Please explain how allowing gays to marry is oppressing your rights? How are you affected? The only way that I see that you would be affected is if you were gay. But I take it from your stance that you are not. So how does this oppress you?
Frankly, I don't find homosexuality immoral one bit. It's an act of love, plain and simple. And on Tuesday, we found out that most people are bigots against homosexuals in Missouri.
As for judicial activists, I'm sick of hearing that crap. Those judges have to seperate Church and State, rhetoric and fact and sometimes you don't like what comes out and sometimes you do. They make one decision you don't like and it kills ya. QQ more about this, really.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, I don't buy into your premise or atleast your wording of it.
I didn't say courts write law. I believe I said that courts don't write law(meaning legislation) However most people think by courts ruling on the constitutionality of a particular law that instantly the opposite of the law struck down is now "the law" -which certainly is not the case.
The attempt in Mass. was about as blatant as it comes. The court telling the legislature what to write and how, and then demanding a timetable. THAT was definately out of their realm of power. Courts do not hold that power over the legislature.
Supreme Courts can and often do suggest remedy when it is appropriate. It is suggestive in manner. Sorta like "'it is remanded and don't let it come back like this.. here, this would work." Fact is that when a law is found to be unconstitutional it is unenforcable, it is void... caput, finito. Don't know what the opposite might be but that would presume an enforcable opposite.. hehehhee Florida, had that occur in 2000 but, you'd not know about that issue you being from Iowa..
cquark almost has a point except for the points I brought up alot earlier about how the gov't already sets limits on "marriage". The gov't has put for guidlines for those wishing to be recognized by the state as legally married and the gov't doesn't recognize those who don't follow or meet the requirements of said guidelines.
That statement sounds like that once 'government' makes a law.. the part of government that makes them laws... that it is sacrosanct. The the body of government given the authority - final authority - to determine if that law is constitutional does not have that authority. I, of course disagree and opine that someone has to assert a right denied (in this case) and it is for the Court to determine this and not the legislature. If they, the legislators, don't like the decision they can try to Amend their Constitution to effect what their law could not.
However, this country leaves the legislation avenues open for even us mere citizens to propose legislation - I suggest those of you who wish to change what the gov't recognizes as a "marriage" get together and write some legislation and get it passed.
I don't have to CAD, I insist the right exists already and that the USSC will affirm this. Then the old shoe is on the other foot... YOU and YOURS go and Amend OUR Constitution to effect what YOUR law tried to do! hehehhehehehe We'll see in time one way or another.. and if you had the lawyers advising Bush you too would conclude it will take an Amendment to "Protect Marriage" from the immoral thwarters of societial norms.
CkG
No, it's not up to me or those wishing to preserve the definition of marriage. The law already states my side as does wording used by the USSC itself. It is up to you and the homosexual advocates to have the law changed to wording you would like but as it sits right now there is nothing for the USSC to rule on because the law doesn't single out or prevent a homosexual person from getting married. They have just as many "rights" as a heterosexual man. Now even though it's not up to us to change, we are being proactive in preserving what is right.
Keep trying to whine about 2000 thought...it's pretty funny that people are still hung up on that and try to use that in their other arguments
But since you brought it up...wasn't it the Florida court that was trying to write election law after the election took place? oh that's right...it was...Hmmmm...You are ignoring what I've pointed out previously in regards to cquark's argument. The gov't has decided that it is going to regulate marriage. That being the case they set the guidelines and rules for people who want to be recognized as "married" by the state. Sure, the court could try to claim a "right" was denied but there isn't a "right" here to be denied. There is no "right" to homosexual marriage - and if a court claimed there is - they are granting special rights instead of equal rights since homosexuals aren't prevented from having a "spouse" and being "married". There is no special "poligamy" marriage recognized by the gov't. Should they not also be granted this "right" according to your argument? Please answer since your bigot buddy moonie is too big of a coward to address that.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, it's not up to me or those wishing to preserve the definition of marriage. The law already states my side
Please answer since your bigot buddy xxxxxx is too big of a coward to address that.
CkG
Speaking of cowardly Bigotry... atleast it is posted in black & white for all to see.
Ah, gotcha, "it's your side" therefore it's OK to play God, of course... :roll:
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, it's not up to me or those wishing to preserve the definition of marriage. The law already states my side
Please answer since your bigot buddy moonie is too big of a coward to address that.
CkG
Speaking of cowardly Bigotry... atleast it is posted in black & white for all to see.
Ah, gotcha, "it's your side" therefore it's OK to play God, of course... :roll:
Yeah, it was in response to this by Lunyray: "YOU and YOURS go and Amend OUR Constitution to effect what YOUR law tried to do!"
So once again dave tries to misrepresent and twist things. Maybe you should give m. moore a call, I'm sure you two would get along famously.
CkG
The fact that contracts are regulated by the state in some ways doesn't show that the state has the right to regulate contracts in any way it pleases. Human rights limit the state's ability to regulate contracts. The state is required to treat persons under the law equally when it comes to contracts, but makes an exception for marriage by restricting who you are permitted to contract with based on your gender. This is precisely the same unconstitutional type of legislation some states used to have by restricting who you were permitted to make a contract with based on your race.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No, it's not the same. When it was based on race it was to exclude based on skin color(as in saying they were less). Continuing to define marriage as one woman and one man doesn't discriminate against one gender or says the other gender is "less". You see, it takes both genders to have a marriage - there is no discrimination there.
But i'll ask you the same question that the other cowards won't answer. Should polygamy be a "right"? Because using the "rights" argument to argue for homosexual marriage can also be used by others. Do you support their "right"? Or do you think the gov't can regulate the marriage contract so-as to exclude them? Hey, it's your argument.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Ah, but they haven't granted it, nor should they based on the fact there is no "right" to it.
No, the 2000 example doesn't help you at all. The Florida court was overturned as they were trying to write election law after the election had taken place. The courts aren't allowed to do such things.
Right, the courts rule on and based on law. And no, a majority doesn't suggest as you say and as you've pointed out, the USSC hasn't overturned the laws on the books that specifically define marriage and spouse. And again, even if they did rule the laws were unconstitutional it most certainly wouldn't automatically mean that "marriage" means any "two people". There would need to be legislation enacted to define it so the gov't could give "marriage" legal standing again.
Yeah, you can't say it any more ways because they still won't work and you know it. The courts have their place but it's not in making legislation. You need to get the homosexual advocates to have the legislation changed instead of abusing the court system to write it into the law.
CkG
Whoa, long thread and I didn't bother to read it all either, but I do have an opinion on it.
I don't believe that the church should condone gay marriagies, but the goverment shouldn't be able to decide if they are right or wrong either. After all, don't we have separation of Church and State in this country. At least we used to. The founding fathers whose experience taught them it was a good idea thought we should have it.
Then there is the fact that you can't change them no matter what the law says. If they want to live together that is their right. How would you stop them anyway, a secret police?
I also think that if you have a couple of gay people who have a relationship they should be able to have the same legal rights as any other couple, and they need a legal paper to give them that. They should be able to bequeath their belongings/property without paying any more taxes then anyone else. They should also be able to get health insurance for their mate if one of them works and the other doesn't or has a job that doesn't provide it.
It seems the Christian people in this country have forgotten what Jesus said about casting the first stone. Remember, we are dealing with two consenting alduts here. Being gay isn't for me and I thank God I'm not gay, but some people are and I don't see why they should be singled out by the goverment because of it.
Don't we have more important matters that need to be addresed then this issue? I sure think we do.
I don't believe that the church should condone gay marriagies, but the goverment shouldn't be able to decide if they are right or wrong either. After all, don't we have separation of Church and State in this country. At least we used to. The founding fathers whose experience taught them it was a good idea thought we should have it.
Then there is the fact that you can't change them no matter what the law says. If they want to live together that is their right. How would you stop them anyway, a secret police?
I also think that if you have a couple of gay people who have a relationship they should be able to have the same legal rights as any other couple, and they need a legal paper to give them that. They should be able to bequeath their belongings/property without paying any more taxes then anyone else. They should also be able to get health insurance for their mate if one of them works and the other doesn't or has a job that doesn't provide it.
It seems the Christian people in this country have forgotten what Jesus said about casting the first stone. Remember, we are dealing with two consenting alduts here. Being gay isn't for me and I thank God I'm not gay, but some people are and I don't see why they should be singled out by the goverment because of it.
Don't we have more important matters that need to be addresed then this issue? I sure think we do.
The situation with marriage and race was that homoracial marriages were approved, while heteroracial ones weren't. The only difference here is that same sex marraiges aren't approved, while opposite sex marriages are, so yes, there is the same type of discrimination today as there was in the days when interracial marriage was forbidden, except that today it's based on gender, not race.
Um, that's precisely what the discrimination is.
But i'll ask you the same question that the other cowards won't answer. Should polygamy be a "right"? Because using the "rights" argument to argue for homosexual marriage can also be used by others. Do you support their "right"? Or do you think the gov't can regulate the marriage contract so-as to exclude them? Hey, it's your argument.
Polygamy should be legal. Polygamous relationships are a lot of work, but if you want to try it, it's up to you, not the state or me.
obviously saying that I?m not committed enough to being against homosexual marriage that I?d fight someone for my position on it proves that i hate all gays.
man I?m glad you caught me!
Or is your flame bate just to distract from your overtly wrong statement that we're trying to 'outlaw gays'?
your nothing than a small minded hate monger.
The right of a community to set it's own standards is an essential right protected by the USSC. Forcing others to accept an amoral view of society as law just as repressive as forcing others to accept a moral view of society as law. repression will come from one side or the other, the only question is: do we allow the minority to tyrannize the majority?
I have to raise children and explain to them though it is immoral to have homosexual sex it's also approved by society. The attempt is to make what is morally wrong seem acceptable through tyrnaical laws.
that's stereotypical, why couldn?t i be gay? I know gay Christians, both for and against gay marriage. I know gay Atheists, both for and against gay marriage.
that's fine with me and if you get the majority to agree with you and pass a law allowing for homosexual marriage then that's fine. But as it is we've got to deal with judicial activism instead of a community setting standards.
fvking and love do not have to go penice in anus. You can love without fvking, and you can commit for life without having society approve of your sexual behavior.
any other couple doesn't have rights. only the married have those rights and it's a matter of creating the foundational unit of society;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are you affected? The only way that I see that you would be affected is if you were gay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to raise children and explain to them though it is immoral to have homosexual sex it's also approved by society. The attempt is to make what is morally wrong seem acceptable through tyrnaical laws.
__________________________________________________________________
Then you're teaching you're childrean wrong. I hope they will see past you're bigotry. The hate and fear needs to end.
I'm not too worried about it. Polls show that as you look at younger and younger age demographics, they're far more tolerant. The same happened with interacial marriage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are you affected? The only way that I see that you would be affected is if you were gay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to raise children and explain to them though it is immoral to have homosexual sex it's also approved by society. The attempt is to make what is morally wrong seem acceptable through tyrnaical laws.
__________________________________________________________________
Then you're teaching you're childrean wrong. I hope they will see past you're bigotry. The hate and fear needs to end.
I'm not too worried about it. Polls show that as you look at younger and younger age demographics, they're far more tolerant. The same happened with interacial marriage.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I take it from your stance that you are not. So how does this oppress you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's stereotypical, why couldn?t i be gay? I know gay Christians, both for and against gay marriage. I know gay Atheists, both for and against gay marriage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the vast majority of gay people are for gay marriage. You're not, therefore you are proabably not gay. Come on man, that's common sence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I take it from your stance that you are not. So how does this oppress you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's stereotypical, why couldn?t i be gay? I know gay Christians, both for and against gay marriage. I know gay Atheists, both for and against gay marriage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the vast majority of gay people are for gay marriage. You're not, therefore you are proabably not gay. Come on man, that's common sence.
when did it become your job to try to tell the youth of the nation how to believe? Why should big brother be the one to tell us what is right and wrong to think?
1.) it?s not bigoted 2.) I?ve got no hate for people who are adulteress, have pre-marital sex, or have sex with people of the same sex 3.) I?ve got no fear of homosexuals, nor would I encourage my children to hate or fear homosexuals. 4.) saying a particular sexual behavior is immoral isn?t hateful or fear mongering or bigoted, even if you happen to disagree.
Or are you a fearful bigot who hates men who want two wives at once?
What a bigot, what percent of a group has to be one way before you can take it as read that any particular person from that group is one way?
In Texas about three out of four of the people under 25 I?ve spoken to want gay marriage, but about half of the gay people I?ve spoken to want gay marriage.
I bet that gays that are against gay marriage are self hating to huh?
Actually if I had a problem with men having two wives at once its that I've never seen a relationship like that that wasn't founded on controlling women. However, I know there are other cultures where that is acceptable and they make it work. So if it works for them fine. So how would that view make me a bigot?
As to your half the gay people want gay marraige statisitic. Think a little broader then you're little community. I use to live in the south too, I know first hand how people can be initimidated and will say what people want to hear to fit in as best they can. On a natinal level, most gays want gay marriage. That's a facts. Deny it if you want, but you look like a fool saying the sky is red, because you saw one red horizon.
You don't have the right to teach your kid whatever you want. If you taught them interacial marriage was wrong, you would again be a bad parent. This isn't a matter of big brother versus you, this is a matter of right versus wrong. Just like slavery was wrong. That was another matter where people made up all types of escuses about how the federal government trampled on there rights to justify an evil.
But again, you're bigoted views will slowly fade from our society as your generation grows old.
that's fine, but forcing your social agenda on the population through the state isn't.
is that right? and your going to use the state to force me to teach my children to believe in whatever you do, right?
now that's true bigotry fear and hate of those that aren?t like you, and it's the exact opposite of what it is to be free.
it's someone's right to be a 'bad parent' in your eyes, along as they aren?t being an abusive one. It's not your right to keep me from teaching my kids that Jesus is lord, and it's not my right to keep you from teaching your kids that Jesus was a liar.
the act of enslaving people is wrong, the act of killing Jews is wrong, and the act of using the state to force your social agenda on children is wrong.
you blatantly represent your side as the though-control communists that you are, and I thank you for your honesty.
that is the exact same line of thinking that I?m using so if I?m a bigot so are you, you hypocritical thought-policing bigot.
Ouch!
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything using the state. I'm for NOT allowing the state to prevent people from marrying. This doesn't force you to do anything. I bet you teach your children that adultury is wrong and I would agree with you, but its not ILLEGAL!!! and neither should gay marriage be. no one is forcing you to think that its right.
I will be teaching my kids about jesus but I won't be twisting his teachings of peace and love to suit a right wing freedom ristricting agenda.
You're arguing the state should be used as a tool to prevent freedom and I argue that the state should be used as a tool to promote freedom.
Apparently other peoples freedom is an opression to you. And ironically enough you're calling me the communist. Thanks, LordMagnusKain, oh I mean Stalin.
Hell, I'm not even going to read any of this.
I think it should be Illegal to be gay! They aren't normal humans, and shouldn't be treated as such
I think it should be Illegal to be gay! They aren't normal humans, and shouldn't be treated as such
1.) You just openly called for thought policing and forcing your social agenda on children in school, trying to wiggle out of spreading your view of the world thorough government action, enacted by the minority, isn?t going to fly. You can?t call tyranny freedom for the tyrannical.
2.) You aren?t calling for freedom either, freedom to ?marry?, I?m sorry but re-defining housing-requirements does not make people who live in colonias any more free.
3.) Your arguing that the state should be used as a tool to prevent freedom, as you destroy the definition of marriage and eliminate the value of that covenant.
4.) Your not calling for the freedom of gays to have the same benefits as anyone else, your calling for a special exception for gays, on that isn?t given to the incestuous or polygamists.
As I said before, you are a hypocrite in trying to bring ?freedom? to one group we ?discriminate against? because of the definition of the covenant of marriage, but not fighting for the same for others.
You have a social agenda to eliminate any judgment of personal immoral behavior, and that, not the personal evil that you?re trying to cover up with it, is what will bring you into self judgment in the end.
Hopefully you can see past the destructiveness of siding with socially destructive actions and come to understand that we keep things together for a reason.
2.) You aren?t calling for freedom either, freedom to ?marry?, I?m sorry but re-defining housing-requirements does not make people who live in colonias any more free.
3.) Your arguing that the state should be used as a tool to prevent freedom, as you destroy the definition of marriage and eliminate the value of that covenant.
4.) Your not calling for the freedom of gays to have the same benefits as anyone else, your calling for a special exception for gays, on that isn?t given to the incestuous or polygamists.
As I said before, you are a hypocrite in trying to bring ?freedom? to one group we ?discriminate against? because of the definition of the covenant of marriage, but not fighting for the same for others.
You have a social agenda to eliminate any judgment of personal immoral behavior, and that, not the personal evil that you?re trying to cover up with it, is what will bring you into self judgment in the end.
Hopefully you can see past the destructiveness of siding with socially destructive actions and come to understand that we keep things together for a reason.
the difference between it being illegal to engage in a sexual activity and expanding government to approve of that sexual activity is obvious to all rational people.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter