|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 5, 2008 17:17:04 GMT -5
Good TagTeam... it is hard to infer tone in text... so I thought it best to error on the side of caution... I wouldn't want to soil my good name around here...
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 6, 2008 18:59:03 GMT -5
Religious beliefs aside. since there are many, marriage as generally defined by the state is the civil union of two persons. I'm not aware of any state law that makes any distinction between genders with regard to civil union other than those recently enacted due to the fairly recent flap over gay marriage, so the state of marriage under the color of civil law can reasonably be presumed to be neutral with regard to gender and sexual orientation. That said, the color of law can also be reasonably presumed to reflect the will of the greater percentage of the population of a given state. If the majority of that populace rejects a given concept, and such rejection does not conflict with Constitutional protections, then said will is normally presumed to constitute the letter of the law. The predominant majority of the US population resoundingly rejects the concept of homosexuality as being normal, and any civil union between two persons of said persuasion to be therefore abnormal and unacceptable in the context of the union of marriage as a cultural norm. Since the minority of US citizens who consider themselves homosexual do not enjoy Constitutional protection other than freedom from bodily harm or terroristic threat(hate crimes) then one cannot reasonably defend gay marriage as a right guaranteed to all.
Game, set, match.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 6, 2008 22:31:22 GMT -5
Religious beliefs aside. since there are many, marriage as generally defined by the state is the civil union of two persons. I'm not aware of any state law that makes any distinction between genders with regard to civil union other than those recently enacted due to the fairly recent flap over gay marriage, so the state of marriage under the color of civil law can reasonably be presumed to be neutral with regard to gender and sexual orientation. That said, the color of law can also be reasonably presumed to reflect the will of the greater percentage of the population of a given state. If the majority of that populace rejects a given concept, and such rejection does not conflict with Constitutional protections, then said will is normally presumed to constitute the letter of the law. The predominant majority of the US population resoundingly rejects the concept of homosexuality as being normal, and any civil union between two persons of said persuasion to be therefore abnormal and unacceptable in the context of the union of marriage as a cultural norm. Since the minority of US citizens who consider themselves homosexual do not enjoy Constitutional protection other than freedom from bodily harm or terroristic threat(hate crimes) then one cannot reasonably defend gay marriage as a right guaranteed to all. Game, set, match. You lost me after... "Religious beliefs aside."... please try to remember that some of us are just dumb ole rednecks... so please use small words and type slower.... Thanks ok now seriously... taking a look at the 14th amendment... Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. OK you can see the sections I made red... The first section says that every legal citizen of the US is covered by this Amendment... The second section says that states can not make laws that prohibit things protected by the Constitution... The third section (and the most important) says that no state can take away any legal citizens right to life, liberty, and property.... Liberty is the key word here... The constitutional definition for liberty is ''Liberty'' .--The ''liberty'' guaranteed by the due process clause has been variously defined by the Court, as will be seen hereinafter. In general, in the early years, it meant almost exclusively ''liberty of contract,'' but with the demise of liberty of contract came a general broadening of ''liberty'' to include personal, political and social rights and privileges. 74 Nonetheless, the Court is generally chary of expanding the concept absent statutorily recognized rights. I highlighted the important portion in red... so by not allowing same sex marriage homosexuals are in fact being denied a social "privilege"... a privilege that is afforded to heterosexuals.... heck a privilege that is even afforded to serial killers and rapists on death row... Now why would we as a country allow admitted and convicted violent offenders to have something that we are refusing to allow law abiding citizens to have? It just does not make sense to me. I have included the link to where I got this information if anyone would like to read more in search of a rebuttal... caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/03.html#5Here is what the Constitution says about "Family and Marriage" ''reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed.'' Now can you tell me that not only forbidding to recognize a same sex marriage but also to make it illegal.... that the state is not significantly interfering with these "citizens" right to enter a marital relationship? "right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause" that is self explanatory... caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/11.html#2
|
|
|
Post by huntnprayn on Dec 7, 2008 0:37:21 GMT -5
yes but to disallow gay marriage is a reasonable regulation......it's kinda like cruel and unusual punishment.....it might be cruel but not unusual and vise versa
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 7, 2008 9:07:10 GMT -5
But how can you justify allowing prisoners this right (when while in prison they should have just basic rights) but not allow it to homosexuals.... Do you really think that killers and rapists have more right to be happy than homosexuals?
And while it may seem reasonable to us... to not allow them to marry... I would be willing to bet that it seems pretty unreasonable to them..
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 7, 2008 21:06:39 GMT -5
The reason it's illegal (mostly) in the U.S. for gays to marry is because until gays decided to push the issue, it was generally acknowledged that a marriage was the union between a man and a woman. Since they (gays) want to test the definition, we (the disapproving majority) are being forced to spend a lot of time and money in our state judiciaries and congress to officially spell out in our constitutions, that a marriage is defined as being the union between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, not a man and a dog, or a man and a fish, nor a woman and a parakeet. The majority's position here Sleazy, is that gays can call it whatever else they choose, but the majority will never recognize it as a "marriage."
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 8, 2008 7:19:14 GMT -5
Since the legal concept of the civil union exists there is no reason to broaden that definition to include the term "marriage" against the will of the vast majority of the public. It grants nearly all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, so the only functional difference is the name.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 8, 2008 7:50:37 GMT -5
Since the legal concept of the civil union exists there is no reason to broaden that definition to include the term "marriage" against the will of the vast majority of the public. It grants nearly all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, so the only functional difference is the name. As I have said before.... if a civil union is good enough..... then why don't you get one instead of a marriage? The key word here is nearly... as was pointed out earlier... separate but equal does not work.... Did not work with whites only drinking fountains.... and whites only schools... because the fact is separate is never equal... Unless of course you are saying that homosexuals are not American citizens... or maybe you are implying that they are less human and more animal than "heterosexual" people...
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 8, 2008 8:27:20 GMT -5
The reason it's illegal (mostly) in the U.S. for gays to marry is because until gays decided to push the issue, it was generally acknowledged that a marriage was the union between a man and a woman. Since they (gays) want to test the definition, we (the disapproving majority) are being forced to spend a lot of time and money in our state judiciaries and congress to officially spell out in our constitutions, that a marriage is defined as being the union between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, not a man and a dog, or a man and a fish, nor a woman and a parakeet. The majority's position here Sleazy, is that gays can call it whatever else they choose, but the majority will never recognize it as a "marriage." Who acknowledged this?.... they never asked my opinion... did any politician ask for yours?.. Show me where in the Constitution that is says marriage is between a man and a woman... Show me where in any state constitution that it said that before all of this started... It does not specify anywhere in the Constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman... Do you really think that we (society as a whole) have the intelligence to make changes to a document written by some of the most intelligent men in the history of the world? The last real substantial change we (America) made to this living document was prohibition.... and we all know how that worked out... Also us as sportsmen and gun owners don't want society second guessing what was meant by the 2nd Amendment.... so what makes us think we have any right to second guess what was meant by any other Amendment?
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 8, 2008 10:36:42 GMT -5
Didnt anyone ever teach you guys not to argue politics or religion?
In this case you are dealing with both.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 8, 2008 11:07:45 GMT -5
The more reason for the two subjects to remain as separated as we can keep them, as intended by the brightest of our forefathers and the most influential of the framers of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 8, 2008 12:12:54 GMT -5
I'll leave it at this, I'll support the concept of homosexual marriage if Sleazy will support child molestors and sheep rapers being granted the same right. After all, they're Americans too, why should they be treated separately? There's the beginning of the slippery slope Sleazy, watch that first step...
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 8, 2008 12:48:15 GMT -5
I'll leave it at this, I'll support the concept of homosexual marriage if Sleazy will support child molestors and sheep rapers being granted the same right. After all, they're Americans too, why should they be treated separately? There's the beginning of the slippery slope Sleazy, watch that first step... Wasnt directed toward me ...... but I still dont understand it? Are you comparing pedophiles (and their "right" to marry their child victims) or persons who engage in beastality acts (and their "right" to marry their animals) to homosexuals? Hopefully not ..... but I cant see where else you would be going with that statement.
|
|
|
Post by huntnprayn on Dec 8, 2008 13:41:25 GMT -5
The reason it's illegal (mostly) in the U.S. for gays to marry is because until gays decided to push the issue, it was generally acknowledged that a marriage was the union between a man and a woman. Since they (gays) want to test the definition, we (the disapproving majority) are being forced to spend a lot of time and money in our state judiciaries and congress to officially spell out in our constitutions, that a marriage is defined as being the union between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, not a man and a dog, or a man and a fish, nor a woman and a parakeet. The majority's position here Sleazy, is that gays can call it whatever else they choose, but the majority will never recognize it as a "marriage." Hit it right on the head.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 8, 2008 14:57:30 GMT -5
I'll leave it at this, I'll support the concept of homosexual marriage if Sleazy will support child molestors and sheep rapers being granted the same right. After all, they're Americans too, why should they be treated separately? There's the beginning of the slippery slope Sleazy, watch that first step... Homosexuality is not against the law.... The two things you mentioned are... We are not talking about people taking advantage of children... or animals... We are talking about clear thinking, level headed, responsible adults... Comparing homosexuality to child and animal molestation is not only offensive to the homosexual community.... it boarders on slander.. What you did just did is exactly like when the anti's compare us hunters to blood thirsty killers with violent tendencies...
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 8, 2008 15:34:01 GMT -5
The majority of the voters, as evidenced by their well-publicized disapproval as well as results of recent referendums placed on various state ballots. It doesn't, that's why many states where the majority of voters disapprove of sanctifying same-sex unions as they do heterosexual unions because it compromise their morality are in the process of defining the term "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman. I suppose up until the radical fringe elements of society decided to rise up and demand the majority recognize their behavior as "mainstream", no-one felt such a need for defining the word "is". Hmmm... you may be in hot water with some of the female members on here who would take exception at your description of the XIX amendment (giving women the right to vote) as not being substantial. It was enacted a full year and a half after prohibition ( Better not let the wife see this one Sleazy ) Actually, there have been nine amendments passed since the XVIII, (prohibition) several of which i would consider substantial. The XXII (limiting the office of POTUS to two elected terms, and the XXVI. (lowering the voting age from 21 to 18), in addition to the aforementioned. At any rate, the U.S. Constitution isn't an issue here, as to date they have determined that no federal laws have been violated regarding the individual states definition of marriage whether the state declared it to be strictly a man-woman union or something other than that. I fully expect that if the SCOTUS does eventually rule on a federal definition of marriage, that animal-loving weirdos all over will petition the court for their rights also. Food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 8, 2008 15:48:01 GMT -5
Didnt anyone ever teach you guys not to argue politics or religion? In this case you are dealing with both. I believe that axiom would only be applicable to those wretched individuals who are incapable of carrying on a civil debate without coming to blows. None of us involved here are those.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 8, 2008 16:17:40 GMT -5
Didnt anyone ever teach you guys not to argue politics or religion? In this case you are dealing with both. I believe that axiom would only be applicable to those wretched individuals who are incapable of carrying on a civil debate without coming to blows. None of us involved here are those. Well put Hux... I do stand corrected... I forgot that women did not yet have the right to vote when prohibition started... As far as the other two... I do not consider them to be major changes... they did not have as large an impact on the populace.. I do not see how homosexuals marrying is less moral than homosexuals living together... if morality is the claim here... then lets get back to the basics... lets get rid of divorce... lets stone "loose" women to death... lets burn everyone that misses a Sunday sermon at the stake for being "witches"... as I pointed earlier... we are talking about consenting adults... taking advantage of an animal is completely different...
|
|