Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[logical4u]

Wow! Those are some pretty illogical assumptions you’ve come up with. 1st, your entire argument here is one huge irrational slippery slope fallacy and is worthless bunk. You present leaps of “logic” assigning cause and effect with no realistic basis. What evidence have you to show that same sex marriage will automatically mandate that relatives be allowed to marry each other? Has it happened in any country that has had same sex marriage for a while? No? Then you have only your baseless presumption; which is therefore worthless.

Secondly, what evidence have you to show that same sex relatives will marry to avoid inheritance tax and game SS for survivor benefits will do so in such large numbers that it will bankrupt SS? What evidence have you to show that the elderly will stop being “generous”? Why do you assume that only elderly are generous? Why do you assume that all elderly everywhere will stop giving all money to welfare and food stamps? Why do you assume that younger people (middle aged and young adults in their 20s and 30s) never give to those programs?

Since your assumptions here lack even the most basic logic and common sense and have no realistic cause and effect established, then you cannot conclude that those “charitable" programs will end up cut”; nor can you conclude that “this will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty”; nor can you conclude that “society will be an absolute mess”. You cannot conclude that “the country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals” and you cannot conclude that “it will be really ugly”.

But….

What you're saying is that you cannot find any direct compelling State interest for disallowing same sex marriage except for the fact that you claim it will lead to same sex marriages amongst relatives? I see. And you "predict" all manner of evil if relatives are allowed to marry which would present a compelling State interest for disallowing.

Ok.

Let’s play your game for a bit. Assuming that even some of your predictions would come true:

Under Strict Scrutiny, (specifically the “narrowly tailored” and the “least restrictive” portions) your argument would mandate that the US can allow same sex marriage since it (by itself) does not have a compelling State interest justifying disallowing it; but the US can disallow same sex relatives from being able to marry since there is (at least according to your “predictions”) a compelling State interest which would justify it being disallowed.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Strict Scrutiny and the “narrowly tailored” and “least restrictive” portions of same; or for those who can’t remember their civics courses, here is a refresher:

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right (for example: marriage has been deemed as such by the SCOTUS) protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. (Your “predictions”, if they had any basis in reality and logic, would therefore justify a compelling govt interest).

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

And third, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately

Hence, to be the least restrictive and the most narrowly tailored, the govt would allow same sex marriage (since by itself there is no compelling state interest for disallowing it), but they could disallow same sex relatives from marrying each other because that would be the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to satisfy the govt’s compelling interest.

Strict Scrutiny

Thank you.

On your words, since their is NO compelling gov't interest in having same sex couples, there should be no same-sex unions

haha. (chuckle chuckle) No my simple friend, that's not how constitutional law works.

If so, the govt could deny all sorts of rights to us citizens for that same exact reason. There is no compelling govt interest in allowing you or I to move from one state to another just because you or I want to; hence they could disallow you and I that right if they used your rather inane and poorly thought out idea. Jeez imagine the possibilities! The govt would indeed be Big Brother. they could simply deny us anything...even our right to bear arms, simply by showing there is no compelling govt interest.

No, brother ( and i say this with the utmost amount of condesension dripping from my voice), compelling govt interest is not used to justify denying a right if that person cannot show compelling govt interest for having that right, but to justify denying a right if the govt can show compelling govt interest why they should be able to deny it.

Wow, you guys really suck at this whole logic and common sense thang, huh?

The gov't has not legalized same sex unions since the founding. For over two hundred years there were no complaints.
Suddenly, some homosexual activists want to re-define a word that has been used in many cultures for eons as the life time joining of a man and a woman to "unite" the families and the communities.

You do not have the "right" to re-define words for your personal agenda. You have no "right" to marry the same sex. It is not a "marriage". It is a falsehood. Why do you insist on making an entire nation "pretend" with you?

 

[logical4u]

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

That a right might be potentially abused is not justification for preempting or denying that right.

Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.


This does not disprove that marriage is a right. People cannot peacably assemble unless you got another person's permission to assemble with them. does that mean the Bill of Rights is wrong and you are right? I think not, sir.


Your added "or at least" just negated your own argument here.


there are hundreds of millions of people that would like to have a firearm. some can afford it, some cannot. does this mean that the right to bear arms is not a right anymore and that the Bill of Rights is wrong and you are right? I think not, sir.

You, nor anyone else has the "right" to marriage. It is an earned responsibility.

You, and i and everyone else has the right to marriage. It is a fundamental right and has been deemed so by the Supreme Court of the United States.

You are wrong.

Next?

The ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You can marry according to the definition of marriage. There is no denial or disparaging others, here.

"Owning" a firearm is the relationship between an inanimate object and a person. There is no consent given by the firearm for ownership. There is no permission given by the community or family of the firearm. Love how you guys want to make comparisons that are way out there in different realms.

Again marriage is between a man and a woman. A faux marriage between a gender and a faux gender is not "the same".

 

[PJC]

On your words, since their is NO compelling gov't interest in having same sex couples, there should be no same-sex unions

Ah, but it's those that oppose marriage equality that have to provide the compelling state reason to deny access to legal, civil marriage.

What is the compelling government interest in allowing murderers on death row to legally marry?

Where in the Constitution does it say that?
SCOTUS rulings. 1st one dealing with Strict Scrutiny was from United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) footnote 4.

A few of the other subsequent court rulings pertaining to Strict Scrutiny were:
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)

Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Re-defining a word for political agendas is absolute CORRUPTION (deceit, scam, dishonorable, etc).
Defining a right which limits access to that right is in fact limiting and abridging a right.

If we do the same thing with the right to bear arms, it would be something similar:
When the framers of the US Constitution first penned the 2nd Amendment, they envisioned muskets, flintlocks, and swords as what constituted “arms”. Hence revolvers, shotguns, high powered rifles, pistols, submachine guns, etc. etc. etc. do not fall under the originally intended definition of “arms”, hence US citizens do not have the right to carry anything but flintlocks, muskets, and swords.

Personally, I’d fight like hell before I’d give up my firearms. But your “definition” argument, if it’s legally valid for one right (marriage) then it must be legally valid for all other rights as well, to include the 2nd Amendment; if not then the argument is neither legally nor logically consistent and is therefore worthless.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says that no state can abridge (limit) a privilege or immunity without due process.

IAW established legal precedence under US Constitutional law, Due Process includes “Strict Scrutiny” of which I explained earlier.

Hence, if the govt wishes to limit our (citizens’) right to bear arms or to marry, they must show 3 things:
that the limitation has a compelling govt interest,
that the limitation is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve that compelling govt interest,
and that the limitation is the least restrictive means possible for achieving that compelling govt interest.

What is the compelling govt interest for limiting marriage only to opposite sex unions?

Death row.... there is no law against it. Therefore it is unreasonable to pass more restrictive laws to stop it.

Circular (and extremely illogical and nonsensical) reasoning. Your argument here is: “There is no law against it, therefore there should be no law against it.” ?????

As for your claim: “Re-defining a word for political agendas is absolute CORRUPTION (deceit, scam, dishonorable, etc).”

No, limiting others’ rights to the same things we enjoy for one’s political agendas of bigotry, hatred, intolerance is what is absolute CORRUPTION. I have seen time after time where immorally prejudiced individuals and groups use deceit, and other extremely dishonorable behavior to further their own agendas of hate; so that they can continue the same intolerant policies towards those they target for their hatred.

Your prejudiced hatred and irrational intolerance is what is immoral, deceitful, and dishonorable. If you continue, you will find yourself sinking lower and lower, feeling yourself “forced” to engage in a little bit of white lying….fibs, using “pious fraud” (meaning rationalized deceit because “the end justifies the means”). You’ll end up using semantics, hyperbole, exaggeration, and every other unintentional and intentional fallacy (meaning lying) in your attempt to justify and rationalize your hatred of those who’ve done you no ill.

Ask yourself if your hatred of gays and your desire to further your agenda (whatever that may be), is worth sacrificing your integrity and your honor.

Because that is what will happen, my friend.

Peace, Love, Happiness, and Harmony to you.

 

[logical4u]

You sure about your claim...that "most" heterosexual married couples have children? (Being marriaged and having or not having chidren - Wichita Falls Marriage | Examiner.com) And you didn't answer the question. In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for civil marriage? Are the elderly or the sterile prohibited from legal marriage in ANY state?



Nothing is stopping people from doing that now. You don't mind if I marry a guy do you? That would be okay with you, right? Isn't that the right y'all say "the gheys" already have, we can marry someone of the opposite sex? (Even though we have no desire to do so) Nothing is stopping me from marrying a gay guy,right?

I can't believe you are seriously trying to use SS as a reason not to give gays equal access to legal marriage.

You must be a non-religious homophobe.

Same sex marriage is also looked on as “special”. It too, is used to unite families and communities. Those that are married in a same sex marriage, also contribute to the community by having children, and supporting the family members.


Same sex marriages can do that and do so all the time. How many same sex marriages do you know about intimately enough to say what they can and cannot do? There is no deceit any more so than from opposite sex marriages. There is no dishonor any more so than from opposite sex marriages. There is “coveting” no more or less so than from opposite sex marriages. What deceit, dishonor and coveting do you claim exists only in same sex marriages? How do you know these things exist? How many same sex married couples do you know? How have you figured out that those you do know have deceit, dishonor and coveting? Are you a mind reader and have been able to tell when they are lying or “coveting”? Or are you simply making a wild ass assumption based on nothing more than your prejudiced presumptions?


Same-sex marriages are not by their very nature selfish any more so than opposite sex marriages. There is consideration for what their partner’s family is going through. There is consideration for what their family is going through. There is just as much, if not more consideration for children if they have had their biological parent cut out of their life, than from divorced or separated opposite sex marriages who have had their biological parent cut out of their lives.

It is nothing like a pot-smoking party. Your analogy is ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever. Try explaining what you’re trying to say here

How many same sex married couples do you know who had no consideration for their or their partner’s family or their children? How many same sex married couples told you they decided to get married just by saying “hey wouldn’t it be cool if….”?

How many? Or are you again simply making asininely groundless assumptions based on not a jot of logic or fact?

Same-sex unions bring nothing to the table of the community (if they had, they would have been accepted eons, ago). When asked about the corruption and problems that will accompany same-sex unions, the reply is similar to a dope-smoker: but, it would be so cool (to the dope-smoker, and no one else).

Same sex marriages bring just as much to the table of the community as opposite sex marriages. Your assumption of “if they had…” is illogical because prejudice and discrimination does not base itself upon whether the target of that prejudice brings something “to the table of the community”. People did not accept interracial marriages up until relatively recently, using your argument, those families must not have brought anything “to the table of the community”, else “they would have been accepted eons, ago”.

“When asked about the corruption and problems…blah blah blah…the reply is yadda yadda yadda”???

How many gay couples have you asked that question to and how many of them had the reply of “it would be so cool”?

I’d be willing to bet not very many, if any. You are again making an assumption based upon not a single iota of fact or logic.

Brother, your prejudices and fantasies have reeeeaaaalllllyyyy got you messed up inside.

You are one of the most illogical and irrational posters I’ve talked to in a while. Your logical4u handle does not fit you in the slightest.

Try some other bullshit, bruh. Your whacko stuff ain’t sellin’.

How many people introduce their children as future homosexuals? (Compare to how many people talk about their children and having grandchildren)
How many parents will not talk about their homosexual children (they are embarrassed and ashamed), when asked, they do not say much, or if the homosexuals have status or money will talk about the material things? (Compare to how many people talk about their married children with grandchildren, the peace, the joy, the comfort in knowing that all will be well with their future)
If you are participating in homosexual acts, you are dishonoring your parents (I am not suggesting in any way that any type of violence should be done, here). If you beat your parents emotionally into agreeing with homosexual acts, it still does not "honor" them.

How many homosexuals bear false witness to get what they want [and yes, I am fully aware that other people, (and I disagree with that), can do this also, just with homosexuality, it is a requirement for "acceptance"], to get into families' homes to have access to a future partner? How many homosexuals join groups or take a job, hiding their sexual orientation, and then once installed, "come out", and try to influence others to "accepting" their lifestyle?

How many people enter into a relationship knowing their families will be opposed, but with the confidence they can break their family(ies) down by emotionally blackmailing them? How many homosexuals tell their prospective partner, let alone their prospective partner's family that they are interested in a "sexual" relationship from the beginning, that they are taking them on a "date"? The homosexual is "coveting" the prospective partner's family's child (no matter what age).

Because you choose to re-define words, and twist words to agree with your agenda demonstrates that you are willing to accept corruption. You seem unwilling to look at where this will lead, and in some cases have the attitude of: as long as I get what I want, I don't care what it does to the community or society. It does show how selfish those that are pushing for faux marriages really are.

 

[PJC]

On your words, since their is NO compelling gov't interest in having same sex couples, there should be no same-sex unions

haha. (chuckle chuckle) No my simple friend, that's not how constitutional law works.

If so, the govt could deny all sorts of rights to us citizens for that same exact reason. There is no compelling govt interest in allowing you or I to move from one state to another just because you or I want to; hence they could disallow you and I that right if they used your rather inane and poorly thought out idea. Jeez imagine the possibilities! The govt would indeed be Big Brother. they could simply deny us anything...even our right to bear arms, simply by showing there is no compelling govt interest.

No, brother ( and i say this with the utmost amount of condesension dripping from my voice), compelling govt interest is not used to justify denying a right if that person cannot show compelling govt interest for having that right, but to justify denying a right if the govt can show compelling govt interest why they should be able to deny it.

Wow, you guys really suck at this whole logic and common sense thang, huh?

The gov't has not legalized same sex unions since the founding. For over two hundred years there were no complaints. (not necessarily true, just because you didn't hear them, does not mean there were none)
Suddenly, some homosexual activists want to re-define a word that has been used in many cultures for eons as the life time joining of a man and a woman to "unite" the families and the communities.

Before 1967, the gov't had not legalized interracial marriage since the founding. For almost two hundred years there were no complaints (supposedly). Suddenly, some racial activists want to re-define a word that has been used in many cultures for eons as the life time joining of a man and a woman within the same race to "unite" the families and the communities.


Before 1776, govts had not legalized many freedoms that we now hold dear. for thousands of years, there were no complaints (supposedly). Suddenly, some colonial activists want to re-define a word (freedom) that has been used in many cultures for eons as not meaning freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and all these other "invented" freedoms. how dare they redefine the meaning of Freedom for their political agendas and change what has always been!!? They do not have the right to re-define words like Freedom for your personal agenda. you American colonialists have no right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press; because that is not what the word freedom ever meant. You Yanks have re-defined Freedom and liberty!!?

Appeal to tradition is a fallacy, my brother.

You do not have the "right" to re-define words for your personal agenda. You have no "right" to marry the same sex. It is not a "marriage". It is a falsehood. Why do you insist on making an entire nation "pretend" with you?

No one is re-defining anything. What you don't seem to understand is that humans have an unlimited amount of rights to do pretty damn near any god damned thing we want to just so long as it does not infringe upon others' rights and as long as there is no justifiable reason for denying that right.

what some of ya'll just can't seem to grasp is that neither the US Constitution nor any god damned govt gives us our rights.

i encourage you to read and learn. Read Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hobbes, Jefferson, Oliver Wendall Holmes, read the Federalist papers, Madison, Jay, Hamilton.

It's been argued that the Ninth Amendment "specifically roots the Constitution in a natural rights tradition that says we are born with more rights than any constitution could ever list or specify."

Madison himself said:

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

You think we citizens are not allowed to do something unless the govt gives us express permission by way of the US Constitution????

dude, what are you, a socialist?

No, the Constitution spells out powers that we give to the govt. WE give them "permission", they do not give us permission to do things we already have the right to do as human beings. As Alexander Hamilton said regarding the Bill of Rights: "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" In other words, why tell the govt that they can't take away our rights which they're not allowed to do in the first place?

We, the people are the rightful owners of our rights, not the govt. And we have a vast residuum, an enormous reservoir, a universe of
rights as yet unnamed and unenumerated.

a mere piece of paper can certainly not contain every single right we have; there is no way.

Where does it explicitly say we have the right to brush our teeth? Where does it explicitly spell out that we citizens have the right to eat candy?

We humans have millions upon millions of rights. They are only limited to the extent if they violate the rights of others.

Same sex marriage, while you and others may find it disgusting, does not violate your rights; thus humans have the right to engage in it.

 

[logical4u]

Ah, but it's those that oppose marriage equality that have to provide the compelling state reason to deny access to legal, civil marriage.

What is the compelling government interest in allowing murderers on death row to legally marry?

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Where does the Constitution say that there must be a compelling government interest in granting something? The Lovings didn't have to demonstrate a compelling government interest in granting them the fundamental right to marry, those opposed to interracial marriage had to provide a compelling state reason to deny it. Do you understand?

Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Re-defining a word for political agendas is absolute CORRUPTION (deceit, scam, dishonorable, etc).

No, it isn't. Marriage in 9 (soon to be 10 or 11) states and something like 14 countries is between non familial consenting adults.

Was voting redefined when it was no longer white male landowners that could do it? No.

Death row.... there is no law against it. Therefore it is unreasonable to pass more restrictive laws to stop it.

You made the claim that to grant legal marriage, there must be a compelling state interest in doing so, right? How do you then explain Turner v Safley? Missouri tried to bar inmates from marrying. The SCOTUS said "oh no you can't". Where was the compelling state interest?

No, that was someone else. I asked where the compelling state interest was to grant the legalization of faux marriage.

So some states are re-defining marriage because they lack fortitude. The federal gov't has not done so (IMHO, it is because doing so will HURT the state financially, morally, and legally) because there is no benefit to the gov't for doing so (compared to traditional marriage where families are made without adultery, and the success of the family comes before the "parent's" sex life.

Voting: a vote take place between a person and multiple choice question(s), hardly the same as two different people with their families and their communities being expected to agree to the relationship and to support the relationship.

Writing laws specifically for one person, seems to be a great waste of taxpayer money. If the person is married without any objections (unfortunately, something not included in legal ceremonies), then the government should not write laws to stop something that is unpopular and rare.

 

[PJC]

Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.


This does not disprove that marriage is a right. People cannot peacably assemble unless you got another person's permission to assemble with them. does that mean the Bill of Rights is wrong and you are right? I think not, sir.


Your added "or at least" just negated your own argument here.


there are hundreds of millions of people that would like to have a firearm. some can afford it, some cannot. does this mean that the right to bear arms is not a right anymore and that the Bill of Rights is wrong and you are right? I think not, sir.


You, and i and everyone else has the right to marriage. It is a fundamental right and has been deemed so by the Supreme Court of the United States.

You are wrong.

Next?

The ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Exactly. What part of that do you not understand?

You can marry according to the definition of marriage. There is no denial or disparaging others, here.

And you can own a firearm according to the definition of arms as originally intended by the framers of our constitution.

"Owning" a firearm is the relationship between an inanimate object and a person. There is no consent given by the firearm for ownership. There is no permission given by the community or family of the firearm. Love how you guys want to make comparisons that are way out there in different realms.

Huhh?? that is completely irrelevent. We are talking definitions here. Did you purposely miss the point or are you legitimately having a hard time grasping these simple concepts? The definition of Arms as intended originally by the framers did not include machine guns, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, uzis, Mac 10s. We have re-defined "arms" to encompass these new fangled inventions.

Again marriage is between a man and a woman. A faux marriage between a gender and a faux gender is not "the same".

And limiting the definition of marriage only to a man and a woman, limits that right.

Limiting the definition of "arms" only to muskets, flintlocks, and swords, limits that right.

Is there a compelling govt interest in limiting the word marriage to encompass only a man and a woman?

Is there a compelling govt interest in limiting the word arms to encompass only muskets, flintlocks, and swords?

If your arguments are not applied consistently, they are not logical.

 

[logical4u]

Ah, but it's those that oppose marriage equality that have to provide the compelling state reason to deny access to legal, civil marriage.

What is the compelling government interest in allowing murderers on death row to legally marry?

Where in the Constitution does it say that?
SCOTUS rulings. 1st one dealing with Strict Scrutiny was from United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) footnote 4.

A few of the other subsequent court rulings pertaining to Strict Scrutiny were:
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)

Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Re-defining a word for political agendas is absolute CORRUPTION (deceit, scam, dishonorable, etc).
Defining a right which limits access to that right is in fact limiting and abridging a right.

If we do the same thing with the right to bear arms, it would be something similar:
When the framers of the US Constitution first penned the 2nd Amendment, they envisioned muskets, flintlocks, and swords as what constituted “arms”. Hence revolvers, shotguns, high powered rifles, pistols, submachine guns, etc. etc. etc. do not fall under the originally intended definition of “arms”, hence US citizens do not have the right to carry anything but flintlocks, muskets, and swords.

Personally, I’d fight like hell before I’d give up my firearms. But your “definition” argument, if it’s legally valid for one right (marriage) then it must be legally valid for all other rights as well, to include the 2nd Amendment; if not then the argument is neither legally nor logically consistent and is therefore worthless.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says that no state can abridge (limit) a privilege or immunity without due process.

IAW established legal precedence under US Constitutional law, Due Process includes “Strict Scrutiny” of which I explained earlier.

Hence, if the govt wishes to limit our (citizens’) right to bear arms or to marry, they must show 3 things:
that the limitation has a compelling govt interest,
that the limitation is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve that compelling govt interest,
and that the limitation is the least restrictive means possible for achieving that compelling govt interest.

What is the compelling govt interest for limiting marriage only to opposite sex unions?

Death row.... there is no law against it. Therefore it is unreasonable to pass more restrictive laws to stop it.

Circular (and extremely illogical and nonsensical) reasoning. Your argument here is: “There is no law against it, therefore there should be no law against it.” ?????

As for your claim: “Re-defining a word for political agendas is absolute CORRUPTION (deceit, scam, dishonorable, etc).”

No, limiting others’ rights to the same things we enjoy for one’s political agendas of bigotry, hatred, intolerance is what is absolute CORRUPTION. I have seen time after time where immorally prejudiced individuals and groups use deceit, and other extremely dishonorable behavior to further their own agendas of hate; so that they can continue the same intolerant policies towards those they target for their hatred.

Your prejudiced hatred and irrational intolerance is what is immoral, deceitful, and dishonorable. If you continue, you will find yourself sinking lower and lower, feeling yourself “forced” to engage in a little bit of white lying….fibs, using “pious fraud” (meaning rationalized deceit because “the end justifies the means”). You’ll end up using semantics, hyperbole, exaggeration, and every other unintentional and intentional fallacy (meaning lying) in your attempt to justify and rationalize your hatred of those who’ve done you no ill.

Ask yourself if your hatred of gays and your desire to further your agenda (whatever that may be), is worth sacrificing your integrity and your honor.

Because that is what will happen, my friend.

Peace, Love, Happiness, and Harmony to you.

Oh, I should have known.... you cannot support "your" argument, so the whole HATE and BIGOTRY names start.
Please provide evidence where I said that I hate anyone, let alone homosexuals.
Please provide evidence where my beliefs are not an acceptable, productive way to live, or harm society.

Your immature ranting that "it is the same thing" when it is demonstrably NOT the same thing reveals some real pain in your past. I hope you can get some help with that. Apparently, homosexual activists expect people to cave when they repeat the same thing again and again. You have not demonstrated how homosexual unions do anything but divide the country even more, and harm communities. You have demonstrated how willing homosexuals are to use children to push their agenda, without considering the long term affects on the children of this country.

And yes, I know, disagreeing with you MUST mean that I not a loving person, and that I am xenophobic (fact is your ideas are old ideas that have been tried and rejected by many cultures over the eons), because I do not embrace something when someone declares "it is a good thing" without evidence or facts to back it up.

 

[logical4u]

haha. (chuckle chuckle) No my simple friend, that's not how constitutional law works.

If so, the govt could deny all sorts of rights to us citizens for that same exact reason. There is no compelling govt interest in allowing you or I to move from one state to another just because you or I want to; hence they could disallow you and I that right if they used your rather inane and poorly thought out idea. Jeez imagine the possibilities! The govt would indeed be Big Brother. they could simply deny us anything...even our right to bear arms, simply by showing there is no compelling govt interest.

No, brother ( and i say this with the utmost amount of condesension dripping from my voice), compelling govt interest is not used to justify denying a right if that person cannot show compelling govt interest for having that right, but to justify denying a right if the govt can show compelling govt interest why they should be able to deny it.

Wow, you guys really suck at this whole logic and common sense thang, huh?

Before 1967, the gov't had not legalized interracial marriage since the founding. For almost two hundred years there were no complaints (supposedly). Suddenly, some racial activists want to re-define a word that has been used in many cultures for eons as the life time joining of a man and a woman within the same race to "unite" the families and the communities.


Before 1776, govts had not legalized many freedoms that we now hold dear. for thousands of years, there were no complaints (supposedly). Suddenly, some colonial activists want to re-define a word (freedom) that has been used in many cultures for eons as not meaning freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and all these other "invented" freedoms. how dare they redefine the meaning of Freedom for their political agendas and change what has always been!!? They do not have the right to re-define words like Freedom for your personal agenda. you American colonialists have no right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press; because that is not what the word freedom ever meant. You Yanks have re-defined Freedom and liberty!!?

Appeal to tradition is a fallacy, my brother.




No one is re-defining anything. What you don't seem to understand is that humans have an unlimited amount of rights to do pretty damn near any god damned thing we want to just so long as it does not infringe upon others' rights and as long as there is no justifiable reason for denying that right.

what some of ya'll just can't seem to grasp is that neither the US Constitution nor any god damned govt gives us our rights.

i encourage you to read and learn. Read Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hobbes, Jefferson, Oliver Wendall Holmes, read the Federalist papers, Madison, Jay, Hamilton.

It's been argued that the Ninth Amendment "specifically roots the Constitution in a natural rights tradition that says we are born with more rights than any constitution could ever list or specify."

Madison himself said:

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

You think we citizens are not allowed to do something unless the govt gives us express permission by way of the US Constitution????

dude, what are you, a socialist?

No, the Constitution spells out powers that we give to the govt. WE give them "permission", they do not give us permission to do things we already have the right to do as human beings. As Alexander Hamilton said regarding the Bill of Rights: "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" In other words, why tell the govt that they can't take away our rights which they're not allowed to do in the first place?

We, the people are the rightful owners of our rights, not the govt. And we have a vast residuum, an enormous reservoir, a universe of
rights as yet unnamed and unenumerated.

a mere piece of paper can certainly not contain every single right we have; there is no way.

Where does it explicitly say we have the right to brush our teeth? Where does it explicitly spell out that we citizens have the right to eat candy?

We humans have millions upon millions of rights. They are only limited to the extent if they violate the rights of others.

Same sex marriage, while you and others may find it disgusting, does not violate your rights; thus humans have the right to engage in it.

So you admit that the government can reinforce the meaning of a word: marriage (NOT CHANGE IT)?
Are you telling me that whites did not "marry" Hispanics, Asians, American natives before 1967?
You are not doing yourself justice. You are just demonstrating your willingness to be deceitful.

Amusing, suddenly, your "real" personality comes out.... when it comes to what you can do, the gov't cannot limit you. When it comes to what the other citizens can do, then you are okay with gov't forcing them to "accept" and "legitimize" what most of them disagree with, and has proven to shorten lives, and be "unhealthy".

And yes, you are RE-DEFINING marriage. You have already demonstrated your willingness to embrace corruption when it comes to getting what you want. You have demonstrated your willingness to use deceit to try and trap others. It is amusing that you choose to call me "hateful" and bigoted, when you should really take a good look in the mirror.

 

[logical4u]

Exactly. What part of that do you not understand?


And you can own a firearm according to the definition of arms as originally intended by the framers of our constitution.


Huhh?? that is completely irrelevent. We are talking definitions here. Did you purposely miss the point or are you legitimately having a hard time grasping these simple concepts? The definition of Arms as intended originally by the framers did not include machine guns, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, uzis, Mac 10s. We have re-defined "arms" to encompass these new fangled inventions.

Again marriage is between a man and a woman. A faux marriage between a gender and a faux gender is not "the same".

And limiting the definition of marriage only to a man and a woman, limits that right.

Limiting the definition of "arms" only to muskets, flintlocks, and swords, limits that right.

Is there a compelling govt interest in limiting the word marriage to encompass only a man and a woman?

Is there a compelling govt interest in limiting the word arms to encompass only muskets, flintlocks, and swords?

If your arguments are not applied consistently, they are not logical.

RE-DEFINING marriage as a relationship between two consenting adults is not about making things equal. It is about destroying a foundation of our society. "Limiting" marriage? Really? Where does it say that a man cannot marry a consenting woman or a woman cannot marry a consenting man? That is not limiting. That is the "accepted" definition, and has been for eons.

Changing that to any "consenting adults" is eliminating the real definition and confusing everyone for evermore. How will relationships be explained? This married couple (two brothers that wanted to make sure the one with disabilities was covered under his brother's wealth), this married couple (a grandmother and her granddaughter that wanted to avoid inheritance taxes), this married couple (they are homosexuals), this married couple (they are heterosexuals, but have an "open" marriage), this married couple (they are uhmmm..... traditional, can you imagine), this married group (cause they decided they had such great orgies, they wanted to be legally hitched), etc, etc, etc.

It will be a nightmare. And you and your ilk will take no responsibility for making it so.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Where is the "right" to marriage?

You cannot "marry" without another person's permission. You cannot marry when the "community" is against you (or at least your marriage will not last if you do so).
There are hundreds of millions of people that would like to be married. Some find a spouse, some do not.

You, nor anyone else has the "right" to marriage. It is an earned responsibility.

"Earned responsibility"? Really?

What about the black people that wanted to marry white people in the 1950's?

The community was against that as well back then.

Yes! The community was against it, so it became a hardship. I am not saying it was right, it was the "community" that rejected it. In many, many other communities whites were marrying native Americans, Orientals, and blacks. It was no "big" deal. Just like in muslim communities the muslims reject their followers from marrying into other religions. The community has a huge say in what happens there. It is an earned responsibility. If you are a responsible part of the community, your marriage partner will not be questioned as intensely, as someone that is a "bum" and wants to marry into a supportive family of the community (because people have known for eons that corruption will spread, and it is not a good thing).

You are still comparing a "man" and a "woman" getting married to a "gender" and a "faux gender" getting married. It is in no way similar. It is a "corruption". Corruption spreads. It is a disease that eats and destroys cultures. Look at any civilization throughout history. The result is always the same. Corruption is "overlooked" in some circles. It spreads throughout society. The people are invaded or a tyrant rises to oppress everyone. Then it just stays that way.

This country was founded to LIMIT corruption. Why people want to legitimize corruption is something beyond my comprehension. It is the same people that complain about corruption in other areas of society that are saying, hey, this corruption is "good", it is for me.

This country was founded to limit corruption?

Fuck dude....................you didn't do well in American History class, did you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Earned responsibility"? Really?

What about the black people that wanted to marry white people in the 1950's?

The community was against that as well back then.

Yes! The community was against it, so it became a hardship. I am not saying it was right, it was the "community" that rejected it. In many, many other communities whites were marrying native Americans, Orientals, and blacks. It was no "big" deal. Just like in muslim communities the muslims reject their followers from marrying into other religions. The community has a huge say in what happens there. It is an earned responsibility. If you are a responsible part of the community, your marriage partner will not be questioned as intensely, as someone that is a "bum" and wants to marry into a supportive family of the community (because people have known for eons that corruption will spread, and it is not a good thing).

You are still comparing a "man" and a "woman" getting married to a "gender" and a "faux gender" getting married. It is in no way similar. It is a "corruption". Corruption spreads. It is a disease that eats and destroys cultures. Look at any civilization throughout history. The result is always the same. Corruption is "overlooked" in some circles. It spreads throughout society. The people are invaded or a tyrant rises to oppress everyone. Then it just stays that way.

This country was founded to LIMIT corruption. Why people want to legitimize corruption is something beyond my comprehension. It is the same people that complain about corruption in other areas of society that are saying, hey, this corruption is "good", it is for me.

This country was founded to limit corruption?

Fuck dude....................you didn't do well in American History class, did you?

Seems more a matter of never attending.

 

[logical4u]

"Earned responsibility"? Really?

What about the black people that wanted to marry white people in the 1950's?

The community was against that as well back then.

Yes! The community was against it, so it became a hardship. I am not saying it was right, it was the "community" that rejected it. In many, many other communities whites were marrying native Americans, Orientals, and blacks. It was no "big" deal. Just like in muslim communities the muslims reject their followers from marrying into other religions. The community has a huge say in what happens there. It is an earned responsibility. If you are a responsible part of the community, your marriage partner will not be questioned as intensely, as someone that is a "bum" and wants to marry into a supportive family of the community (because people have known for eons that corruption will spread, and it is not a good thing).

You are still comparing a "man" and a "woman" getting married to a "gender" and a "faux gender" getting married. It is in no way similar. It is a "corruption". Corruption spreads. It is a disease that eats and destroys cultures. Look at any civilization throughout history. The result is always the same. Corruption is "overlooked" in some circles. It spreads throughout society. The people are invaded or a tyrant rises to oppress everyone. Then it just stays that way.

This country was founded to LIMIT corruption. Why people want to legitimize corruption is something beyond my comprehension. It is the same people that complain about corruption in other areas of society that are saying, hey, this corruption is "good", it is for me.

This country was founded to limit corruption?

Fuck dude....................you didn't do well in American History class, did you?

Can you say "checks and balances"?

 

[Seawytch]

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Where does the Constitution say that there must be a compelling government interest in granting something? The Lovings didn't have to demonstrate a compelling government interest in granting them the fundamental right to marry, those opposed to interracial marriage had to provide a compelling state reason to deny it. Do you understand?



No, it isn't. Marriage in 9 (soon to be 10 or 11) states and something like 14 countries is between non familial consenting adults.

Was voting redefined when it was no longer white male landowners that could do it? No.

Death row.... there is no law against it. Therefore it is unreasonable to pass more restrictive laws to stop it.

You made the claim that to grant legal marriage, there must be a compelling state interest in doing so, right? How do you then explain Turner v Safley? Missouri tried to bar inmates from marrying. The SCOTUS said "oh no you can't". Where was the compelling state interest?

No, that was someone else. I asked where the compelling state interest was to grant the legalization of faux marriage.

Oh, so you really didn't have an argument and were not trying to debate the topic, you just want to be a raging bigot. Please, continue.

So some states are re-defining marriage because they lack fortitude. The federal gov't has not done so (IMHO, it is because doing so will HURT the state financially, morally, and legally) because there is no benefit to the gov't for doing so (compared to traditional marriage where families are made without adultery, and the success of the family comes before the "parent's" sex life.

They're about to. The SCOTUS will be striking down Section 3 of DOMA here in about a month so. Gird your loins fella, the gheys will be getting each other's Social Security soon! Oh, and this should REALLY chap your ass...TRICARE benefits for gay veterans partners, SPACE A flights for the gay veteran and his husband to travel to Hawaii and much, much more! (1,500 rights, benefits and privileges more)

Voting: a vote take place between a person and multiple choice question(s), hardly the same as two different people with their families and their communities being expected to agree to the relationship and to support the relationship.

And still the definition is not changed when gays are allowed to do it. Marriage is still between non familial consenting adults. No change done. (and we know no societal harm...which is why we are winning and will keep winning)

Writing laws specifically for one person, seems to be a great waste of taxpayer money. If the person is married without any objections (unfortunately, something not included in legal ceremonies), then the government should not write laws to stop something that is unpopular and rare.

Nobody is writing laws for "one person". States are writing laws with great animus to take rights away from a group of people...like inmates or interracial couples or gays. That's when the legal system steps in and says "uh uh uh...can't do that" (Loving v Virginia, Turney v Safley)

 

[logical4u]

Where does the Constitution say that there must be a compelling government interest in granting something? The Lovings didn't have to demonstrate a compelling government interest in granting them the fundamental right to marry, those opposed to interracial marriage had to provide a compelling state reason to deny it. Do you understand?



No, it isn't. Marriage in 9 (soon to be 10 or 11) states and something like 14 countries is between non familial consenting adults.

Was voting redefined when it was no longer white male landowners that could do it? No.



You made the claim that to grant legal marriage, there must be a compelling state interest in doing so, right? How do you then explain Turner v Safley? Missouri tried to bar inmates from marrying. The SCOTUS said "oh no you can't". Where was the compelling state interest?

No, that was someone else. I asked where the compelling state interest was to grant the legalization of faux marriage.

Oh, so you really didn't have an argument and were not trying to debate the topic, you just want to be a raging bigot. Please, continue.



They're about to. The SCOTUS will be striking down Section 3 of DOMA here in about a month so. Gird your loins fella, the gheys will be getting each other's Social Security soon! Oh, and this should REALLY chap your ass...TRICARE benefits for gay veterans partners, SPACE A flights for the gay veteran and his husband to travel to Hawaii and much, much more! (1,500 rights, benefits and privileges more)

Voting: a vote take place between a person and multiple choice question(s), hardly the same as two different people with their families and their communities being expected to agree to the relationship and to support the relationship.

And still the definition is not changed when gays are allowed to do it. Marriage is still between non familial consenting adults. No change done. (and we know no societal harm...which is why we are winning and will keep winning)

Writing laws specifically for one person, seems to be a great waste of taxpayer money. If the person is married without any objections (unfortunately, something not included in legal ceremonies), then the government should not write laws to stop something that is unpopular and rare.

Nobody is writing laws for "one person". States are writing laws with great animus to take rights away from a group of people...like inmates or interracial couples or gays. That's when the legal system steps in and says "uh uh uh...can't do that" (Loving v Virginia, Turney v Safley)

Just 'jump in' where ever. If some one tells me that there is no evidence that changing the definition of marriage will harm society, and I give them the same pie in the sky theories about the possibilities (what they are saying) it will harm society, they whine. If they tell me to "prove" that it harms society, and I say "prove" that it doesn't, they whine.

The homosexual activists are telling us to change the entire foundation of society to give a tiny percentage of the population "additional" privileges (the "right" to re-define legal words). According to them, this is like "racial" or "gender" discrimination, even though, there is no obvious way to tell what a person's sexual orientation is. In ANY society where promiscuity and homosexuality became an "accepted" part of society, all through history, was the beginning of the end of that civilization. In societies where those behaviors are "tolerated", the societies are corrupt, and human rights (as a whole, decline). In societies where honor and integrity are promoted, human dignity, human rights, and the standard of living are higher than the first two types of societies.

You have a family. You know children in your family. Are you willing to throw the entire country down the drain to force a deception onto everyone in the country that says two people of the same gender "are the same", and "legally" they must be recognized as such?
Are you willing to watch the country go bankrupt in your life time, for the children in your family to go "hungry", so deceitful people can know that they have "forced" their lifestyle to be legitimized by a country where 80% of people disagree with that said lifestyle?
Are you willing to commit the USA military men a women to die for homosexual activists that will not be content to corrupt this nation, but will travel to other nations (to force their life style onto those nations, also), and demand the military protect them as "citizens"?
Are you willing to "accept" that your actions will have consequences?
Do you realize that if this happens in your lifetime, the country could collapse, and that one of the first things that will happen is that homosexuals will be executed, to demonstrate the "authority" of the "new" government?
Are you prepared to watch every homosexual that is "documented" as a homosexual to be executed?

I know... you will tell me this cannot happen. I am telling you, that it can, and probably will. This country is the wealthiest country in the world. This country is also in debt, deeply in debt. The people that pay taxes are being "subjugated", to buy votes for the people that do not pay income taxes (over half of the population do not "pay" federal income taxes). The "feeding of the mob" (including homosexual agendas) has started. Once the mob is too large to feed: the gov't will have to reduce the numbers of the "mob" (those receiving benefits from the gov't), the benefits will have to be stopped (there is not enough fortitude in DC for this), or the country will collapse under the weight of the "mob" (a growing part of the population, constantly demanding more). At that point the Bill of Rights is gone. It will be: "work" or be killed. Your children, your families children will be slaves. Why? Because so many people in this country embrace corruption, never realizing that they are being used by the very people that don't believe ANYONE should have any type of rights. Pretend marriage is just another nail in the coffin of the USA (soon to be what your people call a myth, something that was good that never really existed, or at least in the minds of the "elites").

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yes! The community was against it, so it became a hardship. I am not saying it was right, it was the "community" that rejected it. In many, many other communities whites were marrying native Americans, Orientals, and blacks. It was no "big" deal. Just like in muslim communities the muslims reject their followers from marrying into other religions. The community has a huge say in what happens there. It is an earned responsibility. If you are a responsible part of the community, your marriage partner will not be questioned as intensely, as someone that is a "bum" and wants to marry into a supportive family of the community (because people have known for eons that corruption will spread, and it is not a good thing).

You are still comparing a "man" and a "woman" getting married to a "gender" and a "faux gender" getting married. It is in no way similar. It is a "corruption". Corruption spreads. It is a disease that eats and destroys cultures. Look at any civilization throughout history. The result is always the same. Corruption is "overlooked" in some circles. It spreads throughout society. The people are invaded or a tyrant rises to oppress everyone. Then it just stays that way.

This country was founded to LIMIT corruption. Why people want to legitimize corruption is something beyond my comprehension. It is the same people that complain about corruption in other areas of society that are saying, hey, this corruption is "good", it is for me.

This country was founded to limit corruption?

Fuck dude....................you didn't do well in American History class, did you?

Can you say "checks and balances"?

WTF does checks and balances have to do with corruption?

 

[logical4u]

This country was founded to limit corruption?

Fuck dude....................you didn't do well in American History class, did you?

Can you say "checks and balances"?

WTF does checks and balances have to do with corruption?

By design, the checks and balances were to help limit corruption. The founding fathers called upon citizens to be honorable and have integrity (to "need" less laws).

It is the other forms of gov't: socialism/communism/dictators/tyrants/purely democratic societies that have rampant corruption. This particular country was the first in history designed to "limit" corruption. Even the Romans' senate was only to limit the power of Caesar, not to limit corruption.
When corruption is welcomed, it grows. It becomes "business as usual". It doesn't matter where the corruption starts, or how small it is, once it starts and is "accepted", it grows. It travels into other places in society and "rots" the society from the inside, out. Those that are calling for the corruption of the definition of marriage, are calling for "corruption". It will hurt society. And those that are screaming to have it in place, will be absolutely silent about claiming responsibility for the havoc it will have on our country, and our society. They will cry about how the "children" are suffering and demand that "someone" do something. It will be too late. There will be no way to turn back the clock. It will get really ugly, and those that ushered it into place will be able to see the fruits of their labors in the suffering of others.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Can you say "checks and balances"?

WTF does checks and balances have to do with corruption?

By design, the checks and balances were to help limit corruption. The founding fathers called upon citizens to be honorable and have integrity (to "need" less laws).

It is the other forms of gov't: socialism/communism/dictators/tyrants/purely democratic societies that have rampant corruption. This particular country was the first in history designed to "limit" corruption. Even the Romans' senate was only to limit the power of Caesar, not to limit corruption.
When corruption is welcomed, it grows. It becomes "business as usual". It doesn't matter where the corruption starts, or how small it is, once it starts and is "accepted", it grows. It travels into other places in society and "rots" the society from the inside, out. Those that are calling for the corruption of the definition of marriage, are calling for "corruption". It will hurt society. And those that are screaming to have it in place, will be absolutely silent about claiming responsibility for the havoc it will have on our country, and our society. They will cry about how the "children" are suffering and demand that "someone" do something. It will be too late. There will be no way to turn back the clock. It will get really ugly, and those that ushered it into place will be able to see the fruits of their labors in the suffering of others.

Really? You've pretty much described the GOP teabaggers, as well as almost all of the Senate (notice I didn't divide between GOP and Dems, because they're all on the lobbyist payroll)............................

Sorry..................but people like Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor are all on the payroll of the lobbyists.....................

So are those like Harry Reid, because if he wasn't, then why did he bend to the will of McConnell so easily when it came to the filibuster?

Remember..................Reid said he was going to make them do it physically (meaning they had to stand on the floor and speak for an extended period of time), but then he folded.

Harry Reid should go fuck himself.......................he's a pussy as a man, and a failure as a politician. The only reason I hoped he'd win was because Sharon Angle was even more fucked in the head.

If a reasonable person wants to primary Reid for the Dem position? I'd support them, because they can't be worse than Reid (especially, if they've seen the last 4 years of news).

 

[Inkslinger]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Meh, this one's simple.
Because the religious right has no patent on the word or meaning of marriage.
Mods can close this thread now.

 

[Steelplate]

Why can't individual churches decide whether they recognize it or not?