- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,449
- 143,151
- 2,615
A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.
Why can't Adam and Steve get married if they love eachother?
What possible impact does that have on your life?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.
It's not Adam and Steve! It's Adam and Steven.A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.
Why can't Adam and Steve get married if they love eachother?
What possible impact does that have on your life?
No, morality is NOT a relative thing. That's the revisionist logic that people have been using for the last century to promote the acceptance of everything from Women's Sufferage to Gay Marriage. These things are not appropriate; regardless of whether society accepts them or not.
These people are no more programmed by nature to be this way than a pit bull is programmed by nature to bite a child's face off. There may be hints to it in the genetic code, but these people are simply being allowed to act in an inappropriate manner and in fact are being taught that their Wrong way of doing things is acceptable.
Life is not and never has been about pleasure, fun, or happiness. It has been and always will be about living a Good, Decent, Proper, and Moral life. Nothing more. Nothing less.
What rights do straight people have that gay people do not have?
equal protection: an overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.
Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.
Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute
Again, why should government get to determine who can preside over a marriage and not the people?
Marriage certificates do not mean marriage licenses. A certificate simply means you have been married, and you could be provided with a certificate after signing a marriage contract. My parents, married in the Catholic Church, have a certificate from the Catholic Church recognizing their marriage. In addition they have a certificate from the state of California. Certificates and licenses are not the same thing.
And there was too dispute about marriage. Interracial marriage was heavily disputed. To solve the dispute, government just banned them...via the marriage license.
I personally would rather this be decided in the legislative arena than the judicial one, though.
If you think the ACLU won't sue the hell out of the first church that refuses to marry a gay couple in a state that has sanctioned such, you are rather naive.
I just have a concern about the courts doing the job of the legistlature. Take Roe v. Wade for example. If left to it's own devices, we'd probably have abortion laws as liberal as the ones we have today. But a court mandating it has the stink of imposition on it. So it is still controversial today when it shouldn't be.
I have a real problem with courts doing the job of the legislative branch. (And this isn't a partisan thing, I have a problem when Right Wing judges overrule Congress or state legistlatures as well.).
A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.
Why can't Adam and Steve get married if they love eachother?
What possible impact does that have on your life?
A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.
Why can't Adam and Steve get married if they love eachother?
What possible impact does that have on your life?
None whatsoever.
What impact did my marrying my wife have on them?
None.
#1) Ok, so what you're telling me Logic is that you have no actual core morals and values that you live by.
#2) We have already seen the destructive force of removing the societal barriers between genders in this country. The complete and utter destruction of the nuclear family. The loss of societal structure. The melding of the genders into one homogenous group.
#3) Where does it stop? Or are we to become the next Roman Empire.... putting on spectacles for the citizenry in a vain attempt to distract them from the fact that they have no job, no money, and no food because the social order has been ripped to shreds like a Christian at the claws of a Lion?
I've numbered your main points (and deleted a bit of the hysterics) above to make it easier to know what I am addressing. I do not dodge subject, change subjects or Cut & Run form a good debate. Mainly because I am not at all afraid of being wrong.
#1) You seem to have somewhat of a talent for missing the obvious. I guess you missed that whole:
I was taught not to judge another.
I was taught that the people some would consider "the least" are often "The greatest among you".
I was taught that my sins are no better than someone else's.
I was taught to have love and compassion - even for those I would call "the enemy".
Or maybe you don't recognize the source. All of those teachings are directly attributable to a guy named Jesus. You might look into what He taught some time. Great stuff.
#2) Yes we have eliminated societal barriers. Not just gender-barriers either. For example, my lovely bride is a Latina. This would have been a scandal once. I have friends who are black / white couples. Imagine that! And yet we have broken down those societal barriers and I personally think it's a good thing. Now people who used to be persecuted, can walk into a restuarant togther and have dinner without fear. I think that's good too. See how that might apply here? Of course you don't.
That is obviously not the case here. The people who are asking for this, are not asking for orgies in the streets, they are asking for shared health benefits, the right to visit those they love in the hospital, the right to commit to a monogamous relationship. None of the hysterical hyperbole you imply is being sought.
So it is easy to predict what you will say next....
what is this marriage tax? I've never encountered it, in fact, you pay more in taxes by being single.
what is this marriage tax? I've never encountered it, in fact, you pay more in taxes by being single.
You live with your mate but are unmarried. Each of you makes 25 thousand dollars gross per year. Neither of you pay income tax.
You live with your spouse(legally married) & file a joint income tax form. You pay a tax because as a joint income you are now in a higher tax bracket because joint filing = one person now making 50 thousand dollars per year instead of 2 separate people making 25 thousand dollars per year.
If you are married & file separate returns you are also AUTOMATICALLY placed into a higher income tax bracket as individuals so you can be taxed. That is why it's called a 'marriage penalty tax'. Read the below links CAREFULLY...
The Marriage Tax Penalty
Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Morality is a relative thing. Things that were considered completely immoral 40 years ago, such as couples living together outside of marriage, are considered completely normal now and no one says boo about them.
Sorry, I don't see this as a moral issue. If gay people are programmed by nature to be attracted to their own gender, you might as well let them do it. It would be a lot worse if you had a society that forced them to play at being straight and make themselves and another person fairly miserable.
No, morality is NOT a relative thing. That's the revisionist logic that people have been using for the last century to promote the acceptance of everything from Women's Sufferage to Gay Marriage. These things are not appropriate; regardless of whether society accepts them or not.
These people are no more programmed by nature to be this way than a pit bull is programmed by nature to bite a child's face off. There may be hints to it in the genetic code, but these people are simply being allowed to act in an inappropriate manner and in fact are being taught that their Wrong way of doing things is acceptable.
Life is not and never has been about pleasure, fun, or happiness. It has been and always will be about living a Good, Decent, Proper, and Moral life. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I've numbered your main points (and deleted a bit of the hysterics) above to make it easier to know what I am addressing. I do not dodge subject, change subjects or Cut & Run form a good debate. Mainly because I am not at all afraid of being wrong.
One thing... I don't debate. I'm not here to change your mind and I can personally guarantee you won't change mine on this or any other topic. Just remember that.
I can see why you're not afraid of being wrong... you've got plenty of experience at it from what I can see.
#1) You seem to have somewhat of a talent for missing the obvious. I guess you missed that whole:
I was taught not to judge another.
I was taught that the people some would consider "the least" are often "The greatest among you".
I was taught that my sins are no better than someone else's.
I was taught to have love and compassion - even for those I would call "the enemy".
Or maybe you don't recognize the source. All of those teachings are directly attributable to a guy named Jesus. You might look into what He taught some time. Great stuff.
I recognize the source just fine. It is however a source that I have less than no use for. I wasted 27 years on that garbage. My father wasted all 54 years (to the day) of his life on it as well. Apparently in my dad's hour of need, your Jesus was conveniently on vacation for two years. Either that or He just didn't give a fuck. I'm guessing the latter, since it fits with my experiences with your Jesus as well.
Race and Sexual Orientation are two totally different things so far as I'm concerned. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of many of these couplings; but that's more based on the values and societal differences which often emerge in the midst of these relationships and have a tendency to damage them. So long as both individuals have common values and the ability to deal with each other's cultures, go for it.
We do not get to choose our race. We DO get to choose our sexuality, at least to a large degree. THAT is the difference.
That is obviously not the case here. The people who are asking for this, are not asking for orgies in the streets, they are asking for shared health benefits, the right to visit those they love in the hospital, the right to commit to a monogamous relationship. None of the hysterical hyperbole you imply is being sought.
They are asking for society to accept inappropriate and immoral behavior as if it were nothing different than the mainstream relationship activities between a Man and a woman. You're looking at symptoms while I'm looking at the disease as a whole. At some point we need to put our collective foot down as a society and re-impose some limits, standards, and rules or we're going to soon be looking at complete and total social anarchy, which I do not believe this nation can survive for any extended period of time.
So it is easy to predict what you will say next....
So, how'd I do?
I can't understand all the commotion about gay marriage in the USA today. I know there is some political motives for it but WHY would the gay community want government as a 3rd party in their personal relationship??? I mean at a time when even the vanilla folks are avoiding government sponsored legal marriage...
U.S. marriage rate continues to decline - UPI.com
...this gay marriage issue seems outta place & outta time.
[...]
My question is WHY would some in the gay community want to be legally married when it will only beat them up financially & leave them open to the ever present family law attorneys lurking in the future???
For the same exact reasons heterosexuals get legally married.
Libertarians? We open up your sex life & increase your individual liberties.
Rational basis and restrictions on same-sex marriage
Given that one persons prejudice is another persons principle, it is often difficult to predict in advance what the Court will deem to be animus. With respect to sexual orientation, however, the Court has deemed anti-gay views to constitute animus and applied rational basis with bite. In the Romer case, the Court observed that gays and lesbians had been the victims of animus, as described above. In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Court also determined (without applying formal strict scrutiny) that statutes criminalizing same-sex sodomy did not pass constitutional muster under the Due Process Clause. Lawrence can thus be read, at a minimum, as a due process rational-basis with bite case. A critic could counter that Lawrence was a case about same-sex sexual conduct rather than about homosexual status. Just last Term, however, the Court rejected this conduct/status distinction in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The majority opinion asserted that [o]ur decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context, citing Lawrence for the proposition that [w]hen homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination. This constellation of precedents suggests that the Court will apply rational basis with bite rather than ordinary rational basis to discrimination against gay people, including restrictions on same-sex marriage.
Nor will the Court have to look far to find animus motivating recent restrictions on same-sex marriage. Last Friday, the plaintiffs in one of the DOMA cases catalogued some of the statements in the congressional record leading up to the passage of the Act in 1996. As discussed in that memorandum, Reprentative Barr characterized homosexuality as hedonism, narcissism, and self-centered morality. Representative Funderburk described homosexuality as inherently wrong and harmful to individuals, families, and societies. Representative Smith referred to same-sex sexual intimacy as unnatural and immoral.
Much debate has centered on whether sexual orientation deserves the strict or intermediate scrutiny that the Court accords to classifications such as race, national origin, alienage, non-marital parentage, and sex. While important, this debate often leaves the false impression that the plaintiffs in the marriage cases cannot prevail without acquiring either strict or intermediate scrutiny. Cases such as Reed, Eisenstadt, Moreno, Plyler, Cleburne, and Romer demonstrate otherwise.
In addition to making the best case for heightened scrutiny, plaintiffs should press the Court to apply rational basis with bite. And the Court should clarify its own practice, noting that rational basis with bite obtains once the Court discerns the presence of actual animus, not after the Court has proven the absence of all conjectured rationales.
Why the Court can strike down marriage restrictions under rational-basis review : SCOTUSblog
Ok, so what you're telling me Logic is that you have no actual core morals and values that you live by. It's "Live and Let Live." Lessez le bonn temps roulez!! Moral relavitism and anarchy. How long do you actually think society can actually continue to function that way? Especially a society that was built on the foundation of a particular set of morals and values? We have already seen the destructive force of removing the societal barriers between genders in this country. The complete and utter destruction of the nuclear family. The loss of societal structure. The melding of the genders into one homogenous group.
Where does it stop? Or are we to become the next Roman Empire.... putting on spectacles for the citizenry in a vain attempt to distract them from the fact that they have no job, no money, and no food because the social order has been ripped to shreds like a Christian at the claws of a Lion?
It's the gay agenda to persuade everyone that gays are just like normal people. That's it. Everything else is bullshit ginned up to make this pass. Gays are denied nothing. They are not discriminated against at all. It is all bullshit.
I can't understand all the commotion about gay marriage in the USA today.
I know there is some political motives for it but WHY would the gay community want government as a 3rd party in their personal relationship??? I mean at a time when even the vanilla folks are avoiding government sponsored legal marriage...
U.S. marriage rate continues to decline - UPI.com
...this gay marriage issue seems outta place & outta time.
My question is WHY would some in the gay community want to be legally married when it will only beat them up financially & leave them open to the ever present family law attorneys lurking in the future???
What makes people change their mind? Purposefully or not, children pick up on their parents beliefs and tend to follow them for the beginning of their life. Occasionally, around the teenage age, some kids transition into a revolt stage and completely change their views on the world. I believe this is mostly due to frustration in something which their parents believe; they have always taken it for granted but now that they have become more educated, they begin to question their beliefs and if unable to come up with an answer that they can rest upon, they choose to find their own way. My civic issue this semester will be gay marriage. I believe that by the time a child reaches his mid-teenage years, he will have picked up on his parents reaction to gay marriage. My curiosity about what makes a person change his mind sparked from an article I read from the Los Angeles Times titled,Obamas family influenced his gay-marriage shift. The article explains that even when Obamas position was in an early state of evolution, Michelle Obama went out of her way to invite gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual couples to the events she sponsored for military families.
Obama writes,There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and were talking about their friends and their parents, and Malia and Sasha, it wouldnt dawn on them that somehow their friends parents would be treated differently. It doesnt make sense to them and frankly, thats the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective, I thought it interesting that when Barack Obama, our president, was thinking about his position on gay marriage (one of the most controversial topics currently in our nation), he thought of his young daughter. In a way, their thoughts are the most valuablebear with me, but they are not corrupted by society. They are clear and pure; they see their friends and their parents just as normal families. To them, a man a woman, two men, or two women in love with one another are perfectly capable of raising a loving and healthy family. Sometimes I think it amazing how much we can learn from kids.
To begin my blogging over the semester I chose to look into some of the arguments that others use in order to opposite same-sex marriage. Most of quite similar and repetitive; the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) was formed to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property. They argue that marriage is naturally a covenant between a man and a woman and that it violates natural law. While biologically it is true that a man and a woman are needed to produce children, if children can not understand why gay parents would be treated differently, it is really that natural? It definitely is not built into usrather, picked up from society. Also, for the matter of nature, Bruce Bagemihl, a distinguished Canadian biologist and linguist, shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. The TFP also write that it is in the childs best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. As for that matter, I urge all to watch Zach Wahls address this issue (Speech). The people writing this article never had experience being raised by gay parents. They have no basis behind their thoughts, they are simply unsupported beliefs.
Thanks for reading this! Looking forward to what you have to say.