But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

Damocles said:
I think you are wrong. I think the government has no business in marriage because we all have the freedom (right) to marry whom we choose, that any restriction on those rights (other than ones to ensure no victim is created i.e. underage marriage and hidden marriages) is a violation of civil rights.

IMHO, This is exactly equal to laws that said interracial marriages were illegal. Even if African-Americans don't like associating sexuality with race, it is still a civil right being violated.
Click to expand...
Except many queers, if not all, chose to be queer; blacks are born into it.
 
RStringfield said:
Not really. But the religious have no more of a say in marriage laws than anyone else. We are not a theocracy. The church has no check on our government. The Feds do have the power to check states when hey violate the rights of citizens with regards to marriage, see Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...
the last time I checked, each voter had the same say everyone else does....as I recall, most voters do not agree with changing the definition of marriage to accommodate gay couples....as I recall, this included Obama at the time of the election.....

The states are not empowered to violate the fundamental rights of citizens. See 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
there is no fundamental right to change the definition of marriage.....

The Repubs have attempted to pass amendments barring the states from allowing same sex marriage. Dixie advocates this.
Click to expand...
the voters within some states have moved to prevent their state from permitting same sex marriage....the only discussion on the federal level was an amendment removing full faith and credit recognition between states....

Further, the full faith and credit clause is an important and useful part of our union. Without it, the states are under no obligation to respect the legal judgments of another state. For instance, one could be ordered to pay child support in Florida and escape that judgment by moving to a state that would not enforce such judgments. Criminals could prey on the citizens of neighboring states without fear of their courts.
Click to expand...
then stop trying to use it to impose your lifestyle choices on everyone else.....you are putting that important function in jeopardy.....


Wrong again by an extremely wide margin. Go back, at least, 3500 years. The earliest known laws on marriage come from Hammurabi's Code.
Click to expand...

sorry, but no....there was no requirement in Hammurabi's Code that a person obtain the permission of the government to marry....it deals with resolving issues of dowry and inheritance, not with registration........in Europe prior to Napoleon one obtained the permission of the Church to marry.....he established the system of maintaining civil records of marriage across Europe....
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Except many queers, if not all, chose to be queer; blacks are born into it.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter, it is still their right to choose whomever they want to marry being usurped by the government with the support of people who can't get over the "ick factor" when measuring whether others should have those rights. There is a reason the arguments against it are the same as those used against interracial marriage, it is because they are arguing against others exercising their natural freedoms that are supposed to be recognized by our government as coming from our Creator.

I can give a crap less who they marry, or why they may want to, so long as they aren't victimizing children or hiding second marriages from a spouse. It just isn't the government's purview to supersede the rights of others because you don't like the way they exercise them. In fact, we limited the government's powers to keep y'all from doing exactly that kind of thing.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Never assume, Damo. We may agree to some degree on an issue, and then again may not. Then again, are agreements may come from totally different venues. Like I've said, I'm a registered INDEPENDENT....literally.
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
Well how about that?

People stopped with the condescending put downs and the name calling long enough to let you voice your opinion, and now suddenly they seem shocked that you have one, and a nuanced opinion at that.

Maybe if some of those on here so very quick with their standard retort "can you really be that stupid" or the snarky "WOW...just wow", will realize that if they'd just shut up for a few minutes they might get something besides the same standard reply.,
Click to expand...


It's just because they found a mutual point of agreement. Actually, that's not new when you go over all the exchanges on various subjects...I just suspect that they may be reading slightly more into my answer than intended....and therefore refrained from the usual vitrol. Oh well, time will tell.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Never assume, Damo. We may agree to some degree on an issue, and then again may not. Then again, are agreements may come from totally different venues. Like I've said, I'm a registered INDEPENDENT....literally.
Click to expand...


Damocles said:
I think you are wrong. I think the government has no business in marriage because we all have the freedom (right) to marry whom we choose, that any restriction on those rights (other than ones to ensure no victim is created i.e. underage marriage and hidden marriages) is a violation of civil rights.

IMHO, This is exactly equal to laws that said interracial marriages were illegal. Even if African-Americans don't like associating sexuality with race, it is still a civil right being violated.
Click to expand...

I NEVER said the gov't had any business in marriage. I was alluding to the debate of gay couples that although the state recognizes civil unions, the state does not recognize "marriage" of gay folk. Now I've heard there's a difference in "benefits" the State recognizes between spouses of "marriage" and "civil unions", although I'm damned if I can remember if there's actually any of note.

MY POINT was that "marriage" as recognized by religious organization and as taken in the historical context regards a man and a woman...in many religions with the expectation of creating children through the marriage. Since gay couples don't meet that criteria, their "unions" are not a marriage per se (unless you can provide evidence of a pregnant man or two women conciving a child via sex without artificial insemination).

And your "opinion" regarding equating this inter-racial sex and the laws that once banned such has a major flaw......inter-RACIAL...meaning TWO RACES. Last time I checked, there are no "races" of lesbians or homosexuals. And unless they dress or act a certain way, you can't tell who is gay.

My original statement stands.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I NEVER said the gov't had any business in marriage. I was alluding to the debate of gay couples that although the state recognizes civil unions, the state does not recognize "marriage" of gay folk. Now I've heard there's a difference in "benefits" the State recognizes between spouses of "marriage" and "civil unions", although I'm damned if I can remember if there's actually any of note.

MY POINT was that "marriage" as recognized by religious organization and as taken in the historical context regards a man and a woman...in many religions with the expectation of creating children through the marriage. Since gay couples don't meet that criteria, their "unions" are not a marriage per se (unless you can provide evidence of a pregnant man or two women conciving a child via sex without artificial insemination).

And your "opinion" regarding equating this inter-racial sex and the laws that once banned such has a major flaw......inter-RACIAL...meaning TWO RACES. Last time I checked, there are no "races" of lesbians or homosexuals. And unless they dress or act a certain way, you can't tell who is gay.

My original statement stands.
Click to expand...
Freaky. Seriously. It's like you expect a call from Kucinich, but you pick up the phone to find you are suddenly talking to Huckabee or something.

I'm not tying to insult here, I just think you are wrong and here's why: Most of us wouldn't be able to tell a Jewish person from any other white guy around, yet they were treated as a whole different "race" not too long ago (and still are in some places)... I don't equate "gay" with race, I do equate civil rights with civil rights though. Whether the rights are being creamed by somebody due to their race or due to the "ick factor" involved in their "choices" doesn't make much difference in the way people argue about them.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I NEVER said the gov't had any business in marriage. I was alluding to the debate of gay couples that although the state recognizes civil unions, the state does not recognize "marriage" of gay folk. Now I've heard there's a difference in "benefits" the State recognizes between spouses of "marriage" and "civil unions", although I'm damned if I can remember if there's actually any of note.

MY POINT was that "marriage" as recognized by religious organization and as taken in the historical context regards a man and a woman...in many religions with the expectation of creating children through the marriage. Since gay couples don't meet that criteria, their "unions" are not a marriage per se (unless you can provide evidence of a pregnant man or two women conciving a child via sex without artificial insemination).

And your "opinion" regarding equating this inter-racial sex and the laws that once banned such has a major flaw......inter-RACIAL...meaning TWO RACES. Last time I checked, there are no "races" of lesbians or homosexuals. And unless they dress or act a certain way, you can't tell who is gay.

My original statement stands.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
Freaky. Seriously. It's like you expect a call from Kucinich, but you pick up the phone to find you are suddenly talking to Huckabee or something.

I'm not tying to insult here, I just think you are wrong. Most of us wouldn't be able to tell a Jewish person from any other white guy around, yet they were treated as a whole different "race" not too long ago... I don't equate "gay" with race, I do equate civil rights with civil rights though.
Click to expand...

Predictable. Seriously. It's like you'd explode if you acknowledged my being correct here, so you just blow smoke with a half assed mock.

See ya around, Damo.....I had hopes.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Predictable. Seriously. It's like you'd explode if you acknowledged my being correct here, so you just blow smoke with a half assed mock.

See ya around, Damo.....I had hopes.
Click to expand...
I wish you'd read the whole thing and actually address the meat. Being all tender and hurty doesn't make you right.

The reality is, whether it is due to race or "choice" doesn't matter, if their rights are being trampled on the arguments remain the same. They even pick up the same books to try to support the arguments. Often things that are considered different "races" are indistinguishable by looks. I know people who would never let a person touch them unless they were also "Greek" (seriously I do)... I personally can't imagine why.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the last time I checked, each voter had the same say everyone else does....as I recall, most voters do not agree with changing the definition of marriage to accommodate gay couples....as I recall, this included Obama at the time of the election.....
Click to expand...

Yes, I said the religious had no more say than anyone else. Civil rights are not subject to majority approval.

PostmodernProphet said:
there is no fundamental right to change the definition of marriage.....
Click to expand...

Didn't say that. There is a fundamental right to marry whom we choose so long as they have the capacity to contract. It is you who demaqnds that marriage meet some religious test/definition but that is a clear violation of the Constitution.

PostmodernProphet said:
the voters within some states have moved to prevent their state from permitting same sex marriage....the only discussion on the federal level was an amendment removing full faith and credit recognition between states....
Click to expand...

Wrong. The FMA was proposed in 2006 by Republican's and defeated in the House. It never made it past cloture votes in the Senate where only 7 Republicans voted against cloture. This has been proposed a total of 5 times.

PostmodernProphet said:
then stop trying to use it to impose your lifestyle choices on everyone else.....you are putting that important function in jeopardy.....
Click to expand...

I am not gay. I just support equality before the law, for all. And it is Republicans attempting to attack the clause.


PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, but no....there was no requirement in Hammurabi's Code that a person obtain the permission of the government to marry....it deals with resolving issues of dowry and inheritance, not with registration........in Europe prior to Napoleon one obtained the permission of the Church to marry.....he established the system of maintaining civil records of marriage across Europe....
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
Click to expand...

I never said it required a marriage license. Your inaccurate claim was that Napoleon was the first to regulate marriage. That is not correct. And you are incorrect on the marriage licenses as well. Marriage registrations were recorded in the colonies as early as the 1600s.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes, I said the religious had no more say than anyone else. Civil rights are not subject to majority approval.
Click to expand...
laws are.....

Didn't say that. There is a fundamental right to marry whom we choose so long as they have the capacity to contract.
Click to expand...
no there isn't.....

It is you who demaqnds that marriage meet some religious test/definition but that is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
/shrugs....it isn't a religious test, it's a biological one......


I just support equality before the law, for all. And it is Republicans attempting to attack the clause.
Click to expand...
no one is attacking any clause....


I never said it required a marriage license. Your inaccurate claim was that Napoleon was the first to regulate marriage. That is not correct. And you are incorrect on the marriage licenses as well. Marriage registrations were recorded in the colonies as early as the 1600s.
Click to expand...
/shrugs.....I'm not incorrect....sorry....you tried to argue that the federal government had more authority with respect to marriage than religion......history obviously proves that to be inaccurate.....by the way, you might do well to recall there WAS no federal government in the 1600s.....
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Even if this is true, it does not matter. People choose their religion and the state may not violate their civil rights because of that choice.
Click to expand...
They have a right to marry whoever chooses them, as long as they are of the opposite sex. By making a poor choice they lose the right.
 
Southern Man said:
They have a right to marry whoever chooses them, as long as they are of the opposite sex. By making a poor choice they lose the right.
Click to expand...

Where do you get off denying them the same rights as we have because you claim its a poor choice?

We understand that you hate fags, but that does not give you the right to use the force of the gov't to usurp their right to equality.

This entire topic has been discussed to death, and you still haven't made a valid point as to why they should be denied the ability to marry.

Dixie came up with a logical and rational compromise, but you dislike that as well.

The hatred is unbecoming.
 
Southern Man said:
No reason to compromise between right and wrong.
Click to expand...

No there is not.

And yet you demand that the gov't follow what you claim is wrong, while ignoring any study or research that does not back your assertions.

You hate gays, we all get that. And I have no problem with it. Its your problem. But when you want to use the force of the gov't to shelter you from your fear, at the expense of the equality this nation stands for, you are absolutely wrong.

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage. The poor excuses you use are not valid reasons for laws, and even you do not expect them to be used against straights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top