy and a daddy.

To Jews. We do not have the same values as you. For one thing, here in the US most of us are very much for separation of church and state since that protects us from the rest of society. The majority of Jews where also pro recognition...

I would assume, then, that most Jews in the U.S. are secular Jews.

Now prove that children being raised by homosexual partners is somehow detrimental. Oh and nice moving the goalposts.

Nope, many are religious Jews, they just have different values from you, including the support for separation. Here's the thing, most Jews actually know the difference between secular recognition of marriage, that is the government institution, and the religious recognition of marriage. We are very much for equality before the law even if some synagogues would not perform the ceremony itself.

So again stop using Judeo-Christian. We do not agree with you, we do not have the same values, we do not have the same traditions, and we do not want to be included in your claim.

[Apollinis]

No, polls said the majority of A[m]ericans supported recognition.

And equality before the law for same sex couples is well before that point[.]

Irrelevant. The interests of children in being raised in a manner that benefits them is more important than "equality before the law." And every child has the right to a mommy and a daddy.

There isn't any difference in the ability of two men/two women and a man and a woman to raise a child.

So are children with single parents having their rights violated? Are single-parent families unconstitutional?

[San Llera]

No, polls said the majority of A[m]ericans supported recognition.

And equality before the law for same sex couples is well before that point[.]

Irrelevant. The interests of children in being raised in a manner that benefits them is more important than "equality before the law." And every child has the right to a mommy and a daddy.

To Jews. We do not have the same values as you. For one thing, here in the US most of us are very much for separation of church and state since that protects us from the rest of society. The majority of Jews where also pro recognition...

I would assume, then, that most Jews in the U.S. are secular Jews.

1. Why not two mommies? Or two daddies? And if a child is raised by a single mother, should the deadbeat dad be executed?

There is nothing about having parents of different sexes that is superior to having parents of the same sex.

2. No, most Jews are for the separation of church and state and pro-recognition.

[Arcturus Novus]

I mean, sex =/= gender, but let's save that for the transgender thread.

I made no comment whatsoever on whether sex and gender are the same. Perhaps you should read posts before responding to them.

"I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders."

"Um.. that's the exact same difference, worded differently."

I may have read this wrong but I thought it was implied. I know how to read, though, don't worry.

[Stellonia]

There is a difference, but not a fundamental one.

How is the two partners in a marriage being of different ethnicities less fundamental than them being of different sexes? (Especially given that, for a considerable period of time in the South, it wasn't considered less fundamental.)

After all, Adam was probably black (Genesis 2:7 states, "[T]hen the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."), and Eve was probably white (Genesis 2:22 states, "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.").

Somehow I doubt that your particular interpretation of Genesis 2 is a good argument to deploy in a secular nation.

You were bringing up a religiously based claim against miscegenation.

[Stellonia]

Why not two mommies? Or two daddies? And if a child is raised by a single mother, should the deadbeat dad be executed?

The father should not be executed.

There is nothing about having parents of different sexes that is superior to having parents of the same sex.

Studies have indicated that it is better for the child to be raised by a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple.

No, most Jews are for the separation of church and state and pro-recognition.

Strange, given the Old Testament's stances against homosexuality.

[Arcturus Novus]

Why not two mommies? Or two daddies? And if a child is raised by a single mother, should the deadbeat dad be executed?

The father should not be executed.

There is nothing about having parents of different sexes that is superior to having parents of the same sex.

Studies have indicated that it is better for the child to be raised by a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple.

No, most Jews are for the separation of church and state and pro-recognition.

Strange, given the Old Testament's stances against homosexuality.

[citation needed]

[Neutraligon]

Why not two mommies? Or two daddies? And if a child is raised by a single mother, should the deadbeat dad be executed?

The father should not be executed.

There is nothing about having parents of different sexes that is superior to having parents of the same sex.

Studies have indicated that it is better for the child to be raised by a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple.

No, most Jews are for the separation of church and state and pro-recognition.

Strange, given the Old Testament's stances against homosexuality.

Those studies have been completely shown to be wrong. For the most part because they compared unstable same sex households, or households where one of the partners only once had a same sex coupling, to stable households. SO go ahead provide a study that has not been roundly shown to be wrong by the scientific community.

Not really, since again the Jewish community is strongly for the separation of Church and state. We have had serious issues in most countries that did not have that separation.

[San Llera]

Why not two mommies? Or two daddies? And if a child is raised by a single mother, should the deadbeat dad be executed?

The father should not be executed.

There is nothing about having parents of different sexes that is superior to having parents of the same sex.

Studies have indicated that it is better for the child to be raised by a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple.

No, most Jews are for the separation of church and state and pro-recognition.

Strange, given the Old Testament's stances against homosexuality.

1. But is it a rights violation?

2. May I see said studies?

3. Perhaps Jews don't are aware that forcing their religion on others is not a good idea.

[Apollinis]

How is the two partners in a marriage being of different ethnicities less fundamental than them being of different sexes? (Especially given that, for a considerable period of time in the South, it wasn't considered less fundamental.)


Somehow I doubt that your particular interpretation of Genesis 2 is a good argument to deploy in a secular nation.

You were bringing up a religiously based claim against miscegenation.

Nope, the argument against miscegenation is at its core a racist one, not a religious one.

Proponents of anti-miscegenation laws would argue that there is a fundamental difference in that a non-interracial marriage doesn't involve "pollution" of the gene-pool whereas an interracial marriage does.

[Cannot think of a name]

Is there a fundamental difference between an interracial marriage and a marriage between two people of the same ethnicity?

Think carefully before you answer.

There is a difference, but not a fundamental one. After all, Adam was probably black (Genesis 2:7 states, "[T]hen the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."), and Eve was probably white (Genesis 2:22 states, "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.").

Holy crap, did you just bring up a creation myth to justify denying same sex marriage?

[Stellonia]

There is a difference, but not a fundamental one. After all, Adam was probably black (Genesis 2:7 states, "[T]hen the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."), and Eve was probably white (Genesis 2:22 states, "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.").

Holy crap, did you just bring up a creation myth to justify denying same sex marriage?

No: it's not a creation myth (what's your alternative?), and I was explaining how miscegenation is different from homosexuality.

[Neu California]

Why not two mommies? Or two daddies? And if a child is raised by a single mother, should the deadbeat dad be executed?

The father should not be executed.

There is nothing about having parents of different sexes that is superior to having parents of the same sex.

Studies have indicated that it is better for the child to be raised by a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple.

No, most Jews are for the separation of church and state and pro-recognition.

Strange, given the Old Testament's stances against homosexuality.

Fun fact, studies have actually shown that children of same-sex couples actually come out similarly to those of opposite sex couples (linky, linky, Linky, Linky with further links to studies. Note that I purposefully picked sources that I thought would be reasonably neutral, IE no ThinkProgress or FRC of HuffPo or CNS))

[Cannot think of a name]

Holy crap, did you just bring up a creation myth to justify denying same sex marriage?

No: it's not a creation myth (what's your alternative?), and I was explaining how miscegenation is different from homosexuality.

It's absolutely a creation myth and has about as much relevancy to law as how coyote got his howl.

[Dyakovo]

Are homosexuals people?

Certainly, just like you and I. What's your point?

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That their intent is immaterial.

[Stellonia]

No: it's not a creation myth (what's your alternative?), and I was explaining how miscegenation is different from homosexuality.

It's absolutely a creation myth and has about as much relevancy to law as how coyote got his howl.

I would love to have a creation vs. evolution debate with you, but we'll have to save that for a different thread.

[Dyakovo]

Because what is being discussed is the legal institution of marriage, which absolutely does not exist if not legally recognised.

Marriage is much, much more than a legal institution.

Yes and no. It can be, it doesn't have to be.

[Neutraligon]

It's absolutely a creation myth and has about as much relevancy to law as how coyote got his howl.

I would love to have a creation vs. evolution debate with you, but we'll have to save that for a different thread.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=352913&hilit=The+truth+of+the+bible&start=500

Have fun

[Vaikneland]

Ugh this annoys me so much. You can't throw someone in jail to practice their religion. Read the Bill if Rights please. If you have an issue with it, GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY. No one wants you here anyway.