I missed out on that burning question "Can't I get Married too"

[killianr1]

Why Can't I Get Married too?

This whole question about same sex marriage and sibling marriage had led us that the really burning question "Can't I marry an animal"

And the answer is why certainly, as long as you can get them to say yes.

Now I think that sums up the topic.

[undine]

Good luck.

[Captain Obvious]

This whole question about same sex marriage and sibling marriage had led us that the really burning question "Can't I marry an animal"

And the answer is why certainly, as long as you can get them to say yes.

Now I think that sums up the topic.

Have at it, Romeo:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY5bGwrVQz4

[sotmfs]

This whole question about same sex marriage and sibling marriage had led us that the really burning question "Can't I marry an animal"

And the answer is why certainly, as long as you can get them to say yes.

Now I think that sums up the topic.

So you think that allowing two people of the same sex that are adults and consent to marry each other opens the door to bestiality ,or for that matter it opens the door to anything?

[sotmfs]

This whole question about same sex marriage and sibling marriage had led us that the really burning question "Can't I marry an animal"

And the answer is why certainly, as long as you can get them to say yes.

Now I think that sums up the topic.
How does one get an animal to understand what marriage entails and agree to it?

[Mr Happy]

So you think that allowing two people of the same sex that are adults and consent to marry each other opens the door to bestiality ,or for that matter it opens the door to anything?

It's called a strawman...

[Mr. Freeze]

Did anyone actually bother to read his post? The man is showing the difference between the argument for bestiality and two men or women marrying. An animal cannot consent, ergo we will not see bestial marriages.

[sotmfs]

Did anyone actually bother to read his post? The man is showing the difference between the argument for bestiality and two men or women marrying. An animal cannot consent, ergo we will not see bestial marriages.

Good point.I guess I misunderstood.Thank you.

[sachem]

Why marry an animal? What can you get out of the divorce?

:p

[jillian]

Did anyone actually bother to read his post? The man is showing the difference between the argument for bestiality and two men or women marrying. An animal cannot consent, ergo we will not see bestial marriages.

that isn't the point of the o/p. it's to continue his thread disparaging gays.

[Mister D]

that isn't the point of the o/p. it's to continue his thread disparaging gays.

He is a gay man, dear. Seriously...:rollseyes:

[Captain Obvious]

Why marry an animal? What can you get out of the divorce?

:p

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/43755523.jpg

[jillian]

He is a gay man, dear. Seriously...:rollseyes:

he just sounds gay.

[Mister D]

he just sounds gay.

:huh:

[jillian]

:huh:

well, he does seem to be obsessed with what gay men do in bed.

no?

[Mr. Freeze]

he just sounds gay.

He stated he was gay in another thread.

[Mister D]

well, he does seem to be obsessed with what gay men do in bed.

no?

That might be because he likes to be in bed with gay men.

[Codename Section]

that isn't the point of the o/p. it's to continue his thread disparaging gays.

That was Nathan's thread. This dude's a gay and I think wanted to have his say on gay marriage.

[Cthulhu]

So you think that allowing two people of the same sex that are adults and consent to marry each other opens the door to bestiality ,or for that matter it opens the door to anything?

Are you suggesting that it doesn't widen what is acceptable in the eyes of the law?

[Dr. Who]

Jillian - Killian is openly gay - ask him.

[jillian]

He stated he was gay in another thread.

interesting… then perhaps he should reconsider his political support since the people he votes for treat people like him with disdain.

[jillian]

Jillian - Killian is openly gay - ask him.

so that was said…. if that's true, obviously i apologize to him.

but he really should reconsider who he votes for and the political positions he takes if that's true.

[iustitia]

^lol OOPS.

[Agravan]

interesting… then perhaps he should reconsider his political support since the people he votes for treat people like him with disdain.
In your WARPED opinion.

[Chris]

Jillian - Killian is openly gay - ask him.

He's always been open about it.


Jillian, stop misrepresenting people to propagandize your partisan agenda.

[Codename Section]

interesting… then perhaps he should reconsider his political support since the people he votes for treat people like him with disdain.

Why? Not everyone is single issue. Some people have money and like to keep it. Then again, he could be a libertarian in which case he's both gay and intelligent. :D

[Mister D]

interesting… then perhaps he should reconsider his political support since the people he votes for treat people like him with disdain.

Who exactly?

[killianr1]

that isn't the point of the o/p. it's to continue his thread disparaging gays.

As a gay man I find your comment somewhat amusing.

The intent of this post was to make you laugh and think about how silly this whole thing has become.
As far as gay marriage, my only concern is that it does offend certain groups. But I am a strong believer in equal protection under the law. There is a difference you know. Think about it

[Codename Section]

As a gay man I find your comment somewhat amusing.

The intent of this post was to make you laugh and think about how silly this whole thing has become.
As far as gay marriage, my only concern is that it does offend certain groups. But I am a strong believer in equal protection under the law. There is a difference you know. Think about it


You're a cat lover. We can't be friends. I don't like your type. :tongue:


jk

[killianr1]

interesting… then perhaps he should reconsider his political support since the people he votes for treat people like him with disdain

Interesting ...then perhaps you should reconsider the people you support because they are doing everything in their power to destroy the middle class, wreck the economy, and destroy the American way of life. That includes limiting as many of your freedoms as they can.

[killianr1]

You're a cat lover. We can't be friends. I don't like your type. :tongue:


jk

And just to let you know, I think you're the cat's meow.

Meow

[jillian]

Interesting ...then perhaps you should reconsider the people you support because they are doing everything in their power to destroy the middle class, wreck the economy, and destroy the American way of life. That includes limiting as many of your freedoms as they can.


hey... you're the one who wants to support people who disparage you and want to discriminate against you... so much so that their platform includes a constitutional amendment to make sure you aren't treated like everyone else.

i wish you well.

as for the rest of the above nonsense... meh.

[Cthulhu]

hey... you're the one who wants to support people who disparage you and want to discriminate against you... so much so that their platform includes a constitutional amendment to make sure you aren't treated like everyone else.

i wish you well.

as for the rest of the above nonsense... meh.

Hey jillian, something I have always wondered, do you think the government should be involved in marriage at all? I mean really, what business is it of the government anyways so long as it is consenting adults?

What are your thoughts on it?

[jillian]

Hey @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719), something I have always wondered, do you think the government should be involved in marriage at all? I mean really, what business is it of the government anyways so long as it is consenting adults?

What are your thoughts on it?

this has been asked and answered more times than i can think of.

government has always been involved in marriage. there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that emanate from the legal status of being married.

equal protection under the law is the issue.

[Mister D]

this has been asked and answered more times than i can think of.

government has always been involved in marriage. there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that emanate from the legal status of being married.

equal protection under the law is the issue.

You still haven't answered the question.

And, no, the issue is the social acceptance of homosexuals. Nothing more.

[Mr. Freeze]

hey... you're the one who wants to support people who disparage you and want to discriminate against you... so much so that their platform includes a constitutional amendment to make sure you aren't treated like everyone else.

i wish you well.

as for the rest of the above nonsense... meh.

Maybe he is a libertarian? Why must people assume that the only option for people left leaning is the Democrats or right leaning is the Republicans? Libertarianism offers everything that Democrats do in social policies and everything Republicans claim to do for fiscal issues without all the Endless War and Corporatism that goes with them.

[Cthulhu]

this has been asked and answered more times than i can think of.

government has always been involved in marriage. there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that emanate from the legal status of being married.

equal protection under the law is the issue.

Remind me never to ask you a serious question again. Ever.

And if I do, someone slap me for being silly.

[Chris]

hey... you're the one who wants to support people who disparage you and want to discriminate against you... so much so that their platform includes a constitutional amendment to make sure you aren't treated like everyone else.

i wish you well.

as for the rest of the above nonsense... meh.



Too funny, you're the one disparaging him, jillian. What a farce.

[Mr. Freeze]

government has always been involved in marriage.

There was marriage before governments. Native peoples married. Nomadic peoples married. Government saw how people were having fun and living lives without it and realized it should regulate it. Just like pot.




there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that emanate from the legal status of being married.


Only because the government wanted to create a government citizen super user. Whether it should have or not ought to be debated instead of pursuing the argument of what "is".



equal protection under the law is the issue.

This has nothing to do with equal protection until you make the definition of marriage change legally. Currently, it is one man, one woman because that was considered a nuclear unit. That was how it was defined to exclude same-sex unions and polyamorous unions. Without redefining it by legislation and allowing the courts to use a simple "equal protection" argument you now open the playing field to polygamy unwittingly.

Now, as a libertarian who believes marriage is a contract that should not come with 1,000 rights and obligations in some tax and regulatory package deal, my system is entirely workable and simple. Whoever chooses to enter a partnership creates a legal document with all of their stipulations and associations clearly defined. Simple.

Not so simple when you get those 1,000 rights and obligations and there are 5 people in a relationship, 3 of them married to each other, 2 of them married to only one other person in it and kids have various sets of parents. That is a nightmare waiting to happen with this "package".

Progressivism complicates everything--good heartedly--but foolishly.

[The Xl]

this has been asked and answered more times than i can think of.

government has always been involved in marriage. there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that emanate from the legal status of being married.

equal protection under the law is the issue.

That didn't answer the question.

[killianr1]

hey... you're the one who wants to support people who disparage you and want to discriminate against you... so much so that their platform includes a constitutional amendment to make sure you aren't treated like everyone else.

i wish you well.

as for the rest of the above nonsense... meh.


I truly apologize that I have a brain and can actually think for myself.

You won't hear me say "moo" as you shuttle me into the perspective group to which you think I belong.

My perspective is I am gay and it's none of your damn business.

[Mr. Freeze]

In our own less virile way, millenials get treated as you do by the Democrats. They think they own your vote because they're nicer or something.

[undine]

Government is involved in marriage because marriage is a contract. Same with any other contract.

[undine]

I truly apologize that I have a brain and can actually think for myself.

You won't hear me say "moo" as you shuttle me into the perspective group to which you think I belong.

My perspective is I am gay and it's none of your damn business.
I think she has a point, though. It isn't Democrats that are insistent on outlawing gay marriage.

[Chris]

Government is involved in marriage because marriage is a contract. Same with any other contract.

You don't need government for that.

[undine]

You don't need government for that.
I think you do. Someone must enforce the law.

[Chris]

I think you do. Someone must enforce the law.

But it need not be government. Why not justice by contract as well? Two marry by contract, as you said, and in that contract is an agreement to settle disagreements by a third party arbitrator, with stipulation you renege you suffer monetary damages.

[undine]

But it need not be government. Why not justice by contract as well? Two marry by contract, as you said, and in that contract is an agreement to settle disagreements by a third party arbitrator, with stipulation you renege you suffer monetary damages.
I'd have to see it in action, I suppose. If the government makes the law, I would say they need to enforce it.

[iustitia]

I just think it's hilarious that Jillian faithfully demonstrated the typical plantation mentality of Democrats. You're either with us or you're not really a gay, black, hispanic, female, or whatever. She had no problem disparaging him when she thought he just "sounded gay" and then when she knows he is actually gay then oh shit time to change my tune and pretend I'm a humanitarian. People like this don't give a shit about their fellow man, or about these 'groups' and their rights, or about not being offensive. It's disgustingly calculating.

Am I the only one that noticed this? Hate on him for no reason and accuse him of being homophobic because of her inability to understand the topic, deny his gayness because if he's gay then she's wrong which is impossible, realize he is in fact gay and half-ass an apology, then condescend to him because all real gays have to think like her or they're traitors to their people.

Fucking amazing how politics works. Republicans appeal to blindly loyal citizens based on nationalism and Democrats appeal to blindly loyal idiots based on demographics and sectionalism. It's so disgusting.

Jillian and people like her should consider that she's not the final authority on what's in someone's best interests. The problem with Democrats, besides everything, is their pretentious and sanctimonious attitude to the people they pretend to give a fuck about.

[Chris]

I'd have to see it in action, I suppose. If the government makes the law, I would say they need to enforce it.

Long as government makes laws it will be restricted. Thought you were for people marrying freely.

[Dr. Who]

so that was said…. if that's true, obviously i apologize to him.

but he really should reconsider who he votes for and the political positions he takes if that's true.

He is a conservative.

[jillian]

He is a conservative.

no. he calls himself a conservative. he's a reactionary.

either way, he supports people who want to treat him as not equal.

i find that odd.

[undine]

Long as government makes laws it will be restricted. Thought you were for people marrying freely.

I am. But as long as government defines marriage, government needs to apply the right to marriage equally.

[undine]

no. he calls himself a conservative. he's a reactionary.

either way, he supports people who want to treat him as not equal.

i find that odd.

As do I.

[Codename Section]

Government is involved in marriage because marriage is a contract. Same with any other contract.

I have contracts with all my distributors. The government takes a cut. It doesn't define them for me.

[Codename Section]

And just to let you know, I think you're the cat's meow.

Meow

Must be my good looks and charming personality.

[undine]

I have contracts with all my distributors. The government takes a cut. It doesn't define them for me.

It will, however, enforce them for you.

[Codename Section]

It will, however, enforce them for you.

Yeh.

Let me explain the process. Someone doesn't hold up their end. I take them to court. Maybe I win, maybe I lose. Even if I win, the court awards a judgement, but doesn't make it pay. If it doesn't pay then I go back to court. The court awards a one time lien on their bank account. What if there is no money in it?

At the end of the day maybe I get paid, maybe not. FICO scores scare people more than courts do.

[Mister D]

As do I.

Who are these people?

[Codename Section]

no. he calls himself a conservative. he's a reactionary.

either way, he supports people who want to treat him as not equal.

i find that odd.

Not everyone values the same things in the same priority. Single issue voting isn't for everyone.

[Mister D]

Not everyone values the same things in the same priority. Single issue voting isn't for everyone.

Not everyone would have the unmitigated gall to say something like that you mean?

[undine]

Yeh.

Let me explain the process. Someone doesn't hold up their end. I take them to court. Maybe I win, maybe I lose. Even if I win, the court awards a judgement, but doesn't make it pay. If it doesn't pay then I go back to court. The court awards a one time lien on their bank account. What if there is no money in it?

At the end of the day maybe I get paid, maybe not. FICO scores scare people more than courts do.I don't take people to court, as it is usually a waste of time and I can write off business loses.

[undine]

Not everyone values the same things in the same priority. Single issue voting isn't for everyone.

I will always vote for someone that is more likely to uphold my civil rights, or anyone's civil rights. So yeah, it isn't for everyone, but it should be.

[Codename Section]

I don't take people to court, as it is usually a waste of time and I can write off business loses.

Exactly. Pitchforks and torches work better.

[Codename Section]

I will always vote for someone that is more likely to uphold my civil rights, or anyone's civil rights. So yeah, it isn't for everyone, but it should be.

Then I'm glad to hear you voted for Gary Johnson last time. Good show!

[Chris]

no. he calls himself a conservative. he's a reactionary.

either way, he supports people who want to treat him as not equal.

i find that odd.



Why do you have this persistent need to redefine and thereby misrepresent people? Are you afraid to argue with them for who they are?

[Chris]

I am. But as long as government defines marriage, government needs to apply the right to marriage equally.

Except it's not a right. Government doesn't create rights, rights create governments, at least in our case. It defines privileges, protections and penalties, all of which are restrictive.

[Chris]

Who are these people?

They don't know. Just convenient straw men.

[Mister D]

They don't know. Just convenient straw men.

Looks like it.

[undine]

Except it's not a right. Government doesn't create rights, rights create governments, at least in our case. It defines privileges, protections and penalties, all of which are restrictive.SCOTUS ruled it a right. So agree or disagree, it is a right.

[iustitia]

SCOTUS ruled it a right. So agree or disagree, it is a right.

And blacks are property.

[Mister D]

And blacks are property.

Ouch. That's what legal positivism gets you though...

[Chris]

SCOTUS ruled it a right. So agree or disagree, it is a right.

Who gave SCOTUS that power? Is it constitutional?

[Codename Section]

SCOTUS ruled it a right. So agree or disagree, it is a right.

SCOTUS ruled slavery a right at one point too and separate but equal. Plessy responded with "Fuck you".

[iustitia]

SCOTUS ruled slavery a right at one point too and separate but equal. Plessy responded with "Fuck you".

I believe the full quote was:

"Fuck you, fuck tha po-lice, fuck them black robes, fuck yo gavel, fuck them gay-ass shoes, fuck Oprah, and fuck all y'all niggas; I'm rich, bitch." -Homer Plessy

[Agravan]

no. he calls himself a conservative. he's a reactionary.

either way, he supports people who want to treat him as not equal.

i find that odd.

Y'all ever notice that jillian never starts a statement with "In my opinion"? She doesn't present "opinions" she present them as statements of "fact". Of course, she is never wrong, she is jillian. Everybody else is wrong, but never her. If a conservative told her the sky was blue, she would insist that it was not and she's right and you're wrong. there is no point arguing with jillian, she has proven herself to be a pathological liar and a sociopath.

[Codename Section]

jillian's not a pathological liar and sociopath.

[Codename Section]

I'm in the middle of a very important video game so can yall please tone it down with each other? I don't want the PTSD to act up.

Thanks much.

[iustitia]

jillian's not a pathological liar and sociopath.

Exactly, because being a pathological liar and sociopath is wrong, and Jillian's never wrong. :P

[Agravan]

jillian's not a pathological liar and sociopath.
Have you read her posts???

[Codename Section]

Have you read her posts???

Have you ever had any of the following: a) a girlfriend, b) a mother, c) a grandmother, or d) a wife ?

Are they ever wrong?


I rest my case. She's not a liar and a sociopath. She's female. They are never wrong.


--Also, ease up on the sociopath. Not cool. We can be snarky, we can be funny, but we don't do mean in these parts. I may have to stop playing my video game long enough to send Pete after ya.

[jillian]

Y'all ever notice that jillian never starts a statement with "In my opinion"? She doesn't present "opinions" she present them as statements of "fact". Of course, she is never wrong, she is jillian. Everybody else is wrong, but never her. If a conservative told her the sky was blue, she would insist that it was not and she's right and you're wrong. there is no point arguing with jillian, she has proven herself to be a pathological liar and a sociopath.

so spaketh someone who's never put two true words together.

thanks for trolling by.

[Dr. Who]

no. he calls himself a conservative. he's a reactionary.

either way, he supports people who want to treat him as not equal.

i find that odd.

Not everyone values the same things the same way. I know many gay people who are not interested in marriage per se. I know many heterosexual people who don't care about marriage - once upon a time I felt the same way. However once your life is tied up with another's for long enough one may have a change of heart. I did. One could probably satisfy most of the really important factors relating to the legalities of co-habitation with a contract. Yes it would cost you money in legal fees, but it would be just as legal. It would not have any bearing on income tax filings however. It really depends on whether you are or are not in favor of governmental interference in your life. That is a personal decision and everyone has a right to have an opinion on that score. Some like more and some like less. I doubt that anyone would like government enforced second class citizenship, but beyond that some people are not that anxious to have government that involved in their lives any more than is actually necessary. The prioritization of issues in one's life is a personal one and one that can change over time. IMO.

[Agravan]

Have you ever had any of the following: a) a girlfriend, b) a mother, c) a grandmother, or d) a wife ?

Are they ever wrong?


I rest my case. She's not a liar and a sociopath. She's female. They are never wrong.


--Also, ease up on the sociopath. Not cool. We can be snarky, we can be funny, but we don't do mean in these parts. I may have to stop playing my video game long enough to send Pete after ya.

When I married Miss Right I was unaware that her first name was Always.

[Agravan]

so spaketh someone who's never put two true words together.

thanks for trolling by. At least I can admit when something is opinion or when I'm wrong, can you say the same thing?

[undine]

SCOTUS ruled slavery a right at one point too and separate but equal. Plessy responded with "Fuck you".

Right. SCOTUS doesn't always get things correct. But until the ruling is overturned, marriage is a right. Good luck getting the right to marry overturned. You'll need it.

[iustitia]

His point is that rights aren't given by the government. Rights are rights regardless of what the state says. Relying on the state to inform you of your rights when historically they have often deprived us of rights, is folly. You either do have a right to something or don't, and a lawyer in a costume with a pretty hammer can't change that. When you accept the notion that only judges can determine your rights, you're setting yourself and others up for failure.

[Max Rockatansky]

Did anyone actually bother to read his post? The man is showing the difference between the argument for bestiality and two men or women marrying. An animal cannot consent, ergo we will not see bestial marriages.

Agreed. There is a public interest in preventing child and animal abuse. What two consenting adults do with each other is their business. Our government has a Constitutional duty to keep all laws fair and applicable to all residents of the United States. Those who argue against gay marriage are pushing an unConstitutional agenda. Either make the 1138 Federal legal rights and benefits of marriage applicable to all or remove them so there is no 14th Amendment conflict.

[undine]

His point is that rights aren't given by the government. Rights are rights regardless of what the state says. Relying on the state to inform you of your rights when historically they have often deprived us of rights, is folly. You either do have a right to something or don't, and a lawyer in a costume with a pretty hammer can't change that. When you accept the notion that only judges can determine your rights, you're setting yourself and others up for failure.And you've missed my point. Everything is a right unless their is a compelling reason to limit the right. Limiting marriage to white male, white woman or black male, black woman WAS law and there was no compelling reason for this right limiting law. SCOTUS rightly ruled it unconstitutional. This is what they are tasked to do.

[iustitia]

And you've missed my point. Everything is a right unless their is a compelling reason to limit the right. Limiting marriage to white male, white woman or black male, black woman WAS law and there was no compelling reason for this right limiting law. SCOTUS rightly ruled it unconstitutional. This is what they are tasked to do.That's funny because they actually ruled it constitutional. It took over 80 years for the Supreme Court to reverse their decision, much like it took almost 60 years to overrule segregation. So it's pretty much exactly the opposite of how you view things. You're not really making your case that the Court is a vanguard of liberty.

A right is a just or moral claim to something. I don't think everything falls into that, even including the compelling reason clause.

[Chris]

SCOTUS ruled slavery a right at one point too and separate but equal. Plessy responded with "Fuck you".



You mean SCOTUS can be wrong? Oh my! There goes the legal positive argument.

[Chris]

And you've missed my point. Everything is a right unless their is a compelling reason to limit the right. Limiting marriage to white male, white woman or black male, black woman WAS law and there was no compelling reason for this right limiting law. SCOTUS rightly ruled it unconstitutional. This is what they are tasked to do.

Simple question, when you say "SCOTUS rightly ruled it unconstitutional," why do you say "rightly"? What's the basis of whether their opinion is right or wrong?

[Max Rockatansky]

Simple question, when you say "SCOTUS rightly ruled it unconstitutional," why do you say "rightly"? What's the basis of whether their opinion is right or wrong?

The law. Specifically the Constitution. How else should they rule? It's the job of SCOTUS to rule on points of law. It's up to Congress to make those laws.

[Chris]

The law. Specifically the Constitution. How else should they rule? It's the job of SCOTUS to rule on points of law. It's up to Congress to make those laws.

That's legal positivism, to argue the law justifies the law, it's circular. There's got to be another basis for justifying even the Constitution.

[undine]

Simple question, when you say "SCOTUS rightly ruled it unconstitutional," why do you say "rightly"? What's the basis of whether their opinion is right or wrong?
There is no compelling reason to keep black and white people from marrying.

[Mister D]

There is no compelling reason to keep black and white people from marrying.

Nor is there a compelling reason for gay marriage. Why should custom and the meaning of marriage change to suit the social agenda of a tiny minority?

[undine]

Nor is there a compelling reason for gay marriage. Why should custom and the meaning of marriage change to suit the social agenda of a tiny minority?

More importantly, there is no compelling reason to outlaw gay marriage. If there is no reason to do something, the laws should reflect that.

[sachem]

Nor is there a compelling reason for gay marriage. Why should custom and the meaning of marriage change to suit the social agenda of a tiny minority?Customs change all the time. The meaning of marriage hasn't changed.

[Mister D]

More importantly, there is no compelling reason to outlaw gay marriage. If there is no reason to do something, the laws should reflect that.

Unfortunately, the argument is yours to make since it is the proponents of gay marriage who seek change. If there is no compelling reason for gay marriage you might want to stick to the emotional arguments you progressives so often make. At last you might be compelling on an emotional level. Lord knows that works on a lot of folks. If it didn't, we wouldn't even be discussing something so inane.

[Chris]

There is no compelling reason to keep black and white people from marrying.



I'm asking you what the basis of your saying so is. I happen to agree with you. But I'm interested in why you think so, what justifies or doesn't justify such action on the part of government? If you never think about these things, then never mind.

[Mister D]

Customs change all the time. The meaning of marriage hasn't changed.

Changing the meaning of marriage is precisely what gay marriage advocates are attempting to do.

[undine]

Unfortunately, the argument is yours to make since it is the proponents of gay marriage who seek change. If there is no compelling reason for gay marriage you might want to stick to the emotional arguments you progressives so often make. At last you might be compelling on an emotional level. Lord knows that works on a lot of folks. If it didn't, we wouldn't even be discussing something so inane.
You seem angry.

Laws shouldn't outlaw things unless there is a compelling reason to do so. You need to come up with a compelling reason to outlaw gay marriage.

[undine]

I'm asking you what the basis of your saying so is. I happen to agree with you. But I'm interested in why you think so, what justifies or doesn't justify such action on the part of government? If you never think about these things, then never mind.

I have no idea what response you are looking for. There is no compelling reason to make black/white marriage illegal. That is all you need to know.

[Max Rockatansky]

Changing the meaning of marriage is precisely what gay marriage advocates are attempting to do.

How so? I've heard this argument before and don't get it. How does granting two homosexuals the same legal rights under the 14th Amendment change the marriage of every straight couple in America?

[iustitia]

It's not changing "straight marriage". It's changing marriage.

[Mister D]

How so? I've heard this argument before and don't get it. How does granting two homosexuals the same legal rights under the 14th Amendment change the marriage of every straight couple in America?

It's not an argument. It's a simple statement of fact. Moreover, homosexuals have always had the same rights under the 14th Amendment at least as far as marriage is concerned.

[Mister D]

It's not changing "straight marriage". It's changing marriage.

Right and gays have never been prevented from marrying but sexual relationships with the opposite sex just aren't their thing.

[Mister D]

You seem angry.

Laws shouldn't outlaw things unless there is a compelling reason to do so. You need to come up with a compelling reason to outlaw gay marriage.

You seem incapable of making a compelling case. Who saw that coming? lol

[Max Rockatansky]

It's not an argument. It's a simple statement of fact. Moreover, homosexuals have always had the same rights under the 14th Amendment at least as far as marriage is concerned.

Marriage is a religious institution. Our government's sole concern should be the Constitution. In this care the 14th Amendment. There are two ways to fix this; either grant gay couples the same 1138 Federal rights and benefits granted straight couples or eliminate those 1138 special benefits. Simple.

[Codename Section]

You seem angry.


Women posters always say stuff like, "you seem angry". Why?

[Mister D]

Marriage is a religious institution. Our government's sole concern should be the Constitution. In this care the 14th Amendment. There are two ways to fix this; either grant gay couples the same 1138 Federal rights and benefits granted straight couples or eliminate those 1138 special benefits. Simple.

No, it's a cultural institution common throughout the globe.

Again, gays have always had the same rights under the 14th Amendment at least as far as marriage is concerned. What they want is to expand the definition to include their relationships. This of course has nothing to do with rights but with social acceptance and respectibility but that's an utterly uncompelling reason for change considering that gays are a tiny minority.

[Mister D]

Women posters always say stuff like, "you seem angry". Why?

Because they are typically highly emotional creatures who feel threatened in environments where logic and reason should at least in theory prevail.

[sachem]

Changing the meaning of marriage is precisely what gay marriage advocates are attempting to do.No. They are trying to get the legal protections that marriage offers.

[undine]

Women posters always say stuff like, "you seem angry". Why?I was just turning his argument back on himself. He was projecting.

[sachem]

Because they are typically highly emotional creatures who feel threatened in environments where logic and reason should at least in theory prevail.In theory.

[Mister D]

In theory.

Sadly, theory and practice sometimes diverge.

[Mister D]

I was just turning his argument back on himself. He was projecting.

Right! The reason gay marriage advocates do that is because deep down they realize how inane gay marriage really is and that there isn't any compelling reason for it other than to make a minority of a minority feel good about themselves.

[iustitia]

No. They are trying to get the legal protections that marriage offers.
No.


Right and gays have never been prevented from marrying but sexual relationships with the opposite sex just aren't their thing.Exactly. This is all about changing what is acceptable and changing society through the state.


Jack Nichols, American gay rights activist-

"The time has come to reject nostalgia for traditional family grouping and to seek new ways to realize the satisfaction they once brought. More encompassing definitions that bypass blood-line requirements must be instituted, we must create fresh new kinds of relationships, bearing no resemblance to past rituals"


Masha Gessen, lesbian journalist and activist-

"Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don't think it should exist."


Paul Varnell, LGBT journalist and homosexual advocate-

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's views of homosexuality"


Ryan Conrad, activist and open homosexual-

"After all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit"


Paula Ettelbrick, former director of Lambda Legal Fund Defense and Education and now executive director of the International Human Rights Gays and Lesbians-

"Being gay is much more than just making a cozy home, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking government approval to have these rights ... Being queer means modifying the parameters of sex, sexuality and family and, in the process, transforming the very fabric of society ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... to radically reorder the way society sees reality."


Michelangelo Signorile, Gay Activist Editor-at-Large for the Gay Voices vertical of the Huffington Post-

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture."


Not to mention, of course, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry who asserted that-

“We do want to change marriage.”


Chris Ashford, a Reader in Law and Society at the University of Sunderland-

"Although winning the 'gay marriage' fight has been a major step forward for the movement, it ain't over yet. There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on, yes sexual, that's what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign, and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalization of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only 'couples' might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind"


Anita Wagner Illig, thought leader, media consultant and American polyamory advocate-


“We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,” said Illig, who is the head of polyamory advocacy group called Practical Polyamory.
“A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage,” she argued, because gay marriage would then provide “precedent” for “other forms of non-traditional relationships.”


Jillian Keenan of Slate, from her article "Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding."-

"Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families."


This was never about equality.

[Codename Section]

I was just turning his argument back on himself. He was projecting.

Bah. Who gets angry over this shit? If it wasn't fun we wouldn't do it.

[Mister D]

No. They are trying to get the legal protections that marriage offers.

Than get married. What's stopping them? Oh, that's right. The opposite sex doesn't interest them. Oh well.

[Mister D]

Exactly. This is all about changing what is acceptable and changing society through the state.

This was never about equality.
[/LIST]

Frankly, I think it will come across the board but the nation is in decline. Bread, circuses, and gay marriage.

[Codename Section]

No.

Exactly. This is all about changing what is acceptable and changing society through the state.


This was never about equality.



Right but if people didn't treat gays like smelly dog's breath for so long maybe they wouldn't be bitter enough to want some societal revenge.

[Mister D]

Right but if people didn't treat gays like smelly dog's breath for so long maybe they wouldn't be bitter enough to want some societal revenge.

I think gay marriage is inane. I've never treated gays badly. Have you? I treat everyone with respect who deserves it and often even when they don't.

[undine]

Bah. Who gets angry over this shit? If it wasn't fun we wouldn't do it.
He does seem pretty het up about it.

[Mister D]

He does seem pretty het up about it.

No, you just realize that stupid gambit of yours didn't work and you're pissed about it. :grin:

[Codename Section]

I think gay marriage is inane. I've never treated gays badly. Have you? I treat everyone with respect who deserves it and often even when they don't.

Yeh, I sure did. When I was a freshman in high school there was a weird ass gay kid who wore fake nails and had a girls haircut and when kids picked on him, so did I. Then my older sister who was in drama and chorus with him came and bitched me out in front of all my friends at the jock's table and made me feel bad about it.

I started to be nice to him after that, but yeh I did make fun of him. I still don't feel comfortable entirely around gay dudes because it seems like the second I'm nice to them they fall in love with me. I had a guy at my old gym in North Stafford tell me he'd fallen in love with me and all I did was talk to him a bit here and there about my diet.

It's like a gut reaction with me that I just think its yucky. I can't help it.

But I know that's MY problem, not theirs. I think that everyone should have the right to live their lives in peace and do what they want if they don't hurt others. So while I don't think of marriage as anything other than two people being together for a while because they want to have kids, I am fine with other people thinking marriage is something different. It doesn't change what I think.

[jillian]

I think gay marriage is inane.

so don't get gay married.


I've never treated gays badly. Have you? I treat everyone with respect who deserves it and often even when they don't.

lmao.

[Mister D]

so don't get gay married.



lmao.

I won't. Don't worry about it. :smiley:

We see Jillian can't make a case either. Is anyone surprised? lmao

[Mister D]

Yeh, I sure did. When I was a freshman in high school there was a weird ass gay kid who wore fake nails and had a girls haircut and when kids picked on him, so did I. Then my older sister who was in drama and chorus with him came and bitched me out in front of all my friends at the jock's table and made me feel bad about it.

I started to be nice to him after that, but yeh I did make fun of him. I still don't feel comfortable entirely around gay dudes because it seems like the second I'm nice to them they fall in love with me. I had a guy at my old gym in North Stafford tell me he'd fallen in love with me and all I did was talk to him a bit here and there about my diet.

It's like a gut reaction with me that I just think its yucky. I can't help it.

But I know that's MY problem, not theirs. I think that everyone should have the right to live their lives in peace and do what they want if they don't hurt others. So while I don't think of marriage as anything other than two people being together for a while because they want to have kids, I am fine with other people thinking marriage is something different. It doesn't change what I think.

His parents shouldn't have let him dress that way. That's a recipe for disaster.

Look, not many guys feel comfortable around gays and even fewer when there is a gay man is noticably attracted to you. It's weird. Period. It's not wrong or right. It just is. Secondly, it is their problem once they hit on you.

[killianr1]

no. he calls himself a conservative. he's a reactionary.

either way, he supports people who want to treat him as not equal.

i find that odd.

I usually call myself a Libertarian. But if the classification is Liberal or Conservative I consider myself more Conservative.

My question to you is how could I ever vote for a Liberal Democrat. They certainly do not treat me as equal. I am in that upper middle income bracket that pays the highest percentage tax of any income group.

Do you feel that is being treated equally. Particularly when your commander in chief keeps talking about paying your fair share.

In my life I had five partners. 13 years, 3 years, 5 years, 5 years, and 5 years. I was never legally married to any of them. All of them worked and made good money. We lived a good life (the American dream)

I do believe that equal protection under the law is important. However the ability to be successful without being forced to provide for others who have made poor choices should not all be burdened on a small

segment of the population. And that is exactly what the Democrats promote. That is why I will never support them until they change their policies.

[iustitia]

5 hours and counting. Be patient killian, Jillian will find a way to make you as equally homophobic as all of us in no time.

[Dr. Who]

It's not changing "straight marriage". It's changing marriage.
How does it change marriage? Each marriage is unique to the couple marrying. There is no legislation that defines the relative duties and obligations of married partners. There is jurisprudence with respect to actions that breach the marital contract if the parties to the contract wish to dissolve said contract. These are simply basic elements that create a tort that violates the contract. They are often not even true. There are three basic torts - infidelity, mental cruelty and physical cruelty. Otherwise each marriage is defined by the participants. Some straight people have open marriages. Some straight people have childless marriages. Some straight people marry and live in separate homes and some marry for convenience but honor none of the traditional marriage vows. All of these things are at odds with the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage has never really been one size fits all.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, it's a cultural institution common throughout the globe.

The rest of the globe doesn't have our Constitution. What's your point? That we should be more like Russia and China? Much of the world is Muslim. Should we have Sharia law too?

Either you support the full spirit and letter of the law of our Constitution or you don't. Which is it? Shit or get off the pot, please.

[Mister D]

The rest of the globe doesn't have our Constitution. What's your point? That we should be more like Russia and China? Much of the world is Muslim. Should we have Sharia law too?

Either you support the full spirit and letter of the law of our Constitution or you don't. Which is it? Shit or get off the pot, please.

That marriage isn't a religious institution so your appeal to separation of church and state doesn't cut it. References to China, Russia and Sharia law are just silly but then so is gay marriage so I guess it's appropriate.

[iustitia]

How does it change marriage? Each marriage is unique to the couple marrying. There is no legislation that defines the relative duties and obligations of married partners. There is jurisprudence with respect to actions that breach the marital contract if the parties to the contract wish to dissolve said contract. These are simply basic elements that create a tort that violates the contract. They are often not even true. There are three basic torts - infidelity, mental cruelty and physical cruelty. Otherwise each marriage is defined by the participants. Some straight people have open marriages. Some straight people have childless marriages. Some straight people marry and live in separate homes and some marry for convenience but honor none of the traditional marriage vows. All of these things are at odds with the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage has never really been one size fits all.

Even in the days of Rome where sexual hedonism was rampant, legal marriage was always reserved for a man and woman as even degenerate pagans understood that the purpose of marriage was to promote birthrates and child rearing. Those sodomites seeking to force "marriage equality" are seeking to force equality between things that can not be equal. Gay marriage is not just a pointless abomination but a completely incoherent concept.

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage quite frankly. While it does, though, I oppose the state imposing artificial definitions and subverting the traditional standards of society in the name of equality or fairness. Let's not fib now, this has everything to do with the "left" trying to undermine traditional marriage and I've shown that. Lastly I just flat out reject any constitutional claim of rights being violated because of holding on to the purpose of marriage. For thousands of years gay marriage was never an issue, and ten years ago all of a sudden gays' rights are violated because they aren't a part of an institution that was never about them in the first place. This is about politics and social revolution, not the Constitution or equality.

[Max Rockatansky]

References to China, Russia and Sharia law are just silly but then so is gay marriage so I guess it's appropriate.
So is the old "Well the rest of the world doesn't do so we shouldn't either". If the Founders had followed that logic, they'd have never committed treason by revolting against their King and attacking their King's army.

[Mister D]

So is the old "Well the rest of the world doesn't do so we shouldn't either". If the Founders had followed that logic, they'd have never committed treason by revolting against their King and attacking their King's army.

That wasn't my argument. That comment was made in reference to the question of what sort of institution marriage is. nothing more was suggested or implied.

[Mister D]

Even in the days of Rome where sexual hedonism was rampant, legal marriage was always reserved for a man and woman as even degenerate pagans understood that the purpose of marriage was to promote birthrates and child rearing. Those sodomites seeking to force "marriage equality" are seeking to force equality between things that can not be equal. Gay marriage is not just a pointless abomination but a completely incoherent concept.

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage quite frankly. While it does, though, I oppose the state imposing artificial definitions and subverting the traditional standards of society in the name of equality or fairness. Let's not fib now, this has everything to do with the "left" trying to undermine traditional marriage and I've shown that. Lastly I just flat out reject any constitutional claim of rights being violated because of holding on to the purpose of marriage. For thousands of years gay marriage was never an issue, and ten years ago all of a sudden gays' rights are violated because they aren't a part of an institution that was never about them in the first place. This is about politics and social revolution, not the Constitution or equality.

Well put, sir. While I think it will come across the board I'm tired of this nonsense about violated rights. You want to redefine marriage to suit a tiny minority? OK. Just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Max Rockatansky]

That wasn't my argument. That comment was made in reference to the question of what sort of institution marriage is. nothing more was suggested or implied.

Is marriage a right or not? Do all citizens have a right equal treatment under the law or not?

[Mister D]

Is marriage a right or not? Do all citizens have a right equal treatment under the law or not?

Even if it is, gays have never been denied that right. Their problem is that they aren't interested in the opposite sex. Oh well.

[undine]

Even if it is, gays have never been denied that right. Their problem is that they aren't interested in the opposite sex. Oh well.

They are denied the right to marry whom they please. All your dancing around doesn't change that.

[Mister D]

They are denied the right to marry whom they please. All your dancing around doesn't change that.

Actually, they aren't. There are a lot girls out there for the gay guys.

[iustitia]

They are denied the right to marry whom they please. All your dancing around doesn't change that.

They can marry whoever they want of the opposite gender. Which is what marriage is.

[undine]

strongly :rolleyes:

[Max Rockatansky]

Even if it is, gays have never been denied that right. Their problem is that they aren't interested in the opposite sex. Oh well.

Using that logic, why are the miscegenation laws ruled illegal? As long as couples married within the same race, no problem, right? It'd been that way for centuries.

What do you think was the problem?

[undine]

Actually, they aren't. There are a lot girls out there for the gay guys.
Are you one of them?

[Mister D]

Using that logic, why are the miscegenation laws ruled illegal? As long as couples married within the same race, no problem, right? It'd been that way for centuries.

What do you think was the problem?

You tell me. I'm not sure what logic we're speaking of or why mixed race marriages have been brought up. Do tell. Please e clear.

[iustitia]

This is like when politicians attack free market capitalism instead of corporatism for creating corruption, then declare they're going to save capitalism from itself. That's not capitalism. Or child murder as choice.

This isn't marriage. I'm tired of the tyranny of cliches in politics, and I'm tired of those seeking upheaval getting to dictate the terms of discussion.

Also, I'm tired of the interracial comparison. Racism was legislated, an artificial addendum to marriage was not a tenant of marriage in the first place. That's actually an argument against gay marriage,

[Mister D]

Are you one of them?

You seem mad.

[Mister D]

They can marry whoever they want of the opposite gender. Which is what marriage is.

Right. That right, if such exists. has never been denied.

[undine]

You seem mad.
nah, just curious. And I noticed you avoided the question.

[Mister D]

nah, just curious. And I noticed you avoided the question.

bi-curious perhaps?

[undine]

bi-curious perhaps?

Fascinating where your mind goes.

[Max Rockatansky]

You tell me. I'm not sure what logic we're speaking of or why mixed race marriages have been brought up. Do tell. Please e clear.

It applies because, although marriage isn't an enumerated right like the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause it does come under both the 14th and 9th Amendments. This was clarified in the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v. Virginia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1)in 1967.

According to several Americans, that SCOTUS disrupted the "natural order" and redefined marriage. Most got over it.

[iustitia]

It applies because, although marriage isn't an enumerated right like the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause it does come under both the 14th and 9th Amendments. This was clarified in the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v. Virginia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1)in 1967.

According to several Americans, that SCOTUS disrupted the "natural order" and redefined marriage. Most got over it.

Most also got over the very anti-miscegenation laws you brought up. And Japanese internment. And infanticide.

But really, your argument isn't even rational because it relies on clarification from the Supreme Court. I'll remind you again that anti-miscegenation laws were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court for 80 years until Loving v Virginia. Similarly, Brown v Board was 60 years after segregation was ruled constitutional. Should social policy really be set by lawyers in costumes?

[Mister D]

It applies because, although marriage isn't an enumerated right like the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause it does come under both the 14th and 9th Amendments. This was clarified in the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v. Virginia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1)in 1967.

According to several Americans, that SCOTUS disrupted the "natural order" and redefined marriage. Most got over it.

First of all, thank you for admitting that's the goal. Sheesh it's like pulling teeth...

Anyway, take it up with those "several Americans". Marriage is what it is. Again, you want to redefine marriage to suit a tiny minority? OK. Just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. :smiley:

[Mister D]

Most also got over the very anti-miscegenation laws you brought up. And Japanese internment. And infanticide.

But really, your argument isn't even rational because it relies on clarification from the Supreme Court. I'll remind you again that anti-miscegenation laws were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court for 80 years until Loving v Virginia. Similarly, Brown v Board was 60 years after segregation was ruled constitutional. Should social policy really be set by lawyers in costumes?

Legal positivism is self-defeating. Sadly, most people here don't quite grasp that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most also got over the very anti-miscegenation laws you brought up. And Japanese internment. And infanticide.

But really, your argument isn't even rational because it relies on clarification from the Supreme Court. I'll remind you again that anti-miscegenation laws were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court for 80 years until Loving v Virginia. Similarly, Brown v Board was 60 years after segregation was ruled constitutional. Should social policy really be set by lawyers in costumes?

SCOTUS and our own society aren't always initially correct, but we generally move in the correct direction. After 9/11, there were many who advocated doing to Americans of Arab/Muslim descent what we did to those of Japanese descent after Pearl Harbor. Fortunately wiser minds had learned from the previous experience. Even President Bush made a great speech about how Muslims are not the enemy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.

I have little doubt we'll get this issue correct too despite those who seek to deny their fellow Americans the same rights they themselves enjoy.

[Dr. Who]

Even in the days of Rome where sexual hedonism was rampant, legal marriage was always reserved for a man and woman as even degenerate pagans understood that the purpose of marriage was to promote birthrates and child rearing. Those sodomites seeking to force "marriage equality" are seeking to force equality between things that can not be equal. Gay marriage is not just a pointless abomination but a completely incoherent concept.

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage quite frankly. While it does, though, I oppose the state imposing artificial definitions and subverting the traditional standards of society in the name of equality or fairness. Let's not fib now, this has everything to do with the "left" trying to undermine traditional marriage and I've shown that. Lastly I just flat out reject any constitutional claim of rights being violated because of holding on to the purpose of marriage. For thousands of years gay marriage was never an issue, and ten years ago all of a sudden gays' rights are violated because they aren't a part of an institution that was never about them in the first place. This is about politics and social revolution, not the Constitution or equality.

Gay people who form a partnership may adopt children or one or the other may either give birth or donate sperm to have a child. In these cases, the laws that favor heterosexuals raising children, discriminate against those not legally married. Furthermore, unless a homosexual marriage is recognized, either partner has no rights with respect to their life partner in end of life decisions, short of drawing up legal paperwork to that effect. Why force legal citizens into expensive legal remedies, when other citizens benefit from existing law without any impediment. This is not a religious argument, it is about equality before the law.

[Chris]

Social policy? No, shouldn't be set by courts, or legislators, or government at all, or any individual and his/her preferences or prejudices. It's set by society

[iustitia]

Gay people who form a partnership may adopt children or one or the other may either give birth or donate sperm to have a child. In these cases, the laws that favor heterosexuals raising children, discriminate against those not legally married. Furthermore, unless a homosexual marriage is recognized, either partner has no rights with respect to their life partner in end of life decisions, short of drawing up legal paperwork to that effect. Why force legal citizens into expensive legal remedies, when other citizens benefit from existing law without any impediment. This is not a religious argument, it is about equality before the law.

There already is equality. This is not about rights, this is about state privileges now. Destroying marriage for tax benefits or hospital visits is insane and not the way to enforce the 14th Amendment.

[Max Rockatansky]

There already is equality. This is not about rights, this is about state privileges now. Destroying marriage for tax benefits or hospital visits is insane and not the way to enforce the 14th Amendment.

How is your marriage destroyed or changed in any way because two gays in San Francisco have the same 1138 Federal rights and benefits you have?

[Mister D]

SCOTUS and our own society aren't always initially correct, but we generally move in the correct direction. After 9/11, there were many who advocated doing to Americans of Arab/Muslim descent what we did to those of Japanese descent after Pearl Harbor. Fortunately wiser minds had learned from the previous experience. Even President Bush made a great speech about how Muslims are not the enemy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html


I have little doubt we'll get this issue correct too despite those who seek to deny their fellow Americans the same rights they themselves enjoy.

The fact that one court could find something unconstitutional while another find it constitutional suggests to me, and should suggest to you, that such appeals are intellectually lazy ad somewhat dangerous as well.

[Max Rockatansky]

The fact that one court could find something unconstitutional while another find it constitutional suggests to me, and should suggest to you, that such appeals are intellectually lazy ad somewhat dangerous as well.

So the Dred Scott decision was the correct one?

[iustitia]

How is your marriage destroyed or changed in any way because two gays in San Francisco have the same 1138 Federal rights and benefits you have?

Again, I'm not letting you frame a false argument. I'm not married and don't plan on getting married. It's not about straight marriage, it's about marriage. Even when I was an atheist I opposed gay marriage because marriage has a meaning and purpose that should no be redefined by the statist politicians or special interest groups. Especially not under the guise of equality.

And I just said destroying marriage for tax and hospital benefits is not the way to enforce the 14th Amendment. You can't supply those things without changing marriage? This is like saying the only way to lower healthcare costs is a government takeover of the industry. What about tort reform? What about inter-state competition? Nope, fuck that, we have to destroy healthcare so we can claim things are fair. Marriage is between men and women, but fuck that, we're going to use legislation and activist courts to overrule thousands of years of tradition and the votes of millions of galvanized citizens just so a fraction of a tiny minority can have some privileges that could otherwise be provided without the upheaval of our institutions.

[Mister D]

So the Dred Scott decision was the correct one?

According to the court it was.

[Mister D]

Again, I'm not letting you frame a false argument. I'm not married and don't plan on getting married. It's not about straight marriage, it's about marriage. Even when I was an atheist I opposed gay marriage because marriage has a meaning and purpose that should no be redefined by the statist politicians or special interest groups. Especially not under the guise of equality.

And I just said destroying marriage for tax and hospital benefits is not the way to enforce the 14th Amendment. You can't supply those things without changing marriage? This is like saying the only way to lower healthcare costs is a government takeover of the industry. What about tort reform? What about inter-state competition? Nope, fuck that, we have to destroy healthcare so we can claim things are fair. Marriage is between men and women, but fuck that, we're going to use legislation and activist courts to overrule thousands of years of tradition and the votes of millions of galvanized citizens just so a fraction of a tiny minority can have some privileges that could otherwise be provided without the upheaval of our institutions.

Right.

Seriously, why not just give them the same benefits? Oh, that's right. It's not really about benefits.

[Dr. Who]

Again, I'm not letting you frame a false argument. I'm not married and don't plan on getting married. It's not about straight marriage, it's about marriage. Even when I was an atheist I opposed gay marriage because marriage has a meaning and purpose that should no be redefined by the statist politicians or special interest groups. Especially not under the guise of equality.

And I just said destroying marriage for tax and hospital benefits is not the way to enforce the 14th Amendment. You can't supply those things without changing marriage? This is like saying the only way to lower healthcare costs is a government takeover of the industry. What about tort reform? What about inter-state competition? Nope, fuck that, we have to destroy healthcare so we can claim things are fair. Marriage is between men and women, but fuck that, we're going to use legislation and activist courts to overrule thousands of years of tradition and the votes of millions of galvanized citizens just so a fraction of a tiny minority can have some privileges that could otherwise be provided without the upheaval of our institutions.

By your definition, heterosexuals who are infertile, too old, or don't want children should not be allowed to marry, since according to the traditional notion of marriage, it is for the purposes of procreation. Without procreation, what is the purpose of marriage?

[Mister D]

By your definition, heterosexuals who are infertile, too old, or don't want children should not be allowed to marry, since according to the traditional notion of marriage, it is for the purposes of procreation. Without procreation, what is the purpose of marriage?

What definition, Who? The one you just made up and imputed to him?

[iustitia]

So the Dred Scott decision was the correct one?

The "they got it wrong first but fixed it later, but if they didn't fix it at all it'd be bad period" argument doesn't fly. Are you singling out Dred Scott because you think it was a primary ruling and that eventually bad decisions will get overturned? If so I hate to break it to you but Dredd Scott was declared free and only then when it was revisited that the courts overturned the initial decision. So the Dredd Scott decision we're used to hearing about was an activist ruling that overturned the previous ruling. So I mean, from any angle this is bad logic. Courts don't give you rights. In Dredd Scott the Supreme Court made a bad ruling after a good one, and in Brown they made a good one after a bad one. There's no logic in making the courts the basis of arguments over rights.

[Max Rockatansky]

According to the court it was.

Exactly. A decision that was found to be wrong. Why? Because it was contrary to the precepts of our nation's founding documents?

[Max Rockatansky]

The "they got it wrong first but fixed it later, but if they didn't fix it at all it'd be bad period" argument doesn't fly. Are you singling out Dred Scott because you think it was a primary ruling and that eventually bad decisions will get overturned? .

Not singling out, just an example of a bad decision that was later corrected. Our nation has made a few mistakes along the road to becoming Reagan's "shining city on a hill".


January 11, 1989 -- farewell address to the nation

"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life…. And how stands the city on this winter night? … After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home."

[Mister D]

Exactly. A decision that was found to be wrong. Why? Because it was contrary to the precepts of our nation's founding documents?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/21070-I-missed-out-on-that-burning-question-quot-Can-t-I-get-Married-too-quot?p=485148&viewfull=1#post485148

[Mister D]

Exactly. A decision that was found to be wrong. Why? Because it was contrary to the precepts of our nation's founding documents?

Yet that court didn't think so.

[Dr. Who]

What definition, Who? The one you just made up and imputed to him?

He implied that there was a condition forming the basis for marriage: " because marriage has a meaning and purpose ". There is only one meaning or purpose that cannot also be imputed to or physically accomplished by homosexuals and that is procreation. All other aspects of marriage are naturally possible. However there are a great many heterosexual couples who cannot produce children or simply don't want to. They are unable to fulfill that narrow definition as well. Now unless we are skating into religious territory, which has no place in secular law, either we allow all people to form marriages as they see fit, or it must be restricted to fertile couples who are contractually bound by their marriage license to have children.

[Mister D]

This really is't time for a discussion of the liberal faith in progress. I'll attend to that another time.

[iustitia]

By your definition, heterosexuals who are infertile, too old, or don't want children should not be allowed to marry, since according to the traditional notion of marriage, it is for the purposes of procreation. Without procreation, what is the purpose of marriage?

Ah yes, the incredible exceptions clause. Much like the line about rape and incest when discussing abortion.

I can't say there's any rational reason for said people to marry. I mean what's the point exactly? You don't want kids but you'll spend thousands of dollars on a party, unite your families and spend money on a government paper saying you're in love for... taxes? Marriage has a purpose and it isn't purely for 'love'. For much of history and the world marriages were arranged by families and friends. And people didn't fuck before marriage so they wouldn't know they're infertile before trying. No I think you shouldn't get married if you have no intention of starting a family. Whether that means getting pregnant or adopting, marriage should be preserved for a man and woman.

Regardless, I think it's obvious that the state could not seriously determine who's "too old" or infertile to marry, or their intentions for child-rearing. Which is a case for taking marriage away from the state period. Regardless, despite my beliefs it's impractical to demand the state weed out your pretend demographics. And as I've stated, I could support taking marriage out of politics to begin with, I just don't want it changed artificially out of political correctness and I think there are practical solutions for legal privileges for gays. But promoting homophile marriage is a dumb concept in itself.

[Mister D]

He implied that there was a condition forming the basis for marriage: " because marriage has a meaning and purpose ". There is only one meaning or purpose that cannot also be imputed to or physically accomplished by homosexuals and that is procreation. All other aspects of marriage are naturally possible. However there are a great many heterosexual couples who cannot produce children or simply don't want to. They are unable to fulfill that narrow definition as well. Now unless we are skating into religious territory, which has no place in secular law, either we allow all people to form marriages as they see fit, or it must be restricted to fertile couples who are contractually bound by their marriage license to have children.

Really, this rejoinder is long in tooth and becoming senile. It's not a condition, Who. If I want to encourage certain behavior does that mean I want to force behavior. If a couple is infertile or does not desire children, so what? Does that change the purpose of said institution? not at all. Moreover, the traditional definition of marriage is not male/female coupling with children.

[Dr. Who]

Ah yes, the incredible exceptions clause. Much like the line about rape and incest when discussing abortion.

I can't say there's any rational reason for said people to marry. I mean what's the point exactly? You don't want kids but you'll spend thousands of dollars on a party, unite your families and spend money on a government paper saying you're in love for... taxes? Marriage has a purpose and it isn't purely for 'love'. For much of history and the world marriages were arranged by families and friends. And people didn't fuck before marriage so they wouldn't know they're infertile before trying. No I think you shouldn't get married if you have no intention of starting a family. Whether that means getting pregnant or adopting, marriage should be preserved for a man and woman.

Regardless, I think it's obvious that the state could not seriously determine who's "too old" or infertile to marry, or their intentions for child-rearing. Which is a case for taking marriage away from the state period. Regardless, despite my beliefs it's impractical to demand the state weed out your pretend demographics. And as I've stated, I could support taking marriage out of politics to begin with, I just don't want it changed artificially out of political correctness and I think there are practical solutions for legal privileges for gays. But promoting homophile marriage is a dumb concept in itself.

Then essentially there is no cogent argument to prohibit gay marriage - some people are just put off by the notion. I understand that. Everyone is entitled to their own reasons for opposing gay marriage whether it is based on religious convictions, cultural bias or traditional conservative points of view. Similarly everyone else is entitled not to be upset by the idea. One thing that statistics do support is that people in committed relationships are more stable, engage in less risk taking behavior and tend to be healthier, so the idea of marriage whether for procreation or otherwise is better for the country.

[Mister D]

Ah yes, the incredible exceptions clause. Much like the line about rape and incest when discussing abortion.

I can't say there's any rational reason for said people to marry. I mean what's the point exactly? You don't want kids but you'll spend thousands of dollars on a party, unite your families and spend money on a government paper saying you're in love for... taxes? Marriage has a purpose and it isn't purely for 'love'. For much of history and the world marriages were arranged by families and friends. And people didn't fuck before marriage so they wouldn't know they're infertile before trying. No I think you shouldn't get married if you have no intention of starting a family. Whether that means getting pregnant or adopting, marriage should be preserved for a man and woman.

Regardless, I think it's obvious that the state could not seriously determine who's "too old" or infertile to marry, or their intentions for child-rearing. Which is a case for taking marriage away from the state period. Regardless, despite my beliefs it's impractical to demand the state weed out your pretend demographics. And as I've stated, I could support taking marriage out of politics to begin with, I just don't want it changed artificially out of political correctness and I think there are practical solutions for legal privileges for gays. But promoting homophile marriage is a dumb concept in itself.

I think that began to change in the mid 20th Century. Perhaps even earlier. If I had to pinpoint the inspiration behind the demand gay marriage I would suggest that it lies in modern solipsism. Yes, marriage used to be about children, raising the next generation, the future, etc. but now it's all about the individual and their personal happiness. There was a reason something as inane as a gay marriage was never an issue before.

[Mister D]

Then essentially there is no cogent argument to prohibit gay marriage - some people are just put off by the notion. I understand that. Everyone is entitled to their own reasons for opposing gay marriage whether it is based on religious convictions, cultural bias or traditional conservative points of view. Similarly everyone else is entitled not to be upset by the idea. One thing that statistics do support is that people in committed relationships are more stable, engage in less risk taking behavior and tend to be healthier, so the idea of marriage whether for procreation or otherwise is better for the country.

The argument is yours to make. You seem to forget that. Why should we change our customs, laws, and traditions to placate a tiny minority of a minority? When you figure that out let us know.

[iustitia]

Then essentially there is no cogent argument to prohibit gay marriage - some people are just put off by the notion. I understand that. Everyone is entitled to their own reasons for opposing gay marriage whether it is based on religious convictions, cultural bias or traditional conservative points of view. Similarly everyone else is entitled not to be upset by the idea. One thing that statistics do support is that people in committed relationships are more stable, engage in less risk taking behavior and tend to be healthier, so the idea of marriage whether for procreation or otherwise is better for the country.

The argument against gay marriage is that it's not marriage. We already know what marriage is. You need to persuade me to consider redefining it to mean something it's never meant in 3,000 years just to placate moral relativists and protestors. I'm absolutely arguing from a traditionalist perspective because there's no other perspective. Legally marriage should not in my mind be state-controlled. But if it is it shouldn't be distorted by modernists under a nonsense interpretation of the equal protections clause. If you want to give tax benefits and hospital visits to homosexuals you can do that without misusing the Constitution.

[Dr. Who]

The argument is yours to make. You seem to forget that. Why should we change our customs, laws, and traditions to placate a tiny minority of a minority? When you figure that out let us know.

I could argue until the cows come home. If people don't like things for personal/emotional reasons, there is no amount of argument that will convince such people to endorse the concept. That is true of many things. I don't like olives. Two hundred and fifty million people could send me endorsements of olives. It wouldn't matter, because I just don't like them and nobody can make me like them. Some things are just like that. As it happens with the subject of gay marriage, there are more people who don't care or do care and endorse it than those who are opposed. Constitutionally speaking there is no prohibition, so it ultimately comes down to what the majority of society wants or will not oppose.

[Mister D]

Well, I'd like to thank you all for what turned out to be a interesting discussion. With only a single exception this did not get petty and personal despite the passion. Kudos. This is the way the forum should always be.

[Mister D]

I could argue until the cows come home. If people don't like things for personal/emotional reasons, there is no amount of argument that will convince such people to endorse the concept. That is true of many things. I don't like olives. Two hundred and fifty million people could send me endorsements of olives. It wouldn't matter, because I just don't like them and nobody can make me like them. Some things are just like that. As it happens with the subject of gay marriage, there are more people who don't care or do care and endorse it than those who are opposed. Constitutionally speaking there is no prohibition, so it ultimately comes down to what the majority of society wants or will not oppose.

When you find those people let me know.

Secondly, I have no doubt that a self-absorbed public will eventually support gay marriage en masse.

[iustitia]

Constitutionally speaking there is no prohibition, so it ultimately comes down to what the majority of society wants or will not oppose.

A real argument.

Except it's dishonest, isn't it? How many states have amended their constitutions or implemented state laws either through the republican process or democratic ballot initiatives? A lot more than have done the same in support of gay marriage. And yet half the time the courts get brought in to undermine the states and voters that won against it.

So what do you really mean by "majority of society"? The majority of a state? The majoritarian opinion of all citizens in the Union? The majority of judges on the bench? All evidence points to it being unpopular where it's brought up with exceptions for liberal bastions. That's why activists need to get judges to overrule voters or state constitutions/federalism.

[Codename Section]

I have no problems with marriage or people who want to do it. It's those 1,000 privileges the married get that the nonmarried do not that I object to. The government has no business endorsing a relationship status and it does that every time someone chooses marriage over single life. As people have mentioned its tons of free legal crap and legal relationships that the rest of us are left out of.

Either everyone gets it or no one.

[iustitia]

I think originally it was intended to be a perk to entice people to marry more than an attempt to screw people that didn't marry. I have no problem with your argument though because frankly I want as few taxes for everyone as possible.

[Dr. Who]

The argument against gay marriage is that it's not marriage. We already know what marriage is. You need to persuade me to consider redefining it to mean something it's never meant in 3,000 years just to placate moral relativists and protestors. I'm absolutely arguing from a traditionalist perspective because there's no other perspective. Legally marriage should not in my mind be state-controlled. But if it is it shouldn't be distorted by modernists under a nonsense interpretation of the equal protections clause. If you want to give tax benefits and hospital visits to homosexuals you can do that without misusing the Constitution.
Throughout history marriage has had different meanings for different people. For most of history it had no legal basis per se because there was no written law on the subject, however it may have had religious, societal or cultural boundaries to which people voluntarily subscribed. That being said, people did not always, even in the past, always marry for the purpose of procreation. They also married for companionship, love and stability. Humans do not generally like to be alone so pair bonding is ingrained in most of us, whether we are straight or gay. The desire to procreate is not limited to heterosexuals. Many gays and lesbians also want to be parents, whether that involves surrogacy or adoption or some other methodology. The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is sexual gender preference. In all other respects they are the same as everyone else. If you cut them they also bleed. Some want permanent relationships with or without children and some prefer their freedom. Why should their natural rights be abrogated by an arbitrary and biased view of normalcy that only involves another consenting adult. Most people would be aghast if anyone suggested that any heterosexuals suffering from spastic quadriplegia should be denied marriage because they could not possibly engage in coitus, let alone procreate or fulfill any of the traditional marriage roles and yet someone who for whatever reason has a sexual preference for the same sex, is demonized. People chuckle and make jokes when an octogenarian rich man marries a twenty something woman, but no one would prohibit their right to marry, even when everyone knows the woman is marrying the man for his money, will probably be sleeping with the pool boy or the gardener, have nothing in common and he's only marrying her for eye candy and ego - but that's OK in the eyes of so many. We are very hypocritical in our biases.

[Codename Section]

We do kinda think tho that the person marrying the quadriplegic is crazy, but we'll say they're noble. I also think anyone who marries someone more than 10 years older than them is looking for trouble.

We all have a lot of judgments about other people's relationships and who they marry and anyone saying they've never is lying.

[Mr Happy]

Marriage is between men and women, but fuck that, we're going to use legislation and activist courts to overrule thousands of years of tradition and the votes of millions of galvanized citizens just so a fraction of a tiny minority can have some privileges that could otherwise be provided without the upheaval of our institutions.

There was also thousands of years of slavery, and women not being allowed to vote. Are you happy those 'traditions' got kicked the curb or do you wish they were still around.

[Dr. Who]

We do kinda think tho that the person marrying the quadriplegic is crazy, but we'll say they're noble. I also think anyone who marries someone more than 10 years older than them is looking for trouble.

We all have a lot of judgments about other people's relationships and who they marry and anyone saying they've never is lying.Sure we think it is weird or stupid, but no one would suggest that they don't have the right to marry.

[Codename Section]

Sure we think it is weird or stupid, but no one would suggest that they don't have the right to marry.

But we think it. When we see really old dudes with young women we think its a shame, as they say in the south. Everyone's got an opinion on what marriage should be and health, age, and child bearing capabilities do come into it.

[Mr Happy]

The argument is yours to make. You seem to forget that. Why should we change our customs, laws, and traditions to placate a tiny minority of a minority? When you figure that out let us know.

As long as it has no affect on anybody else why would you care? You start taking to the colour lilac, or start jumping on the tables when YMCA comes on the radio, then sure...maybe it is an issue. Other than that, it's just bigotted behaviour...

[iustitia]

Throughout history marriage has had different meanings for different people. For most of history it had no legal basis per se because there was no written law on the subject, however it may have had religious, societal or cultural boundaries to which people voluntarily subscribed. That being said, people did not always, even in the past, always marry for the purpose of procreation. They also married for companionship, love and stability. Humans do not generally like to be alone so pair bonding is ingrained in most of us, whether we are straight or gay.Let's cut through the filler to the nitty gritty- Why did societies recognize the marriages of individuals? I can assure you that the Romans and Greeks had no problem with that persuasion, yet were find absurd the notion of men marrying men. Why? Because marriage was reserved for opposite sexes. In instances where the opposite was true, like the insane Emperor Nero publicly joining with a castrated boy he dressed like a woman, they were never recognized as legitimate. Why? Were the Romans and Greeks homophobes? No. They actually understood that two men or two women cannot create offspring. Marriage served to unite households and carry on bloodelines and yes to promote childbirth. The best a homosexual couple can do is adopt children that already exist, and don't get me wrong, I'd rather a child have a gay home than no home, yet no man will ever get kids to come out of another man's body.


Why should their natural rights be abrogated by an arbitrary and biased view of normalcy that only involves another consenting adult. Most people would be aghast if anyone suggested that any heterosexuals suffering from spastic quadriplegia should be denied marriage because they could not possibly engage in coitus, let alone procreate or fulfill any of the traditional marriage roles and yet someone who for whatever reason has a sexual preference for the same sex, is demonized. People chuckle and make jokes when an octogenarian rich man marries a twenty something woman, but no one would prohibit their right to marry, even when everyone knows the woman is marrying the man for his money, will probably be sleeping with the pool boy or the gardener, have nothing in common and he's only marrying her for eye candy and ego - but that's OK in the eyes of so many. We are very hypocritical in our biases.
In order-
1. I don't believe it's a natural right. I believe natural rights are inherently individual.
2. Most people are romanticists and not rationalists and don't know why marriage exists in the first place. People are idiots. Doesn't mean I want to change my standards for them. I try to balance tradition with practicality when it comes to extra-constitutional social issues.
3. It is fucked up, and so is the massive divorce rate and adultery. And I don't think that should justify less social cohesion.

The fatal flaw in the gay rights movement was attacking and attempting to transform institutions that never had anything to do with them instead of just seeking reform in benefits and legal privileges.

[Mr Happy]

But we think it. When we see really old dudes with young women we think its a shame, as they say in the south. Everyone's got an opinion on what marriage should be and health, age, and child bearing capabilities do come into it.

Unless something affects you personally I really don;t understand why people are poking their noses into anybody else's business...

[Mr Happy]

Let's cut through the filler to the nitty gritty- Why did societies recognize the marriages of individuals? I can assure you that the Romans and Greeks had no problem with that persuasion, yet were find absurd the notion of men marrying men. Why? Because marriage was reserved for opposite sexes. In instances where the opposite was true, like the insane Emperor Nero publicly joining with a castrated boy he dressed like a woman, they were never recognized as legitimate. Why? Were the Romans and Greeks homophobes? No. They actually understood that two men or two women cannot create offspring. Marriage served to unite households and carry on bloodelines and yes to promote childbirth. The best a homosexual couple can do is adopt children that already exist, and don't get me wrong, I'd rather a child have a gay home than no home, yet no man will ever get kids to come out of another man's body

And so now things have changed. So what? Why do you care? How does it affect you? The first place I worked the manager was gay. Over the period I worked there there were 10 gay men who were part of the workforce. Nothing in my life changed. Not a thing. They had zero affect on how I lived my life.

I find it strange that those to the right of the political spectrum are always crying about the ability to have the pursuit of happiness and individual freedom, yet when it comes to gay marriage, suddenly it's everybody's business. Why?

[Mr Happy]

The fatal flaw in the gay rights movement was attacking and attempting to transform institutions that never had anything to do with them instead of just seeking reform in benefits and legal privileges.

Why shouldn't they try and transform such institutions? 30 years ago Tiger Woods wouldn't have been able to walk the halls of the Augusta National...

[Codename Section]

Unless something affects you personally I really don;t understand why people are poking their noses into anybody else's business...

Because humans talk shit about people. That's what we do. Talk shit all day, pass judgment, and we also are capable of pulling it together and doing really great things for others, too.

It's why I am a libertarian because I understand and am honest about my own flaws and I know I shouldn't have power over individual freedoms. No one should.

Imagine if you had a genie bottle and 100 % political power tell me you wouldn't do something about the righties, actually don't. Keep it to yourself and think about it.

That's why I am a libertarian. I may think I'd never do something bad, but I'd be calling myself Jesus because humans don't play out that nicely. When they do they go down in history.

[iustitia]

And so now things have changed. So what? Why do you care? How does it affect you? The first place I worked the manager was gay. Over the period I worked there there were 10 gay men who were part of the workforce. Nothing in my life changed. Not a thing. They had zero affect on how I lived my life.

I find it strange that those to the right of the political spectrum are always crying about the ability to have the pursuit of happiness and individual freedom, yet when it comes to gay marriage, suddenly it's everybody's business. Why?


Why shouldn't they try and transform such institutions? 30 years ago Tiger Woods wouldn't have been able to walk the halls of the Augusta National...

First off, I'm not "to the right" and deny the left-right paradigm's legitimacy.

Second, you're using emotional anecdotal evidence to suggest a disconnect and bigotry which is just cheap and irrational. You're trying to make this personal when it should be rational. This has nothing to do with me. I'm not married, don't intend to be married, and have never said anything about gays affecting me. That's not the argument.

Third, you're misrepresenting the argument. This is about what is and always has been marriage vs what a minority people people suddenly want to change marriage into based on false claims of equality.

Fourth, why do people always argue that change is a virtue? Conservatives aren't against change, but against social upheaval for the sake of it. Change for the sake of change is not a reason for change. Not in my view.

Lastly, enough with the race-baiting. I'll remind you that this is about a political movement claiming that on behalf of a fraction of a small minority of people, the state has to distort the traditionally understood and accepted meaning of marriage. Likewise, anti-miscegenation laws were innovations of the state. As if the comparison of skin color and sexual preference wasn't absurd enough, we get to throw down on out of context legal battles caused by state intervention without acknowledging that it was the very state that changed marriage for the worse that you appeal to to change it for the better. The rational position would be to get the state out of marriage period, but you instead back the force of the state to force change on a society that does not want it.

[Dr. Who]

Let's cut through the filler to the nitty gritty- Why did societies recognize the marriages of individuals? I can assure you that the Romans and Greeks had no problem with that persuasion, yet were find absurd the notion of men marrying men. Why? Because marriage was reserved for opposite sexes. In instances where the opposite was true, like the insane Emperor Nero publicly joining with a castrated boy he dressed like a woman, they were never recognized as legitimate. Why? Were the Romans and Greeks homophobes? No. They actually understood that two men or two women cannot create offspring. Marriage served to unite households and carry on bloodelines and yes to promote childbirth. The best a homosexual couple can do is adopt children that already exist, and don't get me wrong, I'd rather a child have a gay home than no home, yet no man will ever get kids to come out of another man's body.


In order-
1. I don't believe it's a natural right. I believe natural rights are inherently individual.
2. Most people are romanticists and not rationalists and don't know why marriage exists in the first place. People are idiots. Doesn't mean I want to change my standards for them. I try to balance tradition with practicality when it comes to extra-constitutional social issues.
3. It is fucked up, and so is the massive divorce rate and adultery. And I don't think that should justify less social cohesion.

The fatal flaw in the gay rights movement was attacking and attempting to transform institutions that never had anything to do with them instead of just seeking reform in benefits and legal privileges.


The fatal flaw in the gay rights movement was attacking and attempting to transform institutions that never had anything to do with them instead of just seeking reform in benefits and legal privileges
There I agree with you. Campaigning to try to force religious institutions to accept something that their faith prohibits is wrong. It violates religious rights and freedoms. But as squeaky as that wheel may be, they are an extreme minority among the homosexual community and satisfying their zealotry would involve a constitutional amendment. Given the antipathy between the Dems and Reps, there is more likelihood of the second coming of Christ, than a plurality of votes to amend the constitution.

[Mr Happy]

First off, I'm not "to the right" and deny the left-right paradigm's legitimacy.

Second, you're using emotional anecdotal evidence to suggest a disconnect and bigotry which is just cheap and irrational. You're trying to make this personal when it should be rational. This has nothing to do with me. I'm not married, don't intend to be married, and have never said anything about gays affecting me. That's not the argument.

Third, you're misrepresenting the argument. This is about what is and always has been marriage vs what a minority people people suddenly want to change marriage into based on false claims of equality.

Fourth, why do people always argue that change is a virtue? Conservatives aren't against change, but against social upheaval for the sake of it. Change for the sake of change is not a reason for change. Not in my view.

Lastly, enough with the race-baiting. I'll remind you that this is about a political movement claiming that on behalf of a fraction of a small minority of people, the state has to distort the traditionally understood and accepted meaning of marriage. Likewise, anti-miscegenation laws were innovations of the state. As if the comparison of skin color and sexual preference wasn't absurd enough, we get to throw down on out of context legal battles caused by state intervention without acknowledging that it was the very state that changed marriage for the worse that you appeal to to change it for the better. The rational position would be to get the state out of marriage period, but you instead back the force of the state to force change on a society that does not want it.

Apologies for insinuating you were a rightie. I can tell by you posting style that you are generally eclectic when it comes to politics, although certainly some of your positions would fall into the 'right' column.

As for the rest, well I guess my argument is, there should be no argument. There is no 'rational' argument that should stop two consenting adults from getting married. Only opinionated and bigotted arguments.

I would also 'argue' that it seems that any conservative that I've come up against believes that any type of change is for the 'sake of it'. To which I say bullshit..

[jillian]

There I agree with you. Campaigning to try to force religious institutions to accept something that their faith prohibits is wrong. It violates religious rights and freedoms. But as squeaky as that wheel may be, they are an extreme minority among the homosexual community and satisfying their zealotry would involve a constitutional amendment. Given the antipathy between the Dems and Reps, there is more likelihood of the second coming of Christ, than a plurality of votes to amend the constitution.

no one is ever going to force churches to marry gay couples if they don't choose to. that is covered by the first amendment.

as for people stating their opinion, why wouldn't they? certainly many of those churches have spent a lot of time trying to poison the well for gay couples.

[Mr Happy]

There I agree with you. Campaigning to try to force religious institutions to accept something that their faith prohibits is wrong. It violates religious rights and freedoms. But as squeaky as that wheel may be, they are an extreme minority among the homosexual community and satisfying their zealotry would involve a constitutional amendment. Given the antipathy between the Dems and Reps, there is more likelihood of the second coming of Christ, than a plurality of votes to amend the constitution.

Forget religious institutions. Why can't they get married in Vegas or a registry office..

[Dr. Who]

Forget religious institutions. Why can't they get married in Vegas or a registry office..

Well Nevada has not yet recognized same sex marriage. I don't think that was the point however. I think it was the fact that certain individuals in States where same sex marriage is recognized, want to force churches with religious objections to marry gay people and I think that violates the 1st amendment guarantee of religious freedom. I am a fallen Catholic. In order to be married in a Catholic church I would have to become an attending member. In order to be married in a Jewish synagogue I'm pretty sure that I would have to convert to Judaism. The point is that churches/synagogues/temples can impose whatever restrictions that they see fit, so long as those restrictions are religiously based.

[Codename Section]

no one is ever going to force churches to marry gay couples if they don't choose to. that is covered by the first amendment.


Is it? Fifteen years ago they would have said that forcing Catholic hospitals to supply abortions would never happen or Georgetown to administer birth control.

They'll say that churches accept tax free status (like Georgetown and Catholic hospitals) and therefore must perform them and there will be some legal wrangling along those lines.

Yet another reason to not have the state and marriage mix. Once you do, religions are beholden to the state.

[jillian]

Is it? Fifteen years ago they would have said that forcing Catholic hospitals to supply abortions would never happen or Georgetown to administer birth control.

They'll say that churches accept tax free status (like Georgetown and Catholic hospitals) and therefore must perform them and there will be some legal wrangling along those lines.

Yet another reason to not have the state and marriage mix. Once you do, religions are beholden to the state.

we can fantasize about anything.

[undine]

I think that began to change in the mid 20th Century. Perhaps even earlier. If I had to pinpoint the inspiration behind the demand gay marriage I would suggest that it lies in modern solipsism. Yes, marriage used to be about children, raising the next generation, the future, etc. but now it's all about the individual and their personal happiness. There was a reason something as inane as a gay marriage was never an issue before.
I understand now. You want to decide for others if they have a right to the pursuit of happiness or not. Luckily, you are a dinosaur.

What do you suppose will happen when gay people are allowed to marry?

[Chris]

I'll just repeat, such social norms, traditions and institutions are determined by society, by what people do, and say (arguments like these), no one or elite few in government will decide. Right now that's shifting in favor of accepting gays marrying.

[Max Rockatansky]

we can fantasize about anything.

True....and I fantasize about Sister Bernice:
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/fellowshipofsaintsandsinners/files/2012/06/three-stooges-sister-bernice_320.jpg

[iustitia]

Apologies for insinuating you were a rightie. I can tell by you posting style that you are generally eclectic when it comes to politics, although certainly some of your positions would fall into the 'right' column.

As for the rest, well I guess my argument is, there should be no argument. There is no 'rational' argument that should stop two consenting adults from getting married. Only opinionated and bigotted arguments.

I would also 'argue' that it seems that any conservative that I've come up against believes that any type of change is for the 'sake of it'. To which I say bullshit..
1. I still think you misunderstand me. I'm sure anyone that believes in limited government is a right winger to you, myself included. My point is I absolutely do not identify with labels like that because they're meaningless and discourage intellectual debate. I blatantly do not accept the notion of being defined or confined to a left-right spectral dichotomy based on distinctions without differences. In other words, left and right do not exist and I refuse to go along with it.
2. You're using terms, it would seem, without knowing their meaning. Bigotry means complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. We're standing on religious, moral, social, historical and legal principles. Firmly so. Having a belief isn't intolerant. I think the opposite could be true. That repeatedly accusing the other side of an argument of being bigoted or prejudiced, in order to either silence or pressure them into submission or guilt, is intolerant as well as blatantly lazy, ignorant and disingenuous.
3. Many things should change. Something that's not broken has no reason to.


no one is ever going to force churches to marry gay couples if they don't choose to. that is covered by the first amendment.

as for people stating their opinion, why wouldn't they? certainly many of those churches have spent a lot of time trying to poison the well for gay couples.ORLY?
Denmark, June 7, 2012 - Denmark's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages
Canada, February 2, 2013 - Canadian Supreme Court rules biblical speech opposing homosexuality is a hate crime.
Ecuador, March 17, 2013 - Ecuadorean preacher fined $3,000 and banned from politics for calling homosexuality immoral
Canada, March 27, 2013 - Anti-bullying bill will force private and Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious schools to have gay-straight alliance clubs and criminalize "hurtful" speech about homosexuality
London, July 1, 2013 - American preacher arrested in London for calling homosexuality a sin
July 11, 2013 - American Airman forced into retirement for questioning gay marriage
Washington, 2013 - Florist who refused to make arrangements for gay wedding because of religion sued by government for discrimination
New Mexico, August, 2013 - Court tells photographer he can't refuse to service homosexuals
Denver, Colorado, December 6, 2013 - Judge orders Colorado cake maker to serve gay couples against conscience
Obamacare anyone? Forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception against their conscience? Planned Parenthood? Tax-payer funded abortions?

Because governments give a shit about your right to religion, speech or choice. Right.


I understand now. You want to decide for others if they have a right to the pursuit of happiness or not. Luckily, you are a dinosaur.

What do you suppose will happen when gay people are allowed to marry?
The pursuit of happiness? Why is it that on the oft-chance people actually invoke the Founding Fathers and their documents on these types of things they're always wrong?

I've heard many origins for the term pursuit of happiness in my studies, and never has happiness meant sexual or social hedonism or even literal happiness/love as we'd understand it today. Considering all sources, the meaning of the word happiness meant the following: Property, bodily health, or wisdom & virtue. The first two are Lockean concepts which I seriously do not believe have anything to do with gay marriage. The third comes from the Scottish Enlightenment. You could pull out many terms for describing your support for homosexual marriage, but it's just wrong in my understanding to procure that term for your position. That's like going to war over oil and opium and justifying it with the word 'democracy'.

[jillian]

ORLY?
Denmark, June 7, 2012 - Denmark's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages
Canada, February 2, 2013 - Canadian Supreme Court rules biblical speech opposing homosexuality is a hate crime.
Ecuador, March 17, 2013 - Ecuadorean preacher fined $3,000 and banned from politics for calling homosexuality immoral
Canada, March 27, 2013 - Anti-bullying bill will force private and Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious schools to have gay-straight alliance clubs and criminalize "hurtful" speech about homosexuality
London, July 1, 2013 - American preacher arrested in London for calling homosexuality a sin
July 11, 2013 - American Airman forced into retirement for questioning gay marriage
Washington, 2013 - Florist who refused to make arrangements for gay wedding because of religion sued by government for discrimination
New Mexico, August, 2013 - Court tells photographer he can't refuse to service homosexuals
Denver, Colorado, December 6, 2013 - Judge orders Colorado cake maker to serve gay couples against conscience
Obamacare anyone? Forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception against their conscience? Planned Parenthood? Tax-payer funded abortions?

Because governments give a shit about your right to religion, speech or choice. Right.


The pursuit of happiness? Why is it that on the oft-chance people actually invoke the Founding Fathers and their documents on these types of things they're always wrong?

I've heard many origins for the term pursuit of happiness in my studies, and never has happiness meant sexual or social hedonism or even literal happiness/love as we'd understand it today. Considering all sources, the meaning of the word happiness meant the following: Property, bodily health, or wisdom & virtue. The first two are Lockean concepts which I seriously do not believe have anything to do with gay marriage. The third comes from the Scottish Enlightenment. You could pull out many terms for describing your support for homosexual marriage, but it's just wrong in my understanding to procure that term for your position. That's like going to war over oil and opium and justifying it with the word 'democracy'.

none of the countries you named have the first amendment.

again... as has been pointed out... it's simply a civil rights issue. and we have something called "equal protection".

let me know when they try to force your church to perform marriages for gay people. i'll be right there with you.

until then, we don't discriminate to satisfy anyone's religious sensibilities.

brw, you can pretend labels don't matter. but the minute you use the term "small government" (which, to me, really only means 'states' rights all polished up) you get labeled.

and you seem to be pro government when you ask that government discriminate for you.

[iustitia]

none of the countries you named have the first amendment.

again... as has been pointed out... it's simply a civil rights issue. and we have something called "equal protection".

let me know when they try to force your church to perform marriages for gay people. i'll be right there with you.

until then, we don't discriminate to satisfy anyone's religious sensibilities.And there we have it. Freedom of conscience doesn't exist. Because as the state would put it "You don't have the right to say 'no.'"

[Chris]

Pursuit of happiness was meant to be subjective, something for each individual to pursue as he or she saw fit so long as such pursuit doesn't preclude other's equal right to pursue theirs and does no harm.

You don't get to peruse history and pick and choose meanings for others.

[iustitia]

Can you provide me with a source for that interpretation?

[Chris]

And there we have it. Freedom of conscience doesn't exist. Because as the state would put it "You don't have the right to say 'no.'"


Liberty of conscience is the same, you're free to choose according to the dictates of your conscience, and others equally so. You have a right to say yes or no only for yourself, not others.

It's like free speech, you have the right and so do others, but no one has the right not to be offended.

You don't like what someone says, don't listen. Don't like what someone believes, don't believe it. Don't like Gays marrying, don't do it.

These are all natural negative rights, the right to be left alone to pursue happiness.

Don't infringe on that with state enforced positive rights.

[Chris]

Can you provide me with a source for that interpretation?

Why do you need to appeal to authority?

Isn't that exactly the same as appealing to law?

So and so said so, the law says so, so what?

[Alyosha]

none of the countries you named have the first amendment.

They have religious freedom laws, they are isolated from other speech laws. We are one of the only countries whose founders trusted the future generation of politicians enough to make our laws simple. More fools they.

You understand caselaw and how far reaching it can truly go so I think you're being slightly disingenuous when you make the stand that this could not happen here. In the same way that Loving is used to extrapolate from race, a physical identifier like hair or eye color, to gender in order to include same-sexes they can extrapolate something like Bob Jones if the lawyers are good enough.

This is the failure of case law.

IF we're going to solidify marriage in the public arena, or continue to do so, as a regulatory expression of government we simply must rewrite the laws governing marriage to be inclusive of all but likewise offering protections to churches and religious groups. That way it will include religious protections, which is what most churches are worried about and what causes these referendums to go against gay marriage.

Americans are intrinsically "fair" people. If the laws were written with absolute protections for churches you'd see less protest against same-sex marriage.

[iustitia]

Liberty of conscience is the same, you're free to choose according to the dictates of your conscience, and others equally so. You have a right to say yes or no only for yourself, not others.

It's like free speech, you have the right and so do others, but no one has the right not to be offended.

You don't like what someone says, don't listen. Don't like what someone believes, don't believe it. Don't like Gays marrying, don't do it.

These are all natural negative rights, the right to be left alone to pursue happiness.

Don't infringe on that with state enforced positive rights.

I disagree with your inclusion of gay marriage into natural rights or negative liberty.

[Chris]

They have religious freedom laws, they are isolated from other speech laws. We are one of the only countries whose founders trusted the future generation of politicians enough to make our laws simple. More fools they.

You understand caselaw and how far reaching it can truly go so I think you're being slightly disingenuous when you make the stand that this could not happen here. In the same way that Loving is used to extrapolate from race, a physical identifier like hair or eye color, to gender in order to include same-sexes they can extrapolate something like Bob Jones if the lawyers are good enough.

This is the failure of case law.

IF we're going to solidify marriage in the public arena, or continue to do so, as a regulatory expression of government we simply must rewrite the laws governing marriage to be inclusive of all but likewise offering protections to churches and religious groups. That way it will include religious protections, which is what most churches are worried about and what causes these referendums to go against gay marriage.

Americans are intrinsically "fair" people. If the laws were written with absolute protections for churches you'd see less protest against same-sex marriage.

Good point, as usual.

To me the the problem only arises when the Constitution written to regulate and limit government is turned on its head to regulate and limit the people who created and give it sanction.

[Chris]

I disagree with your inclusion of gay marriage into natural rights or negative liberty.

Then do so, but you need to make the argument if you're to persuade others and eventually society.

BTW, there is no such thing as "gay marriage." There is only marriage. Gays wanting equal protections, privileges and penalties doesn't change that.

[iustitia]

Why do you need to appeal to authority?

Isn't that exactly the same as appealing to law?

So and so said so, the law says so, so what?

I'm not appealing to authority guy. I'm appealing to definitions. I don't believe the term means what you're saying it means. I'd react exactly the same if a statist told me the commerce clause lets Congress punish farmers that withhold wheat from commerce. They use the word 'regulate' in a false context. The same with the wording in the Second Amendment.

I'm an originalist and believe when discussing founding documents it's important to acknowledge the original intent behind them, including the words and terminology.

I mean I could play the game too and call everyone else a racist for disagreeing with me but I happen to think words have a purpose beyond feel-good declarations and philosophical hegemony.

[iustitia]

Then do so, but you need to make the argument if you're to persuade others and eventually society.
Wait, what argument is it that I need to make exactly?


BTW, there is no such thing as "gay marriage." There is only marriage. Gays wanting equal protections, privileges and penalties doesn't change that.
We're having a breakdown in communication. I have repeatedly stated that marriage doesn't need to change to provide tax benefits or hospital visits to gays.

[Codename Section]

They have religious freedom laws, they are isolated from other speech laws. We are one of the only countries whose founders trusted the future generation of politicians enough to make our laws simple. More fools they.

You understand caselaw and how far reaching it can truly go so I think you're being slightly disingenuous when you make the stand that this could not happen here. In the same way that Loving is used to extrapolate from race, a physical identifier like hair or eye color, to gender in order to include same-sexes they can extrapolate something like Bob Jones if the lawyers are good enough.

This is the failure of case law.

IF we're going to solidify marriage in the public arena, or continue to do so, as a regulatory expression of government we simply must rewrite the laws governing marriage to be inclusive of all but likewise offering protections to churches and religious groups. That way it will include religious protections, which is what most churches are worried about and what causes these referendums to go against gay marriage.

Americans are intrinsically "fair" people. If the laws were written with absolute protections for churches you'd see less protest against same-sex marriage.

Good point and it would sound a lot better to me if I didn't know you're supposed to be resting and not being stressed out on forums. I'll be up in a minute with juice.

[Chris]

I'm not appealing to authority guy. I'm appealing to definitions. I don't believe the term means what you're saying it means. I'd react exactly the same if a statist told me the commerce clause lets Congress punish farmers that withhold wheat from commerce. They use the word 'regulate' in a false context. The same with the wording in the Second Amendment.

I'm an originalist and believe when discussing founding documents it's important to acknowledge the original intent behind them, including the words and terminology.

I mean I could play the game too and call everyone else a racist for disagreeing with me but I happen to think words have a purpose beyond feel-good declarations and philosophical hegemony.



And I'm a textualist. The problem with originalism lies exactly in picking and choosing authorities from the past while opinions agree with yours.

Go with the text and the basic meanings of the words at the time they were written.

[Chris]

Wait, what argument is it that I need to make exactly?

We're having a breakdown in communication. I have repeatedly stated that marriage doesn't need to change to provide tax benefits or hospital visits to gays.

Whatever argument you wish to argue. Out of all these arguments, and people's actions and reactions, social order emerges. No one's in charge. You can't design and dictate society.

You're right, marriage doesn't change removing restrictions on gays to participate.

So then what is the argument?

[Alyosha]

And I'm a textualist. The problem with originalism lies exactly in picking and choosing authorities from the past while opinions agree with yours.

Go with the text and the basic meanings of the words at the time they were written.

How would you do so without reading their writings to understand their definition of that word? Language arts, definitions, spelling how this was treated in the 18th century is very different than it was post Victorian period.

[Max Rockatansky]

Then do so, but you need to make the argument if you're to persuade others and eventually society.

BTW, there is no such thing as "gay marriage." There is only marriage. Gays wanting equal protections, privileges and penalties doesn't change that.

Agreed. This is a Constitutional issue and my main concern. People who seek to restrict our Constitution to just certain citizens are inadvertantly weakening the Constitution of all of us. By saying "Only special people have these rights" we set a precedent to set further restrictions.

Those like myself who strongly support Second Amendment rights are very concerned whenever the Left tries to encroach on those rights with "common sense" regulations like limiting magazine size and "scary-looking" semi-automatic rifles. Why? Because we know it won't stop there. It's encroachment; the slow erosion of a right until there is nothing left to protect.

In the case of "gay marriage", we're talking about the encroachment on 14th Amendment rights. "Equal protection for all....well, except gays. Fuck them". That sets a precedent. How about 10 years from now when we have special laws for those who make 7 figure salaries, own X amount of stock and live in special neighborhoods? Special laws for special people?

[Chris]

How would you do so without reading their writings to understand their definition of that word? Language arts, definitions, spelling how this was treated in the 18th century is very different than it was post Victorian period.

Probably the best source would be the text as written, as it was argued by those who voted or signed them, its editing toward final version. Then you look to the full linguistic record of how people tended to use the words--this should be recorded in any non - prescriptive but descriptive dictionaries of the time. And so on.

The problem with originalism is singling out some one thinker 's thoughts at the time or coming down through history. Should we go with Plato or aristotle? Burke or Paine? It's all definitely interesting but not definitive. You end up with selection bias.

[Chris]

Agreed. This is a Constitutional issue and my main concern. People who seek to restrict our Constitution to just certain citizens are inadvertantly weakening the Constitution of all of us. By saying "Only special people have these rights" we set a precedent to set further restrictions.

Those like myself who strongly support Second Amendment rights are very concerned whenever the Left tries to encroach on those rights with "common sense" regulations like limiting magazine size and "scary-looking" semi-automatic rifles. Why? Because we know it won't stop there. It's encroachment; the slow erosion of a right until there is nothing left to protect.

In the case of "gay marriage", we're talking about the encroachment on 14th Amendment rights. "Equal protection for all....well, except gays. Fuck them". That sets a precedent. How about 10 years from now when we have special laws for those who make 7 figure salaries, own X amount of stock and live in special neighborhoods? Special laws for special people?


While I disagree with your earlier legal positivistic arguments, I do agree in general with your position. These are natural rights and as such require equal protection for all.

Specifically, if we follow the Constitution, equal protection from government intrusion. Leave it to society. If some person or group or religion whatever objects and limits themselves and those who join them, they have that equal right of free association and contract.

[undine]

I'll just repeat, such social norms, traditions and institutions are determined by society, by what people do, and say (arguments like these), no one or elite few in government will decide. Right now that's shifting in favor of accepting gays marrying.
Under our form of government, society cannot decide to do things that may violate someone's civil rights.

[iustitia]

And I'm a textualist. The problem with originalism lies exactly in picking and choosing authorities from the past while opinions agree with yours.

Go with the text and the basic meanings of the words at the time they were written.The problem with originalism isn't a problem at all unless you're lazy. If you're not going to reference something in context then you shouldn't reference it. If no heed is paid to intent then there's no inherent truth to be taken from said citation. Yes it can take time to flesh out meaning from old language, and I think the time spent quibbling is worth it.


Whatever argument you wish to argue. Out of all these arguments, and people's actions and reactions, social order emerges. No one's in charge. You can't design and dictate society.
No one said anyone was in charge... I believe you're ascribing actions and intention to me that are not so.


You're right, marriage doesn't change removing restrictions on gays to participate.

So then what is the argument?...What? I think we're having another breakdown in communication.

[jillian]

While I disagree with your earlier legal positivistic arguments, I do agree in general with your position. These are natural rights and as such require equal protection for all.

Specifically, if we follow the Constitution, equal protection from government intrusion. Leave it to society. If some person or group or religion whatever objects and limits themselves and those who join them, they have that equal right of free association and contract.

The constitution does not equally protect anyone from government intrusion. It guarantees equal protection under the law.

"society" does not determine the right protected by the constitution. In fact, it's the opposite as the constitution protects minorities from the tyranny if the majority. If that weren't the case , there would be no reason to have a bill of rights.

[Chris]

The problem with originalism isn't a problem at all unless you're lazy. If you're not going to reference something in context then you shouldn't reference it. If no heed is paid to intent then there's no inherent truth to be taken from said citation. Yes it can take time to flesh out meaning from old language, and I think the time spent quibbling is worth it.


No one said anyone was in charge... I believe you're ascribing actions and intention to me that are not so.

...What? I think we're having another breakdown in communication.



I'm lazy. How pedestrian. Wake me up when you have something better than white - flag waving ad hom.

[Max Rockatansky]

The constitution does not equally protect anyone from government intrusion. It guarantees equal protection under the law.

"society" does not determine the right protected by the constitution. In fact, it's the opposite as the constitution protects minorities from the tyranny if the majority. If that weren't the case , there would be no reason to have a bill of rights.

What about the Left-Wing argument that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to whims of modern society such as eliminating the Second Amendment since we have a standing "militia" to protect us? :D

[Mister D]

What about the Left-Wing argument that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to whims of modern society such as eliminating the Second Amendment since we have a standing "militia" to protect us? :D

Oops lol

[Alyosha]

Under our form of government, society cannot decide to do things that may violate someone's civil rights.

This doesn't make any legal or logical sense. "Society" has no legal definition and has nothing to do with what government, I'll assume you mean the courts, bases it's judgments on (allegedly). Society has oftentimes been the bearer of many vile social ills and medieval style persecutions of individuals. Our government was established, in part, to protect the individual and minorities from society.

Regardless, caselaw has already supported that the government may conditionally usurp civil rights when "necessary". Even the recent "wins" on the part of GLBT activists with the SCOTUS was written in such a way as to wiggle around saying that gay marriage is marriage, and actually supported federalism.

A California higher court ruled against Prop 8 and the SCOTUS essentially said that it would not rescind the California court's ruling and fell back on federalism.

When you read all of their arguments you can tell they didn't want to make a national gay marriage ruling. This is something that must go to the legislative branch, especially with all of the contractual obligation and privileges that come with marriage and polygamist activists on the horizon. Even now a Utah higher court defended polygamy so, yes, indeed it is on its way.

[Chris]

Under our form of government, society cannot decide to do things that may violate someone's civil rights.


Which is a problem with what our system has become.

Read the Bill of Rights. It's an enumeration of natural rights government may not violate. It says absolutely nothing about what society may decide. How did this happen?

[Alyosha]

The constitution does not equally protect anyone from government intrusion.

Yes, it does. Have you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights?

You know that if someone made the right argument--because for those not in the know the SCOTUS hears specific arguments hence the seeming caprice in their decisions--that can be argued as supportive of equal protection from government. In fact, some day if I live through this, I will.

[Alyosha]

Since the government will not step out of marriage (politicians love controlling every aspect of our lives) we must go through the legislative due to the various points of legal and civil departure that will not neatly apply to polygamy.

[Chris]

The constitution does not equally protect anyone from government intrusion. It guarantees equal protection under the law.

"society" does not determine the right protected by the constitution. In fact, it's the opposite as the constitution protects minorities from the tyranny if the majority. If that weren't the case , there would be no reason to have a bill of rights.

Equal protection from government. The document doesn't define society, it defines goverment, enumerating powers granted and limitations prohibited. All rights are left to the states and ultimately the people.

I did not say society determines rights so your counter is wasted. Rights are inherent in who we are as reasoning social beings.

[iustitia]

I'm lazy. How pedestrian. Wake me up when you have something better than white - flag waving ad hom.So basically you're taking personally an adjective that accurately describes said approach to historical documents. You really want ad hominem then I'll just call you a big baby.

Had it been a charge against you I intended, your response to it would definitely warrant 'lazy.'

[iustitia]

The constitution does not equally protect anyone from government intrusion. It guarantees equal protection under the law.

"society" does not determine the right protected by the constitution. In fact, it's the opposite as the constitution protects minorities from the tyranny if the majority. If that weren't the case , there would be no reason to have a bill of rights.

If the Constitution's principles in the Bill of Rights - freedom from searches and seizures, freedom from quartering - don't warrant equally protecting citizens, just what the hell equal protection does the 14th Amendment provide us then?

You are aware of why the 14th Amendment was created aren't you?

[Chris]

Since the government will not step out of marriage (politicians love controlling every aspect of our lives) we must go through the legislative due to the various points of legal and civil departure that will not neatly apply to polygamy.

That I think is the problem with democracy that changed a simple reading of the Bill of Rights from protections of the people against government intrusion to government intruding to protect special interests provided they can manage to rent seek political favors. You end up with unconstitutional oddities like DOMA was that you must seek departures from.

Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting society from itself.

[Alyosha]

That I think is the problem with democracy that changed a simple reading of the Bill of Rights from protections of the people against government intrusion to government intruding to protect special interests provided they can manage to rent seek political favors. You end up with unconstitutional oddities like DOMA was that you must seek departures from.

Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting society from itself.

It should not. Evidence of the convolution caused by legislation is all around us. Be that as it may until a super volcano or asteroid hits, or like, ya know, the currency crashing we won't have a nonstatist solution anytime soon.

I'd rather not, as a lawyer, have to deal with the fuckery that will occur once Utah's polygamy decision goes higher. Without active legislation, relying on case law to sort out multiple individuals and their rights in marital dissolution cases will be a fucking nightmare. We will need marriage laws and statutes for the courts to base every day decisions upon.

[undine]

Which is a problem with what our system has become.

Read the Bill of Rights. It's an enumeration of natural rights government may not violate. It says absolutely nothing about what society may decide. How did this happen?
I'll try again. Society cannot make a law that violates someone's civil rights under our form of government.

[Alyosha]

I'll try again. Society cannot make a law that violates someone's civil rights under our form of government.

Society doesn't make laws. Legislators make laws. Courts expand laws. Society decides what is fashionable to wear that season.

[undine]

What about the Left-Wing argument that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to whims of modern society such as eliminating the Second Amendment since we have a standing "militia" to protect us? :D
The constitution can be amended. But it would be ridiculous to amend it in such a way that denied a group of people or an individual their rights. For example, prohibition or oft posited flag burning amendments.

[undine]

Society doesn't make laws. Legislators make laws. Courts expand laws. Society decides what is fashionable to wear that season.I was responding to Chris's statement that society should decide who can and cannot get married. The only way that society can make that decision is to get together and outlaw something they disagree with. And under our form of government, you cannot outlaw something that violates someone's rights.

[Alyosha]

The constitution can be amended. But it would be ridiculous to amend it in such a way that denied a group of people or an individual their rights. For example, prohibition or oft posited flag burning amendments.

Marriage is not a constitutional right and shouldn't be involved in an amendment. The government's purpose in this (all current regulations) has to do with the financial aspects and contractual aspects of marriage. Therefore the courts and government treat this (or should) no differently than any other civil contract.

To make it a "right", ie natural right it must be defined in political poetics. No one wishes that.

It's simple enough just to define through legislation what constitutes a marriage for contractual purposes. Every state does it. They'll have to add probably 4 more pages to cover polygamy, but it is the correct approach that will not clog up court systems in metropolitan areas and Utah if managed appropriately.