Gay Marriage

[Dan]

In the end,this argument is more or less pointless. Like it or not, homosexuality exists and has existed for a long long time. Whether it's legal or not, homosexuals are going to get together. Way it goes.

 

[Dan]

the only intelligence I found here was a few people: SLClemens, Dan and Issac Brock.

Hey, thanks!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Dan
In the end,this argument is more or less pointless. Like it or not, homosexuality exists and has existed for a long long time. Whether it's legal or not, homosexuals are going to get together. Way it goes.

Dan, this thread is about gay MARRIAGES, and they still don't get recognized by law. Way it goes.

 

[DKSuddeth]

If we're going to shift this into a constitutional issue, whether something is a right granted by that document or not, then we need to determine first off what we think the constitution is.

With the events of 9/11 and the aftermath including the PATRIOT ACT, as well as the ramp up of muslim persecution both by the authorities as well as some of our citizens, the argument over what the constitution provides for its citizens has been hotly debated.

There are those who seem to be completely fine and OK with the federal government suppressing freedoms and liberties in the name of safety and protection from terrorists by claiming that theres no SPECIFIC guarantee of rights of privacy and such. The argument stated by Justice Scalia, that the american people have more rights and freedoms than originally written into the constitution is one that gets used quite frequently by this group.

There are also those who claim that the constitution is the guarantee of all rights to its citizens and then explains the limitations a government has in governing its citizens with the power granted by those citizens. Thats where the laws made by congress, signed into law by the president, and then adjudicated by the courts come into play. That dirty checks and balances thing.

Depending on which view you wish to take is going to state your case for you, but whos wrong or right?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
If we're going to shift this into a constitutional issue, whether something is a right granted by that document or not, then we need to determine first off what we think the constitution is.

With the events of 9/11 and the aftermath including the PATRIOT ACT, as well as the ramp up of muslim persecution both by the authorities as well as some of our citizens, the argument over what the constitution provides for its citizens has been hotly debated.

There are those who seem to be completely fine and OK with the federal government suppressing freedoms and liberties in the name of safety and protection from terrorists by claiming that theres no SPECIFIC guarantee of rights of privacy and such. The argument stated by Justice Scalia, that the american people have more rights and freedoms than originally written into the constitution is one that gets used quite frequently by this group.

There are also those who claim that the constitution is the guarantee of all rights to its citizens and then explains the limitations a government has in governing its citizens with the power granted by those citizens. Thats where the laws made by congress, signed into law by the president, and then adjudicated by the courts come into play. That dirty checks and balances thing.

Depending on which view you wish to take is going to state your case for you, but whos wrong or right?

In part I agree, regardless of how the courts or other determine what the constitition is in your example. But the fact still remains that if peole don't agree with the morality behind a particular law, they try to claim it's against the Constitution because the governemnt isn't supposed to legislate morality.

But all laws are based on morality...how can it possibly be denied that the Constitution protects free speech? It's clearly stated. However, there are laws preventing me from the use of a certain n word. There are laws preventing me from telling off-color jokes in the work place.

 

[DKSuddeth]

But all laws are based on morality...how can it possibly be denied that the Constitution protects free speech? It's clearly stated. However, there are laws preventing me from the use of a certain n word. There are laws preventing me from telling off-color jokes in the work place.

I disagree in part. Not all laws are based on morality, in fact, most laws are based on ethics and protection of society. Corporate laws are based on ethics and protection of the people. Criminal laws are based on protecting society. I believe part of the reason that a constitution was written was that the colonials, or new americans, did not want to live under a monarchy again, where one person had say over your life and actions. I also believe that they were of the mindset that religion and spirituality were personal choices to make. Not a prescribed doctrine to follow.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I disagree in part. Not all laws are based on morality, in fact, most laws are based on ethics and protection of society. Corporate laws are based on ethics and protection of the people. Criminal laws are based on protecting society. I believe part of the reason that a constitution was written was that the colonials, or new americans, did not want to live under a monarchy again, where one person had say over your life and actions. I also believe that they were of the mindset that religion and spirituality were personal choices to make. Not a prescribed doctrine to follow.

Morality, ethics, protection...call it what you will, same thing (to me). Who's to say what's ethical or moral? Under what basis are laws enacted that "protect" me against my will or are ethical yet infringe upon the very rights granted under the Constitution?

I cannot think of a single law that has been enacted that isn't based upon someone else's belief of what is better for me (ethically, morally, whatever word) rather than my own.

 

[palan]

I didn't believe in gay marriage either still don't. However, there is an argument for a recognizable civil union. I always felt there is no discrimination if males cannot marry other males where is the discrimination?

Andrew Sullivan has the best argument for some type of recognized partnership.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110004130

 

[SLClemens]

* SLClemens was angry that he couldn't namecall in the thread that was locked last night, so he revived this old thread to do so *

edited by jimnyc

 

[jimnyc]

Goodbye.

You were sent a PM politely asking for the crap to stop. You purposely revive an old thread to start your shit again. We can do without you.

 

[Sevendogs]

Marriage should not be a previlege for biologically abnormal people. They have enough rights and can do whatever they want, but marirage is for a man and a woman. Family is made of man, woman and children.

 

[green lantern]

i agree with sevendogs that marriage should be for a man and a woman, for the simple fact that the whole basis of marriage , for the most part, is to provide a stable home for children, and the procreation of such children. i have nothing against gays or lesbians, far be it for me to judge them, as i have enough of my own sins that i could be judged by. if they want to be together, fine , no problem here, but reserve a formal marriage for a man and a woman. if a gay or lesbian couple love each other that much, it should not matter.

 

[sealybobo]

I'd love to hear how you interpreted the constitution to say that gay marriages are permissible. And what legal background do YOU have?

My thoughts are plain and simple - it's foul and disgusting.

One 1982 study found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.
Council on Scientific Affairs, "Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States," JAMA, May 1, 1996, p. 1355.

And a 1997 study again drew attention to the "strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact.
M. Frisch and others, "Sexually transmitted infection as a cause of anal cancer," N Engl J Med, Nov. 6, 1997, p. 1350.

Another study found that: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) "a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.
S.D. Wexner, "Sexually transmitted diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The challenge of the nineties," Dis Colon Rectum (EAB), Dec. 1990, from the abstract, p. 1048.

Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (no heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts.
J. Christopherson and others, "Sexually transmitted diseases in hetero-, homo-and bisexual males in Copenhagen," Dan Med Bull (DYN), June 1988, from the abstract, p. 285.

In 1997 a writer for the pro-homosexual New York Times noted that a young male homosexual in America has about a 50% chance of getting H.I.V. by middle age, that many homosexuals have abandoned "safe sex" in favor of unprotected anal sex, and that the incidence of gonorrhea rose 74% among homosexuals between 1993 and 1996.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (late edition, east coast), Nov. 23, 1997, section 4, p. 1.

Look at the anti gay marriage argument before marriage was legalized. Its ucky and he dont likey

 

[sealybobo]

i agree with sevendogs that marriage should be for a man and a woman, for the simple fact that the whole basis of marriage , for the most part, is to provide a stable home for children, and the procreation of such children. i have nothing against gays or lesbians, far be it for me to judge them, as i have enough of my own sins that i could be judged by. if they want to be together, fine , no problem here, but reserve a formal marriage for a man and a woman. if a gay or lesbian couple love each other that much, it should not matter.

Well it did matter and now it's legal. You survived

 

[Silhouette]

It isn't legal. And Judge Moore is going to point that out to the nation with his defense in Alabama. Obergefell is as solid as a sandcastle coming on high tide. Enjoy your false-victories while you can.

 

[mdk]

It isn't legal. And Judge Moore is going to point that out to the nation with his defense in Alabama. Obergefell is as solid as a sandcastle coming on high tide. Enjoy your false-victories while you can.

Whatever makes you sleep at night, darling.

 

[MaryL]

Gay Marriage...Simple. Permissible by the Constitution. Yet, still not allowed...

What's wrong here? I'd love to hear your thoughts- especially those of you who have no legal background for your arguments, LMAO, I crack myself up...

Marriage was always about the legal union of two people that can bare children together. It's common sense, and implied to be a union of hetrosexuals that could procreate as a couple. The alt- left liberals fantasize marriage means a union of anyone that LOVES anything at anytime. I don't think our Constitution was about enabling sexual dysfunctions or 21st century ideals.