DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You ignore any study or research that does not back your assertions.
But same sex marriage would destroy the institution
- Thread starter Socrtease
- Start date
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I ignore any that is funded by groups with stated interests in making homosexuality look bad.
But I do believe the research done by leading psychologists and medical researchers.
I also hold my reasons up for all sexual orientations. I don't site excuses that I would not require be used against everyone. You do.
If they violate civil rights then majority approval is not a winning argument.
The courts have ruled otherwise, repeatedly. From Loving...
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). 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.
These convictions must be reversed.
It is so ordered.
You have been arguing that the religious definition of marriage is controlling.
Bull-fucking-shit. I have argued that the Feds have a check on state laws that violate the rights of citizens. That is all. I have not argued for or supported a party that has attempted to federalize marriage licensing. That is you.
Religion has absolutely no say on our laws. The churches are not a branch of the government and it's opinions only have weight within the respective church.
Marriage is a fundamental right of the INDIVIDUAL. It is not a power granted to the church or a custom owned by it.
Dishonest dodge and straw man. Was Napoleon the leader of our Federal government? Your argument was that he was the first to regulate marriage. That is not correct as I pointed out. Then you changed that to him being the first to register marriage licensing. That is also incorrect. Whether the colonies were part of our federal government has nothing to do with that. You are just spinning and grasping at straws.
You mean those studies that cannot withstand peer review.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The ones that I have cited have. You just don't like the peer.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The ones that I have cited have. You just don't like the peer.
And what peer would that be? If an anti-gay organization puts out pseudo-facts, and they are lauded by other anti-gays, its hardly something that holds any weight.
The top authorities in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and medical research have cited far different facts.
The ones that I have cited have. You just don't like the peer.
Not any I have seen you post. The only ones I have seen you post were in a pay-to-publish journal. They were not peer reviewed.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
??....I have?....where?.....I've been arguing that in order to marry someone you need to find someone of the opposite sex, because marriage requires someone of the opposite sex....that's why your argument from Loving is irrelevant......a person has a right to marry......a person does NOT have the right to marry someone of the same sex.....
no, it isn't me....the last thing I or any other Republican, wants is federalized marriage licensing.....if you think otherwise you are a fool.....be that as it may, if you look back to your post which started our argument you will clearly see that it was you that argued the federal government had more right to control marriage than religion.....that is what I responded to and that is what we are arguing about.....
again, I have never attempted to have religion have a say in our laws....that fiction comes from liberal paranoia.....
you were wrong....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
ad hom
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Libtards celebrate that queer marriages increase infidelity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
Then what's all the bs about YOUR definition of marriage or the way religions have defined marriage?
First off, the Loving case was presented, in this context, in answer to your incorrect claim that marriage is not a fundamental right. It is and the opinion states that.
Secondly, your argument is no different than the state of Virginia in Loving, i.e, that a person has a right to marry, but does not have the right to marry someone of another race.
The FMA, proposed five times by Repubs and supported by an overwhelming majority of them, mandates a federal standard. You are just being dishonest.
Nope, never argued that. Again the Feds are empowered to ensure that the rights of individuals are not violated by state laws, via the 14th and Bill of Rights. They are not empowered to pass laws mandating a federal standard for marriage. They could pass an amendment but that would violate the spirit of the Constitution.
Nope. Napoleon was neither the first to pass laws on marriage, the first to register marriage license or the first to register marriages as a part of the US Federal government. You are wrong on every point and are only absurdly attempting to spin your way out of it by shifting the grounds of debate to more and more ridiculous claims.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Not at all. There are organizations that are decidedly anti-gay.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So you want to continue to not allow gays to marry based on this single study that shows them to be more likely to have open relationships?
And lets not go overboard with the "Libtards celebrate that queer marriages increase infidelity", unless you can show anyone celebrating this facet of some marriages.
One little tidbit that you may have missed, "The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.".
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
It doesn't matter to YOU...because what YOU are doing here is pointing to the ETHNIC differences and biases among caucasians. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE from HOMOSEXUALS comparing their civil rights struggle to that of BLACK PEOPLE in America. And that is what I will prove time and again if necessary. If one is going to fight for civil rights, do it honestly and correctly, I always say.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
There are many similarities between the civil rights struggle of minority races and the current civil rights struggles of gays.
The comparison does not demean or change the struggle the blacks went through.
But until equality spreads throughout our entire society, none of us should rest or be satisfied.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
???...sorry, I'm only 58......it isn't up to me to create definitions.......all of humanity has known what marriage is for thousands of years.....it is defined by society.....not by a handful of socially and biologically disfunctionals who wish to gain acceptance.....
you keep ignoring the fact that marrying someone of the same sex is NOT a fundamental right....it is, in fact, an impossibility, since a union with someone of the same sex cannot, by definition, BE a marriage....
of course it's different, see the above....
I'm not being dishonest at all.....you cannot ignore the fact that conservatives oppose federal involvement.....if Massachusetts wishes to act like fools, let them.....just give us the power to ignore them.....
What I am telling you, "Mr. Civility", is that civil rights are civil rights, even if you don't like the idea that they are much the same thing because of the different reason they are being violated. The arguments for or against are the same, and even the book they use to support their violations is the same. The comparison is valid because it is the same rights being violated, the arguments to continue those violations are the same, and the arguments to end the violations are the same.
The way to avoid most of these violations, and thus the need to argue at all about this, isn't to get all hurty and mad because people notice and underline similarities with other past civil rights violations, it is to stop the government from making stupid laws limiting people's freedom for no reason other than to "protect the traditions" of the majority religion, or even a minority religion.
If we stop letting government perform surgeries with poop-covered hands to "fix" things they didn't need to mess with, we'll have much less infection. At some point we need to remember that individual freedom is something government is supposed to protect, not attempt to define away while protecting "traditions" of specific religions.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Seems like a civil rights violation to me.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, national origin, age, immigrant status, etc; and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Just change your inclusion of sex, replace it with race, and you'ld fit right in with a lot of people in the past.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
but that simply isn't true......if bi-racial marriage had been a biological impossibility (as same sex "marriage" is), then the bigots wouldn't have needed to pass laws prohibiting it....