The Constitution guarantees no one the "right" to redefine marriage to fit their personal preferences.

This assertion that it's "constitutional rights" is getting old and carries no legal basis.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and has been this way for its entire existence because it's beneficial to humanity.

A man and a man or a woman and a woman are not marriage. No more than a triangle can be called round.

Oh man, silly America.

Btw, separation of religion and state allows one to look further than old ( and thus not adapted anymore ) views about what actually a relationship is about.

Nobody is to say who is allowed to bond with whom, not even the state. Marriage is between individuals and not "man and woman", because in the end we all start as women so there is no sense at all at imposing something completely unnatural and that has never been intended by our brain chemistry. ( That is forced heterosexual relationships )

The Constitution guarantees no one the "right" to redefine marriage to fit their personal preferences. This assertion that it's "constitutional rights" is getting old and carries no legal basis.

You're completely wrong here. Marriage is, by U.S. law, a constitutional right. Here is part of the Supreme Court ruling regarding the 1967 case that subsequently allowed interracial marriage:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

 

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

While it doesn't discuss same sex marriage, this still applies because gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals are being denied the right to marry someone from the same sex, mostly for religious reasons. In the U.S., that kind of logic is unconstitutional and violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Proposition 8, the referendum that repealed the same sex marriage bill in California during the 2008 election, was declared unconstitutional for this very reason.

While it doesn't discuss same sex marriage

This summarizes the lack of legal basis for the claim.

The Supreme Court ruling guarantees everyone the right to marry. Not the right to redefine marriage to fit their personal preferences.

That has no support for your case, in the same way it would have no support for anyone claiming it gives them the right to polygamous or incestuous so-called "marriage."

This summarizes the lack of legal basis for the claim.

The Supreme Court ruling guarantees everyone the right to marry. Not the right to redefine marriage to fit their personal preferences.

 

That has no support for your case, in the same way it would have no support for anyone claiming it gives them the right to polygamous or incestuous so-called "marriage."

Completely huge strawman here. Marriage is, by constitutional law, defined as "one of the basic civil right to man," and it was specifically said as such via the 1967 Supreme Court ruling. Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (and for the latter, the Fifth Amendment, too).

Also, there has yet to be any objective scientific evidence that same sex marriage encourages polygamy or incest; banning same sex marriage altogether does not close that Pandora's Box of incest and polygamy, because they can easily apply to opposite sex marriages, too.

Oh how I hate that I'm probably gonna be stuck working at chick fil a

And oh, the sweet irony in the fact that this gets Chick-Fil-A a ton of money. Stir up overdefensive butthurt people and continue to poke them with a stick, drawing curiosity and customers of the non-butthurt variety to the restaurant.

Btw, Chick-Fil-A neither discriminates against gays in the hiring process (As that is illegal) nor refuses to let gays eat there (I would know. I was stuck with possibly the least subtle lesbians ever born. I think the people in the next building over could have picked up on their LOUD conversation about their painfully explicit sex lives).

Completely huge strawman here.

Actually it's you who just pulled off a nice strawman argument.

I did not claim same-sex so-called marriage leads to polygamy and incest.

I stated that claiming the 1967 court ruling supports same-sex so-called marriage has no more legal basis than claiming it supports polygamous and incestuous marriages.

It supports none of these three.

If you can pretend it supports one idea of re-defined marriage, then it can just as easily support any other idea of re-defined marriage.

You have also failed to address my main point. The 1967 court rulings guarantees "man" (i.e. men and women) the right to marry.

It does not, however, guarantee any man or woman the "right" to re-define marriage to fit what they personally want marriage to mean.

A gay person has the right to marry. They do not, however, have the fictitious "right" to decide what marriage is.

The 1967 court rulings does absolutely nothing to support same-sex marriage.

Claiming it does is akin to claiming the right to freedom of speech for men and women implies that you can re-define "freedom of speech" to include hitting people in the face with baseball bats as part of freedom of speech.

You have the right to marriage. Not the right to define marriage.

The problem with your argument is that you combine the two. They are two completely different things. CFA has constantly lobbied and associated itself with charities who are against same sex marriage (and same sex rights altogether). The Freedom Research Council, for one, is a widely known HATE group and have been in the news quite a bit. Their lobbying to not condemn Uganda's bill to execute gay/bisexual men and women is one of their most notorious.

By pulling yet another strawman, you're completely missing the point of not just marriage, but the 1967 Supreme Court ruling altogether.

Besides dealing with civil rights, part of the purpose for putting forward the ruling in my counterargument is because interracial marriage was deemed illegal, primarily for religious and racial reasons. That's a form of discrimination and violates the United States Constitution. We're seeing that in some states these days because the LGBT is being discriminated against for wanting to marry. The most popular reason against gay marriage is because it violates the "religious tradition of a union between a man and a woman." That logic — and the fact that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders aren't allowed to marry of the same gander (mostly due to their orientation) — completely violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Many courts and some states know this. California's Court of Appeals rejected Proposition 8 reasoning for this. The Supreme Court of Iowa (a relatively conservative state) legalized same sex marriage because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Prior to DOMA in 1996, there weren't any notable steps towards providing any legal federal ruling dictating the legal federal — NOT religious — definition of marriage. It was rushed into law because the LGBT in Hawaii was being discriminated against, and the Hawaii legislature wanted to provide more solid equal protection of the law to the LGBT along with opposite sex marriage. DOMA became a severe roadblock for all states, Hawaii including.

And now many states, North Carolina being the most recent, have been ratifying their state constitutions to effectively ban legal same sex unions (marriage or civil unions). The reason is to keep up with the "traditional (religious) marriage," which is an invalid argument under the U.S. Constitution.

Even today, the government still doesn't provide any concrete legal federal definition of marriage. If there were, then how come President W. Bush and other sectors of Congress (including Paul Ryan) have wanted or tried to propose a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the first place? They've been repeatedly struck down because Congress will never approve of it.

Despite DOMA still being under law, the Obama administration no longer recognizes it nor will it ever defend it again because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. DOMA discriminates people of sexual orientation because it gives states the leverage to strip the LGBT of any federal and nationwide recognition, benefits, and protection of the law that heterosexual marriage provides. A Connecticut court struck part of DOMA down on July 31st of this year for this reason.

Under federal law, the only way you can really effectively ban same sex marriage (and thereby making marriage as federally a union between a man and woman) is by passing an amendment that repeals part of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which will do nothing except open up an even bigger Pandora's Box.

Point blank, there are no good reasons to ban people from marrying in the same gender.

What if a 63 year old man wanted to marry a 7 year old boy? Should we permit that too? I mean they both consent so apparently we're now "discriminating" them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

by allowing it you would change the literal definition of marriage not the constitutional, if you allow gays to marry we'd have to allow incestual marriage, beastistic marriages, marriages between children, inaniamite objects, etc. lest we be hypocritical

Your argument is severely flawed.

Many example you have here are sexual paraphilia. Homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality are sexual orientations. Transsexuality (transgenderism) is gender identity. They're not paraphilia. Homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, and transgenders are constantly being shunned by many state governments from marrying in the same gender due to the (bogus) perception of same sex marriage "violating the marriage tradition." That's illegal, and that's orientation discrimination.

In the U.S., marriage between people is illegal until you turn eighteen (a minimum of sixteen via parental consent). I'm very against marriage between adolescents and/or children because marriage — a big step on its own — is a much bigger step for them age-wise and cognitively: Their brains aren't fully developed to working, concentrating, and living on their own then compared to when they turn eighteen, nineteen, twenty years old.