User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 112

  1. #71
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Gay marriage in California.
    My main point is that I don't like it when folks supporting LGBT rights frame the debate the way you did. Christians are not trying change the law. Rather the LGBT community is trying to have new laws passed and new rights recognized by the courts.


    In CA they didn't change the law. They undid a tyrannical act by the CA Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision. They undid a law that was made up out of thin air.

    My own view of rights aside the view of the US Supreme Court is that fundamental rights are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." There is no way that gay marriage can possibly fall within this definition.

    If LGBT folks want same-sex marriage legalized they need to do it with the consent of the people.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    My main point is that I don't like it when folks supporting LGBT rights frame the debate the way you did. Christians are not trying change the law. Rather the LGBT community is trying to have new laws passed and new rights recognized by the courts.

    In CA they didn't change the law. They undid a tyrannical act by the CA Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision. They undid a law that was made up out of thin air.

    My own view of rights aside the view of the US Supreme Court is that fundamental rights are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." There is no way that gay marriage can possibly fall within this definition.

    If LGBT folks want same-sex marriage legalized they need to do it with the consent of the people.


    It's unconstitutional to deny two adults, the ability to get married like everyone else. That was the basis for the law. It didn't happen out of thin air.

  3. #73
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post


    It's unconstitutional to deny two adults, the ability to get married like everyone else. That was the basis for the law. It didn't happen out of thin air.
    Right, it is generally unconstitutional to forbid two adults from getting married. But, our laws have presupposed for over 200 years that marriage is between one woman and one man.

    The idea that the constitution protects same-sex marriage is out of thin air... unless you can point to specific precedent.

    The only other ruling on this matter in CA was in 2004 where the court determined that the mayor of san francisco had no right to marry gay couples.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Right, it is generally unconstitutional to forbid two adults from getting married. But, our laws have presupposed for over 200 years that marriage is between one woman and one man.

    The idea that the constitution protects same-sex marriage is out of thin air... unless you can point to specific precedent.
    That doesn't mean we can't change laws for what seems unjust. If we hadn't changed any laws regarding people with less power, America would be a very different place right now.

    Allowing gay people to marry goes under minority protection. Allowing people freedom of religion. Making gender and racial discrimination illegal.

  5. #75
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Right, it is generally unconstitutional to forbid two adults from getting married. But, our laws have presupposed for over 200 years that marriage is between one woman and one man.
    And LGBTQ supporters like myself don't see what the justification is for that presupposition, other than 'it's been done that way for a long time, so it shouldn't be changed.' The simple fact of the matter is that no one I've talked to who is against the idea of gay marriage has provided any justification for why gay marriage is bad, outside of religious reasons. Even those arguing from a religious standpoint have no answer to the fact that two homosexuals getting married hurts no one.



    The idea that the constitution protects same-sex marriage is out of thin air... unless you can point to specific precedent.
    It's called the equal protection clause, 14th amendment.
    “My generation's apathy. I'm disgusted with it. I'm disgusted with my own apathy too, for being spineless and not always standing up against racism, sexism and all those other -isms the counterculture has been whinning about for years.” -Kurt Cobain

  6. #76
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    But, our laws have presupposed for over 200 years that marriage is between one woman and one man.
    Sorry, but this's the weakest argument in existence EVER.

    Tradition is not a valid excuse for mediocrity. Just because yeu did something stupid for 100+ years doesn't mean it's a good idea to continue doing something stupid for 100+ more years.

    Let's say every morning yeu wake up and fall out of bed and hit yeur head on the table. Well yeu've done it this way every day for a decade straight! To do anything different would be silly right? Or... yeu know... we could move the table... or just be more careful waking up...

    It's retarded at best to keep doing the same dumb thing over and over repeatedly, without learning from the mistake. For over 200 years blacks weren't allowed to vote either. Neither were women. They said the same thing about those back then because they were "less than human" or "it wasn't god's plan".

    Seriously, common sense please.



    Also...



    14th amendment:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.





    This pretty much covers it as a prescient. I mean it's in yeur constitution, the whole thing the entire country was founded upon. The only reason women and blacks were excluded previously, was that they weren't considered "persons". Gays have never been considered "less than human", so this should've applied to them all along.






    That being said; marriage is broken into two sections currently, but both are called marriage which's the problem... one is religious and one is by the state. A captain on a boat is allowed to perform marriages. A government official is allowed to perform marriages. Many other cases are allowed to perform marriages... they don't have to even be religious believers themselves. These marriages are not considered to be religious at all but are merely done as a state approved union.

    The religious form of marriage is separate, but people don't seem to think of it that way.

    Gays generally don't want to be married in a religious manner; even those who are religious generally agree that, yeah, their religion doesn't condone it and they are alright with that usually.

    They are, however, interested in getting the LEGAL benefits of a union, such as reduced taxes and such... this has nothing to do with religion or the religious form of marriage.

    As these marriages can be performed outside of a church and have no relevance to religion whotsoever, there is no reason not to provide such.

    People just have a habit of "assuming" they mean religious marriage is all.

    And assume just makes an ass out of u and me, but mostly u in this case.

  7. #77
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    14th amendment:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.





    This pretty much covers it as a prescient. I mean it's in yeur constitution, the whole thing the entire country was founded upon. The only reason women and blacks were excluded previously, was that they weren't considered "persons". Gays have never been considered "less than human", so this should've applied to them all along.
    So the right for gays to marry can exist before the right is recognized by US law?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #78
    Senior Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    2w3
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    If LGBT folks want same-sex marriage legalized they need to do it with the consent of the people.
    Oh I see. Well, I don't consent you to marry with the other sex. What you going to do about it?

  9. #79
    Senior Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    2w3
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    So the right for gays to marry can exist before the right is recognized by US law?
    That's why LGBT + supporters are STILL TRYING to get it recognized.

  10. #80
    Senior Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    2w3
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Since opposition of gay marriage comes from religious belief, why is it not allowed in every state anyways? Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

    If so, how is banning gay marriage constitutional?

    I really don't think if people will ever notice this...

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for those who are completely SURE of their type
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-15-2013, 11:49 PM
  2. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Climbs to New High
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 10:43 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 03:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO