Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[Timshel]

Now how can anyone who isn't completely retarded, read those words, from our PREMIER Founding Father, and argue that our government is forbidden from passing laws and legislation on the basis of religious beliefs or principles? The 1st Amendment actually makes it possible to do so, without the fear it will lead to a national religion being established. That's the brilliance and beauty of the Constitution, in my opinion.

Please, you have no knowledge or respect for the Constitution.

Because the bible says so is not a legitimate reason for state action. Certainly, your religion can inform your views and positions, but you can't make something illegal just because the bible says so.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Please, you have no knowledge or respect for the Constitution.

Because the bible says so is not a legitimate reason for state action. Certainly, your religion can inform your views and positions, but you can't make something illegal just because the bible says so.

Sure we can, 3/4 of the States can make any goddamn thing they want LEGAL or ILLEGAL with ratification of a Constitutional Amendment, and there ain't a damn thing you, or a cabal of Liberal justices can do about it, it will forever be a part of the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether the Bible says it or not, that is irrelevant. Because something is or isn't mentioned in the Bible, is not a reason to reject it, that is just a stupid and unsupportable viewpoint.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Homosexuality is not an illegal act and the state has no legitimate reason to exclude them from all rights enjoyed by heterosexuals.

You are absolutely right, now if we could just find something they are being prohibited from doing because they are homosexuals, we might have a case for your argument! As it stands, according to every law I've read, homosexuals are allowed to obtain the same marriage license as heterosexuals, and marry someone of the opposite sex... which is WHAT MARRIAGE IS! No one is being denied a marriage license on the basis they are homosexual, and if you know of such a case, I will join you in protest, because that would be wrong.

I'll also take the opportunity to add, if we ever change the criteria for marriage, based on the fact that homosexuals wish to call same-sex unions "marriage" then we will establish that "marriage" is definable according to your sexual lifestyle, and the government will have a responsibility to ensure equality for all sexual deviants who wish to call their fetish "marriage" for as long as marriage is so defined in law. We have to apply whatever law we have equally, so if you change the parameters, expect the consequences.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Sure we can, 3/4 of the States can make any goddamn thing they want LEGAL or ILLEGAL with ratification of a Constitutional Amendment, and there ain't a damn thing you, or a cabal of Liberal justices can do about it, it will forever be a part of the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether the Bible says it or not, that is irrelevant. Because something is or isn't mentioned in the Bible, is not a reason to reject it, that is just a stupid and unsupportable viewpoint.

But there's not going to be an amendment, unless you keep denying gays their civil rights and then their might be one; just like the amendments that gave women the right to vote and Blacks the designation of being person's, instead of something less.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are absolutely right, now if we could just find something they are being prohibited from doing because they are homosexuals, we might have a case for your argument! As it stands, according to every law I've read, homosexuals are allowed to obtain the same marriage license as heterosexuals, and marry someone of the opposite sex... which is WHAT MARRIAGE IS! No one is being denied a marriage license on the basis they are homosexual, and if you know of such a case, I will join you in protest, because that would be wrong.

I'll also take the opportunity to add, if we ever change the criteria for marriage, based on the fact that homosexuals wish to call same-sex unions "marriage" then we will establish that "marriage" is definable according to your sexual lifestyle, and the government will have a responsibility to ensure equality for all sexual deviants who wish to call their fetish "marriage" for as long as marriage is so defined in law. We have to apply whatever law we have equally, so if you change the parameters, expect the consequences.

They're currently being denied the civil right of two consenting adults from being united in marriage.

Do you call your gay friends "deviants" and that the marriage you attended, a fetish??

You are such a puss.

 

[Timshel]

Again, no one was denied a marriage license based on the color of their skin. The SC still found the Virginia law violated due process rights.

The right to marry someone you do not love is of little use. In fact, I would say the ban on same sex marriage is more of a fundamental denial of the right to marry than bans on interracial marriage. Even if one falls in love with someone of a different race it is not likely that one could only find love with a person of another race. A homosexual will not have the same sort of bond with a person of another sex. That bond is key to some of the most important benefits of marriage, e.g., power of attorney if you are incapacitated.

You have evaded and ignored the questions that put the lie to your slippery slope argument. Why haven't laws prohibiting bestiality been overturned? Why haven't laws concerning sex with minors been overturned, but have become more restrictive? The reason is clear, because those acts are not consentual. Unconsentual sex and marriage may be prohibited because the state has a valid interest in ensuring that the rights of individuals are not violated. Society's acceptance of homosexuality has increased dramatically while, at the same time, acceptance of sex with a minor has declined. There is, absolutely, no reason to believe allowing gay marriage would lead to acceptance of these things, which are not at all connected.

Also, there are no marriage restrictions for people who share other unusual sexual preferences. Swingers, SM freaks, deviants who don't like oral, anything and everything is allowed in consentual marriages.

Your fear is unfounded and as far as I can tell, it hasn't even been offered as an argument in any of the challenges to gay marriage bans. Why, because it makes clear that homosexuals are being singled out for special condemnation, which would only weaken the position of one trying to defend the marriage bans.

A federal judge will soon rule on whether Prop 8 violates the US Consitution. I am not sure the time is right for this, but I think it's quite likely that the 9th circuit will overturn bans on gay marriage.

There is also an ongoing challenge to section 3 of DOMA which drastically changed how the federal government recognizes marriage and for the first time set federal guidelines. I really don't see how that will withstand a court challenge. Even the conservatives should vote against it as Congress has no power to encourage or discourage marriage. But I am sure Scalia will find some bullshit to justify his partisan vote.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again, no one was denied a marriage license based on the color of their skin. The SC still found the Virginia law violated due process rights.

The right to marry someone you do not love is of little use. In fact, I would say the ban on same sex marriage is more of a fundamental denial of the right to marry than bans on interracial marriage. Even if one falls in love with someone of a different race it is not likely that one could only find love with a person of another race. A homosexual will not have the same sort of bond with a person of another sex. That bond is key to some of the most important benefits of marriage, e.g., power of attorney if you are incapacitated.

You have evaded and ignored the questions that put the lie to your slippery slope argument. Why haven't laws prohibiting bestiality been overturned? Why haven't laws concerning sex with minors been overturned, but have become more restrictive? The reason is clear, because those acts are not consentual. Unconsentual sex and marriage may be prohibited because the state has a valid interest in ensuring that the rights of indivdiuals are not violated. Society acceptance of homosexuality has increased dramatically while at the same time acceptance of these acts has declined. There is, absolutely, no reason to believe allowing gay marriage would lead to acceptance of these things, which are not at all connected.

Also, there are no marriage restrictions for people who share other unusual sexual preferences. Swingers, SM freaks, deviants who don't like oral, anything and everything is allowed in consentual marriages.

Your fear is unfounded and as far as I can tell, it hasn't even been offered as an argument in any of the challenges to gay marriage bans. Why, because it makes clear homosexual sex is being singled out for special condemnation, which would only weaken the position of one trying to defend the marriage bans.

A federal judge will soon rule on whether Prop 8 violates the US Consitution. I am not sure the time is right for this, but I think it's quite likely that the 9th circuit will overturn bans on gay marriage.

There is also an ongoing challenge to section 3 of DOMA which drastically changed how the federal government recognizes marriage and for the first time set federal guidelines. I really don't see how that will withstand a court challenge. Even the conservatives should vote against it as Congress has no power to encourage or discourage marriage. But I am sure Scalia will find some bullshit to justify his partisan vote.

After reading your first sentence, I came to the conclusion that the rest of your post was probably just as full of shit, as it was.

Anyone that believes that no one was denied a marriage license; because of the color of their skin, is an idiot and a fucking stupid one, at that.

Not to many years ago; a Black man and a White women, who were in love, would not only have been denied a license, in many States, but the Black man would have probably been beaten almost to death, then lynched, and set on fire.
The woman would have been lucky, if all they did was slap her around.

 

[Damocles]

Dumo, you are not only wrong, you compound being wrong with being completely full of shit about what you think is right. Stunning!

"DOGMA" is specific core principles followed by believers of a religion. It is never established as a "law" to be followed by non-believers of the religion. It's just NOT! EVER! Now, we DO establish laws which compliment our various "dogma" but that is because our "dogma" is what we believe to be "right" as opposed to what we believe to be "wrong," and there is no way to distinguish the two otherwise. I can't help that Christianity teaches it is not acceptable to murder people, that doesn't prohibit me from passing a law against murder because it is found in some religious dogma! What you are saying is fucked up beyond recognition.

And YES I fucking CAN and DO OFTEN pass laws based on religious dogma, religious principles, religious ethics, religious teachings, with religious influence.. I do it and the general population does it ALL THE FUCKING TIME you goofy bitch! And we've been doing it for over 200 years!

It is if you make your legislation so that all will follow your dogma. I know you want it to be okay really, really badly because you want everybody to have to follow your dogma, but it is certainly a restriction on the free exercise of others to do so.

*You can tell when you are winning an argument with Dixie when he starts trying to make fun of your internet moniker as if it will matter.

 

[Timshel]

And another point, if you honsestly believe your bs slippery slope argument then why would you claim to support civil unions for homsexuals? Wouldn't that mean that the state would be forced to recognize civil unions with minors, a pet or a mailbox?

 

[Timshel]

After reading your first sentence, I came to the conclusion that the rest of your post was probably just as full of shit, as it was.

Anyone that believes that no one was denied a marriage license; because of the color of their skin, is an idiot and a fucking stupid one, at that.

Not to many years ago; a Black man and a White women, who were in love, would not only have been denied a license, in many States, but the Black man would have probably been beaten almost to death, then lynched, and set on fire.
The woman would have been lucky, if all they did was slap her around.

I don't know why you continue to try to find fault with me on an issue that we seem to be in full agreemnt. Sour grapes, I guess.

Blacks and whites were both equally allowed to get a marriage license to someone of their own race. In the Loving case, Virginia claimed that this meant there was no violation of due process based on discrimination. Bower actually upheld such bans using this rationale. Ditzy, uses the same argument, i.e., that homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals.

 

[Liberty]

Based on what? I am likely the most consistently libertarian person on these boards.

I don't live in fantasy land where we are going to get the government out of marriage anytime soon. I would fully support that, it just aint gonna happen and I am not willing to watch millions have their rights trampled while we hold out for some Utopian position. As long as the state is involved it must not be allowed to discriminate or create barriers that violate equal protection of the laws and/or do not serve a valid state interest.

RStringfield,

You're really not a Libertarian, and you're leading people to believe things about Libertarians that are totally not true.

I don't really care how dramatic it is for people like you when I one day take your hand out of my pocket. That's your reality of it all. My reality is seeing people like you minding their own business.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't know why you continue to try to find fault with me on an issue that we seem to be in full agreemnt. Sour grapes, I guess.

Blacks and whites were both equally allowed to get a marriage license to someone of their own race. In the Loving case, Virginia claimed that this meant there was no violation of due process based on discrimination. Bower actually upheld such bans using this rationale. Ditzy, uses the same argument, i.e., that homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals.

I don't give a crap what was decided in the Loving case; because it was just one case and it wasn't a hallmark moment for what was happening to many mixed race couples.

 

[Timshel]

"DOGMA" is specific core principles followed by believers of a religion. It is never established as a "law" to be followed by non-believers of the religion. It's just NOT! EVER! Now, we DO establish laws which compliment our various "dogma" but that is because our "dogma" is what we believe to be "right" as opposed to what we believe to be "wrong," and there is no way to distinguish the two otherwise. I can't help that Christianity teaches it is not acceptable to murder people, that doesn't prohibit me from passing a law against murder because it is found in some religious dogma! What you are saying is fucked up beyond recognition.

Again, laws against murder are not based SOLELY on religious dogma. There is an obvious state interest in prohibiting murder that has nothing at all to do with your religion or anyone else's. It violates the rights of the victim.

Would you honsetly think that murder was okay if the bible did not tell you it was wrong? Are you so incapable of forming your own opinion that you must rely on the authority of the superghost to find an argument against murder?

 

[Timshel]

I don't give a crap what was decided in the Loving case; because it was just one case and it wasn't a hallmark moment for what was happening to many mixed race couples.

Then you dropped the context of my statement in order to find fault. I was talking about Loving, which should have been clear. Immediately prior to that case, what law denied blacks the right to marry another black person?

What the heck do you mean that it was not a hallmark moment for mixed race couples? Of course, it was, as it permanently nullified all laws barring or penalizing such marriages. While it certainly did not end discrimination against the couples it was without a doubt an important step in lessening discrimination, as it eliminated state discrimination against such marriages.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Then you dropped the context of my statement in order to find fault. I was talking about Loving, which should have been clear. Immediately prior to that case, what law denied blacks the right to marry another black person?

What the heck do you mean that it was not a hallmark moment for mixed race couples? Of course, it was, as it permanently nullified all laws barring or penalizing such marriages. While it certainly did not end discrimination against the couples it was without a doubt an important step in lessening discrimination, as it eliminated state discrimination against such marriages.

Not that long ago, in our history, Blacks were not allowed to be married.
They could co-habitate (jump the broom); but if the master decided to sell one half of that union, it wasn't looked at as married couples being seperated.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But there's not going to be an amendment, unless you keep denying gays their civil rights and then their might be one; just like the amendments that gave women the right to vote and Blacks the designation of being person's, instead of something less.

Gays aren't denied civil rights. None of you have shown a single instance where they are, and you just keep repeating your idiocy. Women and blacks were both being denied their civil rights, but homosexuals are not.

In both cases you mention, a Constitutional amendment was ratified by 3/4 of the states. Both issues were resoundingly supported by religious activists, and by Stringy's or Dumo's standard, would have been "unconstitutional" to even consider their viewpoint, much less ratify an amendment. Nevertheless, the religiously-based view that blacks were humans and women were equal to men, was codified into law by the overwhelming will of the people.

Now, USF, you can sit there and reel off insulting blather all you like, it isn't going to make a difference to anyone but you. The fact of reality is, you have about 20% of the country who favors homosexual marriage, and about 80% who are opposed. You've got an unimaginable long way to go before you get cocky enough to brag about a constitutional amendment. Doing so at this point, makes you look like the abject moron you are, so it's fitting and proper you do so... go right ahead and knock yourself out!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They're currently being denied the civil right of two consenting adults from being united in marriage.

Two consenting adults do not have the right to join in marriage unless they are male and female, because that is what marriage is. Homosexuals are not denied this right.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Gays aren't denied civil rights. None of you have shown a single instance where they are, and you just keep repeating your idiocy. Women and blacks were both being denied their civil rights, but homosexuals are not.

In both cases you mention, a Constitutional amendment was ratified by 3/4 of the states. Both issues were resoundingly supported by religious activists, and by Stringy's or Dumo's standard, would have been "unconstitutional" to even consider their viewpoint, much less ratify an amendment. Nevertheless, the religiously-based view that blacks were humans and women were equal to men, was codified into law by the overwhelming will of the people.

Now, USF, you can sit there and reel off insulting blather all you like, it isn't going to make a difference to anyone but you. The fact of reality is, you have about 20% of the country who favors homosexual marriage, and about 80% who are opposed. You've got an unimaginable long way to go before you get cocky enough to brag about a constitutional amendment. Doing so at this point, makes you look like the abject moron you are, so it's fitting and proper you do so... go right ahead and knock yourself out!

You must be getting your 80% from some religious site; because the one on PollingReport.com has it at 44% Yes - 53% No - 3% unsure and that was in May, of this year, from the 3rd to the 6th.

I really think you know that your 80% is BS; but you have to stick with it, because you're worried about how the public opinion is changing and soon same sex marriages will be seen as Constitutionally sound.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is if you make your legislation so that all will follow your dogma. I know you want it to be okay really, really badly because you want everybody to have to follow your dogma, but it is certainly a restriction on the free exercise of others to do so.

Again... Religious DOGMA is specific core principles upheld by believers of a religion. They are not, and never have been, codified in law. You are misusing terminology, and it's frankly sad... a lot of people are under the mistaken impression you are smarter than that. Laws are established based on individual viewpoints, which may or may not be influenced by their personal religious dogma. And not only is it OKAY for us to do this, the Constitution guarantees we have the right to do this.

*You can tell when you are winning an argument with Dixie when he starts trying to make fun of your internet moniker as if it will matter.

No, you can tell when you've acted like a complete mindless jackass when Dixie assigns an appropriate moniker to mock your current one, Dumo!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You must be getting your 80% from some religious site; because the one on PollingReport.com has it at 44% Yes - 53% No - 3% unsure and that was in May, of this year, from the 3rd to the 6th.

I really think you know that your 80% is BS; but you have to stick with it, because you're worried about how the public opinion is changing and soon same sex marriages will be seen as Constitutionally sound.

Doesn't matter if my number is BS or your number is BS, you're living on a yellow brick road, wearing ruby slippers, and talking to a little dog, if you think you are anywhere NEAR having enough support to amend the Constitution. But it was nice of you to admit that same-sex marriage is currently NOT seen as Constitutionally sound...that's progress!