Liberals, media attack Chick-fil-A for opposing gay marriage

Nytebreid wrote:

Hwyangel, the first of your three previous posts addressed incest. Fortunately, SSM is recognized in New York, so we can go online and view New York law:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cg... @LLDOM+&LIST=LAW+&BROW SER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=564384 67+&TARGET=VIEW
I draw your attention to the DOM section - specifically article 2: Marriage (section 5 addresses incestuous and void marriages). Article 7 covers adoption.
I think you'll find that all states and nations' SSM laws are a bit more than JUST the three words "two consenting adults."

CFA Rocks wrote:

Queers spend too much time on Topix.
Get a life.

Gay And Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you in the LGBT threads again?

Nytebreid wrote:

Hwyangel, the first of your three previous posts addressed incest. Fortunately, SSM is recognized in New York, so we can go online and view New York law:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cg... @LLDOM+&LIST=LAW+&BROW SER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=564384 67+&TARGET=VIEW
I draw your attention to the DOM section - specifically article 2: Marriage (section 5 addresses incestuous and void marriages). Article 7 covers adoption.
I think you'll find that all states and nations' SSM laws are a bit more than JUST the three words "two consenting adults."

Judged:

1

CFA Rocks wrote:

<quoted text>
To defend Chick-Fil-A and the American way of life from homosexuals.

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>What I'm saying is that I believe in childrens rights to be protected from disease and deformity through blood testing and prohibiting marriage to immediate family. The right to know their family history and their medical history. The right to be cared for through grandparents rights or other immediate family should something happen to their parents. The right to inheritance and child support. Unlike adopted children a natural born child does not have these rights established through adoption. And unlike same sex couples, they don't have the ability to establish a will or power of attorney.

hwyangel wrote:

The redefinition of marriage for same sex couples is "two consenting adults". So if those "two consenting adults" happen to be siblings, first cousins or an aunt or uncle then it would be illegal to discriminate. Children would no longer be protected from being deformed. And if those "two consenting adults" happen to have a life threatening disease the children are no longer protected from that either because blood testing would discriminate against children who are adopted. And of course marriage would no longer give children a right to their nationality or their medical history because that would be discrimination against same sex couples too. But of course same sex marriage is not about children.

hwyangel wrote:

And let's not forget polygamy. If you have two women, they get married. They each have their own children. It doesn't prohibit the childrens fathers from being responsible for child support or having a relationship with their children. What you have is two sets of children with four legally responsible adults. The relationship is there and the financial responsibility is there. The only thing missing is the marriage certificate and the tax write off. How is this not polygamy?

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. Marriage equality for gay people means allowing gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect. That does not involve changing any of the rules about relatives.
But you would be right to believe marriage isn't only about children. Ability or desire for procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in any state and people who are past the age or infertile for other reasons get married every day. To make it one now, and only for gay people, is irrational.

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>
A bill that would repeal New Hampshire’s 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage would also allow two citizens of either sex to enter into a civil union —even siblings. Bates explained to the Union Leader that incest laws would not be violated by allowing siblings to enter into civil unions.“There is no reason for us to speculate on the sexual nature of that relationship,” he said.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/new-hampshi...
The major argument advanced by the Government in favour of civil partnerships is that there were ‘hard cases’ which needed to be remedied – individual cases of disadvantage suffered by homosexual couples in comparison to married couples. Yet for every ‘hard case’ cited for a homosexual couple, there will be almost 60 times as many cases which apply to people in ordinary families. For example, two elderly sisters live together for twenty years. One dies, and the other can’t afford the inheritance tax and has to sell the home they shared. A gay couple register their partnership. One dies after only a year and the other inherits a large property, tax-free. Over 80% of the public believed the Civil Partnership Bill should have been fairer to ordinary families according to an opinion poll. Even the Government and supporters of the Bill were forced to admit that civil partnerships created injustice for ordinary family members.
It's just a matter of time.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
This demonstrates some of the problems that come up when trying to deny legal equality. The simple solution is to treat gay people equally under the law, rather than trying to create a less than equal compromise.

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree.
Gay Cousin Marriage ! The NEXT Frontier !(shoes not required).
:)

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

It's ridiculous that minorities can throw their politically correct weight around.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

“Government ought to be kept off our backs, out of our pocketbooks, and out of our bedrooms.”
“The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."
“There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that's not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don't raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."
Conservative Icon, Republican Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater.
Prejudice and discrimination are not conservative values, even though many who claim to be conservative promote them.

Gay And Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess since they already have hetero cousin marriage in many places...
(I don't know any LGBT people who have the slightest interest in being romantic with blood relatives.)

Gay And Proud wrote:

<quoted text>Exactly! Who do those white, heterosexual, Christian men think they are?