First Civil-Union Couple Parting Ways

[KarlMarx]

I'm curious, but what would you think if the majority of people decided that Abbey Normal shouldn't be allowed to get married?

I know where you're going with this... but, gays can marry.... members of the other sex.... states have the right to define and regulate marriage.... that's why states each have their own divorce laws, that's why several states have already passed bills banning gay marriage....

Instead of getting gay marriage rammed down everyone's throat via the judiciary... do what the abolitionists and suffragists did... get Congress to amend the Constitution, if 2/3 of the states vote for the amendment, you're in, otherwise, tough luck.

 

[Avatar4321]

And I'll ask the question again. When was the right to heterosexual marriage voted for by the majority of the people?

When they put marriage laws on the books genius.

 

[KarlMarx]

I understand that. But I don't understand the argument that gay marriage must be added to the Constitution when heterosexual marriage isn't a part of it.

We have amendments abolishing slavery and granting women the right to vote, too....

the world isn't the way we always want it... if you believe in gay marriage, petition Congress to amend the Constitution...

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm sure all you Christians were praying for this moment of human suffering to occur so that you could revel in your own righteousness.

You bunch of f*cking hypocrites.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm sure all you Christians were praying for this moment of human suffering to occur so that you could revel in your own righteousness.

You bunch of f*cking hypocrites.

I've learned something recently. Christ taught us to pray for our enemies. He didn't necessarily say pray good things for them.

However, regardless of that, why do you assume human suffering is bad? I contend that quite alot of it is good. It teaches us something about ourself and life. And sometimes brings about repentence. And if i know someone suffering something will bring them to repentence and eventually bring them to the joy that comes in having the Spirit of God present then I would hope the Lord would privilege them with such suffering so repentence would come about.

And if suffering teaches others to avoid such sin, then that is good too.

 

[MissileMan]

We have amendments abolishing slavery and granting women the right to vote, too....

the world isn't the way we always want it... if you believe in gay marriage, petition Congress to amend the Constitution...

The constitution was ammended for abolition and suffrage not to add new rights, but to include a group who was being denied an existing right. There is no such situation for marriage because marriage is not a constitutionally given right.

 

[KarlMarx]

The constitution was ammended for abolition and suffrage not to add new rights, but to include a group who was being denied an existing right. There is no such situation for marriage because marriage is not a constitutionally given right.

The rights you have are spelled out in the Constitution. Rights don't grow on trees, they don't occur naturally, they are granted under laws. In fact, rights cannot exist outside the context of Law.

The right to vote and the abolition of slavery weren't pre-existing rights before the amendments that granted them were added to the Constitution.

The reason our law system spells out rights is to prevent people from inventing rights e.g. the right to cannibalism, incest, pedophilia, abortion etc. We have a process for granting people rights, it's called "amending the Constitution".

The Founding Fathers in their wisdom decided on this approach so that we can grant rights to a group (e.g. the right of gays to marry) without trampling on the rights of others (e.g. the right of The People to decide which amendments to add to the Constitution).

The manner that you favor grants rights to a group (i.e. the right to gay marriage) by denying the right to chose to The People. That is called "an oligarchy" and that is exactly what our Founding Fathers did not want.

You may not like that, you may think that unfair... but it beats the alternative.... legislation by an unelected body of officials who are accountable to no one, also known as a dictatorship (oh wait, JUDGES have been doing that for over 40 years!!!!!!)

 

[Said1]

I'm sure all you Christians were praying for this moment of human suffering to occur so that you could revel in your own righteousness.

You bunch of f*cking hypocrites.

Don't be such a shit. And what's that supposed to mean exactly anyway? Who's suffering?

 

[MissileMan]

The right to vote and the abolition of slavery weren't pre-existing rights before the amendments that granted them were added to the Constitution.

So noone voted in any election before women were given the vote? White people weren't considered free citizens of the U.S. before they abolished slavery? You must have studied a different U.S history than I did.

 

[manu1959]

I'm sure all you Christians were praying for this moment of human suffering to occur so that you could revel in your own righteousness.

You bunch of f*cking hypocrites.

human suffering....? are you joking? ......i thought you lot approved of choice?

 

[KarlMarx]

So noone voted in any election before women were given the vote? White people weren't considered free citizens of the U.S. before they abolished slavery? You must have studied a different U.S history than I did.

Quit acting dense, you understood what I meant.

You claimed that women naturally had the right to vote before it was granted by the 19th amendment.

You claimed that slaves had the same rights as others before slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment.

That wasn't true in either case. They were granted those rights when those amendments were added to the Constitution. In the same manner, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures were granted us by the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments.

 

[MissileMan]

Quit acting dense, you understood what I meant.

You claimed that women naturally had the right to vote before it was granted by the 19th amendment.

You claimed that slaves had the same rights as others before slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment.

That wasn't true in either case. They were granted those rights when those amendments were added to the Constitution. In the same manner, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures were granted us by the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments.

That's not what I wrote at all. I wrote that the amendments were added to give an already existing constitutional right to a group that was being unfairly excluded. The right to vote existed before women were allowed to. The right to be free citizens existed before slavery was abolished.

I'm saying that a constitutional amendment to the constitution isn't necessary to give gays the right to marry or form civil unions because there is no existing constitutional right bestowed on straight couples.

This is why laws are having to be passed forbidding gay marriage. IMO, this is also why courts have been finding these laws unconstitutional.

 

[KarlMarx]

That's not what I wrote at all. I wrote that the amendments were added to give an already existing constitutional right to a group that was being unfairly excluded. The right to vote existed before women were allowed to. The right to be free citizens existed before slavery was abolished.

I'm saying that a constitutional amendment to the constitution isn't necessary to give gays the right to marry or form civil unions because there is no existing constitutional right bestowed on straight couples.

This is why laws are having to be passed forbidding gay marriage. IMO, this is also why courts have been finding these laws unconstitutional.

OK, I see what you mean now.

As I said before, those rights not specifically spelled out in the Constitution are up to the states to grant or deny per the 10th amendment.

I really have a difficult time seeing how a state's legislature can be told it does not have the right to ban gay marriage, unless it was in violation of the US Constitution or that state's constitution.

BTW.... Whether courts actually have the power to decide whether a law is constitutional or not has been a controversy since Marbury vs. Madison in the early 1800s. I can see a case where a law is in direct violation of the constitution, but I can't see how a judge determines "constitutionality" of a law.

 

[Max Power]

The rights you have are spelled out in the Constitution. Rights don't grow on trees, they don't occur naturally, they are granted under laws. In fact, rights cannot exist outside the context of Law.

Quite the contrary.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Max Power]

I know where you're going with this... but, gays can marry.... members of the other sex.... states have the right to define and regulate marriage.... that's why states each have their own divorce laws, that's why several states have already passed bills banning gay marriage....

Instead of getting gay marriage rammed down everyone's throat via the judiciary...

I'm sorry, but unless people are being FORCED into gay marriage, it's not being rammed down anyone's throat.

Every gay marriage would be under the consent of those being married.

 

[007]

Just as some people are born with six fingers, or a cleft palate, or autistic, or like twins with their skulls growing together, nature can make mistakes. But all are birth defects, and most born with a defect seek help to remedy their affliction. Queers using the "born this way" excuse are doing nothing more than ignoring the fact that they were born with a mental illness. They are making a conscious decision to act out the perversion instead of seeking help. Same thing with pedophiles, bestiality, necrophilia, rapists, murderers, or the little boy that decides to steal a pack of gum down at the corner store, kleptomania. Being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is a defect in the cognitive mental process, and one should be treated for it, not told that it's something cute, an alternative, or acceptable as behavior. Anyone who condones this behavior is NOT doing homosexuals or lesbians any good at all. They are only contributing to their illness.

Giving queers and lezbos the right to validate their unholy union "in any way" is a huge mistake.

 

[Max Power]

Same thing with pedophiles, bestiality, necrophilia, rapists, murderers, or the little boy that decides to steal a pack of gum down at the corner store, kleptomania.

Every one of those groups of people causes harm to someone else (or in the case of bestiality, something else).

How is this in any way comparable to a consentual relationship between two adults?

 

[Hobbit]

Every one of those groups of people causes harm to someone else (or in the case of bestiality, something else).

How is this in any way comparable to a consentual relationship between two adults?

If a person volunteered to have his/her body used as a sex toy after death and wrote as such in a will, do you think it should still be illegal?

What about the guy in Germany who put out an ad in the paper that he wanted to eat somebody? A consenting adult answered the ad and made a video of himself consenting to be killed and eaten by this man. Well, the man killed and ate him and is now in jail. Should he be? It was between two consenting adults, and the guy was suicidal anyway, so no harm was really done.

What about countries where the age of consent is 12? Is pedophilia ok in those countries as long as it's between consenting 'adults?'

What about gorillas who can use sign language? Is it ok to have sex with one of them if it consents?

Sadly, I've met people who think would actually defend all of the above acts.

 

[007]

Every one of those groups of people causes harm to someone else (or in the case of bestiality, something else).

How is this in any way comparable to a consentual relationship between two adults?

Harm is a completely seperate issue, and NOT the one disgust in my post.

YOU are starting right off with the old liberal "shuck and jive" game. "When confronted with indisputable truth, deflect the issue to something else".

Well, lowonpower, us members that have been here awhile have been over and over this "who does it harm" bullshit dozens of times with liberals who support fags and them getting married. I can say with total certainty, that the queer life is a dangerous one. They are more likely to have multiple partners, more likely to have mental problems, more likely to be drub abusers, have higher mortality rates, on and on. Now I could go through what I have in the past dozens of times and google all these facts, but there's TONS of websites that list them, and they're EASY to find. So look for yourself. I'm tired of trying to educate every sorry ass liberal that comes along and gives me the same tired ass bull shit line about consenting adults and who is it harming. They're harming themselves. They're harming the poor people around them. They're harming everybody in the big picture.

 

[Max Power]

If a person volunteered to have his/her body used as a sex toy after death and wrote as such in a will, do you think it should still be illegal?

What about the guy in Germany who put out an ad in the paper that he wanted to eat somebody? A consenting adult answered the ad and made a video of himself consenting to be killed and eaten by this man. Well, the man killed and ate him and is now in jail. Should he be? It was between two consenting adults, and the guy was suicidal anyway, so no harm was really done.

To be honest, I don't really care. If it doesn't harm anyone, then I'm not going to stand in their way.

What about countries where the age of consent is 12? Is pedophilia ok in those countries as long as it's between consenting 'adults?'

What about gorillas who can use sign language? Is it ok to have sex with one of them if it consents?

You're 100% dodging the issue here. Obviously, a 12 year old is not an adult, and a gorilla (like a child, or a mentally retarded person) is not competent enough to consent. And wouldn't it, by definition, not be pedophilia if a 12 year old is an adult?

Sadly, I've met people who think would actually defend all of the above acts.

It seems that all you're trying to do is to equate bestiality (among other disturbing things) with homosexuality.