Marriage's benefits R4 D kids, not the adults

[Ravi]

Ravir & Taomon: Heterosexual marriage is an inherent right because it has been an accepted practice for eons.

Sorry, that's just not true no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Again, you are simply committing the fallacy of appealing to tradition. If marriage should remain as it is for the sake of history, why shouldn’t slavery have remained as well?

Slavery did not exist everywhere. But I'm not saying things could never be changed….I'm saying that there is an inherent right to heterosexual marriage to be found in our society (and most societies of the world) but no inherent right to gay marriage.

As you said, formal gay marriages recognized by America has never been tried. Who is to say that it won't work in America?

Who says that it will? Or more to the point, where has it actually succeeded without destroying traditional marriage? That's what is happening in Skandinavia where gay marriage is allowed.

Pornography does not destroy marriages any more than guns destroy people. Each is an inanimate object. Pornography does not even give paper cuts unless I handle the paper poorly. People destroy marriages when there is a lack of agreement and understanding within the relationship. I have some pornography. My wife knows about it. She and I have even sat down together and read and looked at it. We are okay with it. Individuals should ultimately be responsible for their own actions. They don’t need government to be their babysitter.

You have a point there. I never said that porn should be completely banned… freedom and all. However, I am of the belief that it should not be so freely proliferated….especially where children can easily come in contact with it in public venues…stores, movies, television, internet. I believe that with freedom comes responsibility.

Hey. I'm willing to compromise. What is your position on civil unions. Must people support it. Therefore, by your own reasoning, it must be okay.

I think most people are fooled by "civil unions"….they debase marriage….and are nothing more than a stepping stone to gay marriage….because the gay mafia will not stop short of attaining full marriage "rights".

Speaking of "rights" - again - where do gay marriage "rights" come from? Seems nobody can answer this question...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sorry, that's just not true no matter how many times you repeat it.

Oh really? I disagree….tell most any single man or woman around the world that they do not have the historically inherent right to marry..... and I believe you will be astounded by their replies.

 

[Taomon]

Ravir & Taomon: Heterosexual marriage is an inherent right because it has been an accepted practice for eons.

Let me check my history of Rome, Greece and Persia...

 

[trobinett]

Let me check my history of Rome, Greece and Persia...

Hey, check whatever the fuck you want to check.

Check your fucking blood pressure for all we care.

 

[Ravi]

Oh really? I disagree….tell most any single man or woman around the world that they do not have the historically inherent right to marry..... and I believe you will be astounded by their replies.

I'm not in the habit of polling non-Americans on their opinion of what is and is not a right under our constitution.

You just keep repeating the same thing without making a convincing argument that marriage is a right. Your repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

[mattskramer]

Slavery did not exist everywhere. But I'm not saying things could never be changed….I'm saying that there is an inherent right to heterosexual marriage to be found in our society (and most societies of the world) but no inherent right to gay marriage.

Where is this inherent right? It can't come from history. I already explained that history does not make rights.

Who says that it will? Or more to the point, where has it actually succeeded without destroying traditional marriage? That's what is happening in Skandinavia where gay marriage is allowed.

Does no heterosexual marriage exist there? Again, it is up to each individual couple. If gay marriage or civil unions result in a decrease in heterosexual marriage, is that good or bad? If it is bad, whose fault is that but that of the people who decide to not get married?

You have a point there. I never said that porn should be completely banned… freedom and all. However, I am of the belief that it should not be so freely proliferated….especially where children can easily come in contact with it in public venues…stores, movies, television, internet. I believe that with freedom comes responsibility.

Perhaps the same can be said of guns.

I think most people are fooled by "civil unions"….they debase marriage….and are nothing more than a stepping stone to gay marriage….because the gay mafia will not stop short of attaining full marriage "rights".

They would only debase marriage in people's imaginations. If Texas allows civil unions or even gay marriage, I doubt that it would do anything to my marriage.

Speaking of "rights" - again - where do gay marriage "rights" come from? Seems nobody can answer this question...

Oh well. I’m actually getting tired of debating this, so you might see me steadily slow down in responding or ignoring this thread. We just agree to disagree. As far as “rights” go, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as rights outside of human imagination and invention. Therefore, that is the answer about where gay rights came from. History and tradition does not make a right. Nor does it make something right or wrong. It just tells you what was. I gave you examples such as slavery in and historic lack of women’s voting rights. Nature does not make a right. Nor does it make something right or wrong. It just tells you what is natural. Modern drugs are not natural but they sure help. It is not natural is stick smoldering leaves in your mouth but some people like to do so. Cancer is natural in the sense that if you live long enough, you will get it. Normalcy does not make a right. Nor does it make something right or wrong. It just tells you what is normal. I used to like ketchup sandwiches. I doubt that such a liking is “normal” but does that make it wrong? I liked to mix different sodas into one cup? Is that normal? I also liked to do hand-stands and walk on my hands. That is not normal but it is okay. At least you are not arguing from the Bible. I could give you practically a book of refutations against it. I already explained that fallacy of appealing to popularity. Just because something is popular does not make it a right. Oh yes. There is the argument about purpose. I guess that means that we should outlaw oral sex and sodomy. Let’s outlaw cigarettes too. The mouth was not made to hold rolled up pieces of paper. The nose was not designed to hold eyeglasses. An unabridged dictionary is not designed to be used as a booster seat – but it helps. When you get right down to it, there is no “rhyme or reason” as to how something is a right or not. It all comes from human imagination and invention. Can you come up with another reason why we should not even have civil unions? As I said, I’m willing to compromise.

 

[jillian]

The Supreme Court has already ruled Marriage is a right ....

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

 

[Ravi]

The Supreme Court has already ruled Marriage is a right ....



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Thanks, I should have known that. Not sure that I agree with them but it wouldn't be the first time. Either way, there is no reason to deny a same sex couple the same right.

 

[mattskramer]

The Supreme Court has already ruled Marriage is a right ....



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

That’s a new one. Okay. The people on the Supreme Court decide what rights we have. I guess that means that Roe V. Wade gave us the right to have abortions. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Shogun]

That’s a new one. Okay. The people on the Supreme Court decide what rights we have. I guess that means that Roe V. Wade gave us the right to have abortions. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

or, you know.. a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment as was the actual verdict.

 

[jillian]

That’s a new one. Okay. The people on the Supreme Court decide what rights we have. I guess that means that Roe V. Wade gave us the right to have abortions. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Actually, it's from 1967... nothing new about it.

The Supreme Court has, since day one, determined what can and can't be done under the Constitution. They don't give us rights... they INTERPRET the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't say there's a right to judicial review. Marbury v Madison established that right and showed WHY the right had to logically exist in order to give effect to the Constitution.

Loving v Virginia, the case that I cited, was one of the first of the right to privacy cases... and

YES, I have a right to reproductive choice.... at least until a pregnancy is so far advanced that the governmental interest in protecting the fetus superceds my own right to control my body.

It's really not that complicated.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm not in the habit of polling non-Americans on their opinion of what is and is not a right under our constitution.

You just keep repeating the same thing without making a convincing argument that marriage is a right. Your repeating it doesn't make it true.

I imagine you're not in the habit of thinking rationally either. I said nothing about polling about our Constitution.

However, marriage IS a "right" in the United States. Except in Massachusetts where the liberal court recently made a ruling, gay marriage has never been a "right". Gee, could those facts possibly have something to do with the inherent history and nature of man…maybe for good reasons?

Thanks, I should have known that. Not sure that I agree with them but it wouldn't be the first time. Either way, there is no reason to deny a same sex couple the same right.

There are plenty of good reasons. However, I say there is no inherent "right" to gay marriage. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[Ravi]

Sure, it isn't written anywhere. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage. And though Jillian proved me wrong about marriage being a right, I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling even though it was for a good cause. The same ruling could be applied to gays.

But aside from all of that, why are you so dead set on regulating something that doesn't affect you in the slightest, beyond your moral outrage that is?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Where is this inherent right? It can't come from history. I already explained that history does not make rights.

History does indeed provide a basis for rights. Your right to vote today is based on the history of America. Sure, there are exceptions. Slavery rights were wrong..mankind is not perfect…and it is a better world today without slavery. History has not borne out any great positive results for gay marriage either. There is no real historical basis in our society for gay marriage.

Does no heterosexual marriage exist there? Again, it is up to each individual couple. If gay marriage or civil unions result in a decrease in heterosexual marriage, is that good or bad? If it is bad, whose fault is that but that of the people who decide to not get married?

Sure heterosexual marriage exists in Skandinavia….but it is becoming less and less important. More and more young people are not getting married….attitudes toward marriage are changing. Whose fault is that? Society's fault. Their society is allowing gay marriage and other attitudes to debase marriage and make it seem not that important anymore. Hey, if two queers can get married, then it appears that marriage is not really about children and family anymore, is it?

Oh well. I’m actually getting tired of debating this, so you might see me steadily slow down in responding or ignoring this thread. We just agree to disagree. As far as “rights” go, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as rights outside of human imagination and invention. Therefore, that is the answer about where gay rights came from. History and tradition does not make a right. Nor does it make something right or wrong. It just tells you what was. I gave you examples such as slavery in and historic lack of women’s voting rights. Nature does not make a right. Nor does it make something right or wrong. It just tells you what is natural. Modern drugs are not natural but they sure help. It is not natural is stick smoldering leaves in your mouth but some people like to do so. Cancer is natural in the sense that if you live long enough, you will get it. Normalcy does not make a right. Nor does it make something right or wrong. It just tells you what is normal. I used to like ketchup sandwiches. I doubt that such a liking is “normal” but does that make it wrong? I liked to mix different sodas into one cup? Is that normal? I also liked to do hand-stands and walk on my hands. That is not normal but it is okay. At least you are not arguing from the Bible. I could give you practically a book of refutations against it. I already explained that fallacy of appealing to popularity. Just because something is popular does not make it a right. Oh yes. There is the argument about purpose. I guess that means that we should outlaw oral sex and sodomy. Let’s outlaw cigarettes too. The mouth was not made to hold rolled up pieces of paper. The nose was not designed to hold eyeglasses. An unabridged dictionary is not designed to be used as a booster seat – but it helps. When you get right down to it, there is no “rhyme or reason” as to how something is a right or not. It all comes from human imagination and invention. Can you come up with another reason why we should not even have civil unions? As I said, I’m willing to compromise.

Spoken like a true relativist. History has no meaning. Tradition has no meaning. Nature has no meaning. Normal has no meaning. The Bible has no meaning. Life has no purpose or meaning. Welcome to the World of Meaninglessness.

A society based upon relativism means that anything goes. Anything goes because everything is meaningless.

The Marxist-like movement in this country today depends upon people like you to spread relativism. Historically, Marxists attacked the bourgeois (the middle class). They do the same thing today. To Marxists things like ethics and morality and truth are only "bourgeois" ideas. That's why they hate and attack Christians. However with relativism you can do almost anything you want. One can even rationalize killing. Relativism means that power trumps. And, surprise, surprise, what is the goal of the Marxist types? Power, of course....down with middle class values and down with America.

 

[Shogun]

I'd say that the ninth amendment includes the right of gays to be married.


Im one of those "more liberty than less liberty" sorta guys though.


Did you know that the Constitution does NOT say that I have the liberty to put a bag of microwave popping corn in the microwave? For real.. It's not in the Constitution!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sure, it isn't written anywhere. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage. And though Jillian proved me wrong about marriage being a right, I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling even though it was for a good cause. The same ruling could be applied to gays.

But aside from all of that, why are you so dead set on regulating something that doesn't affect you in the slightest, beyond your moral outrage that is?

See post #75 for some reasons.

Haven't you ever wondered why the left...most of whom are straight people....have made gay rights into such a huge issue?

 

[Ravi]

I'd say that the ninth amendment includes the right of gays to be married.


Im one of those "more liberty than less liberty" sorta guys though.


Did you know that the Constitution does NOT say that I have the liberty to put a bag of microwave popping corn in the microwave? For real.. It's not in the Constitution!

Oh, no! Does that mean I have to go back to doing it the traditional way? Jiffy-Pop, or even over an open fire...maybe I'll just stick to chips.

 

[Ravi]

See post #75 for some reasons.

Haven't you ever wondered why the left...most of whom are straight people....have made gay rights into such a huge issue?

If you're talking about that Scandinavian thing, it's been disproven.

The "left" didn't make gay rights a huge issue. It was never on anyone's radar until the uber-religious made it so. If you guys had kept quiet things wouldn't have pushed it to the forefront. And that cracks me up every time I think about it.

It is true that the left seems to care more about following the constitution when it comes to equality, though.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If you're talking about that Scandinavian thing, it's been disproven.

The "left" didn't make gay rights a huge issue. It was never on anyone's radar until the uber-religious made it so. If you guys had kept quiet things wouldn't have pushed it to the forefront. And that cracks me up every time I think about it.

It is true that the left seems to care more about following the constitution when it comes to equality, though.

Proof pls?