A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[bigrebnc1775]

The Bible does not supersede the Constitution, no matter how much you want it to.

I don't think I was the one who brought the Bible up I am just following the comments as they come.

Lemon Law.

Again I wasn't the one who brought the bible into the discussion between me and blue I'm just posting rebuttals as the discussion flows.

 

[BluePhantom]

OH really? OK if God intend for people too have sex with anyone he would have made Adam and Steve and made everybody asexual.

Gen 2:18 ¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.


Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I am not going to write all this shit out again. 1) I have done it 1000 times. Just read what I linked to. 2) God has nothing to do with this issue. Religion has nothing to do with constitutional law and I am not going to derail the thread so you can quote Bible verses. It all comes down to Loving v. Virginia and Lemon v. Kurtzman....how many damned times on this thread alone do I have to point to the Lemon Test and how many times will the anti-gay crowd conveniently pretend it doesn't exist? Since Arte couldn't answer the question, perhaps you can: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"

Those criteria are again:

1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
2) it can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.


Loving v. Virginia specifically defines marriage as a "right" under the 14th Amendment. Now, answer that question and explain how to deny homosexuals their rights and remain in compliance with the Lemon Test?

A revised version of the bible? Dude wake the **** up the homosexual act is unnatural and not of God. It is a sin No matter how much of your perversions try's to make it not a sin.

Translation: he can't answer the question either.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

just how exactly do you figure that? Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant. An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is still unconstitutional.

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not. It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant. You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?

Same sex marriage no. But the specific topic was whether marriage itself was a "right" enjoyed by United States citizens. According to Loving v. Virginia...yes it is a "right". It's not a "privilege", it's not a "perk", it's a "right". The SCOTUS defined it twice in that very section I quoted as a "right". And not just a "right" but a "vital right".

So to deny gays marriage is denying them their "rights" according to Loving v. Virginia. Now here we go again: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"

You can't use a case that was designed to rule because of race. When Loving vs VA was ruled on homosexual acts were illegal so Loving vs VA is moot for this issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

What a hypocritical cop-out. Do you believe allowing all and any consenting adults to marry is a fundamental civil right or not?

First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right?? My contention all along has been that the gov't should not be in the marriage business at all. But if it is going to be, it should not bestow benefits on one group and deny them to another.

The only two semi-rational reasons I have ever seen for this are based either on religion or on an appeal to history. Neither of which should carry any weight.

So before you go out and call someone a hypocrite, do that the time to make sure you know what you are talking about. I have made my views quite clear.

Your views clear? I think not. In any event, I see you are too cowardly to answer the question on consenting siblings and parents and children.

I actually answered the question. I don't have a hardline opinion on the matter. I can see the potential for birth defects in siblings or other close relatives marrying. But I don't think too much about it. It is not a huge issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not going to write all this shit out again. 1) I have done it 1000 times. Just read what I linked to. 2) God has nothing to do with this issue. Religion has nothing to do with constitutional law and I am not going to derail the thread so you can quote Bible verses. It all comes down to Loving v. Virginia and Lemon v. Kurtzman....how many damned times on this thread alone do I have to point to the Lemon Test and how many times will the anti-gay crowd conveniently pretend it doesn't exist? Since Arte couldn't answer the question, perhaps you can: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"

Those criteria are again:

1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
2) it can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.


Loving v. Virginia specifically defines marriage as a "right" under the 14th Amendment. Now, answer that question and explain how to deny homosexuals their rights and remain in compliance with the Lemon Test?

A revised version of the bible? Dude wake the **** up the homosexual act is unnatural and not of God. It is a sin No matter how much of your perversions try's to make it not a sin.

Translation: he can't answer the question either.

No it's you who can't answer. Face the facts speaking of the bible why would God create a man and a woman ?

 

[WinterBorn]

OH BUT NO

What about Bestiality, Polygamy? Why do we have laws against those two things? Why aren't the rights of people who like teenagers protected to be with teenagers?

Its always nice to see those who oppose gay marriage repeatedly ignore posts explaining things that ruin their "if we let gays marry then the next thing someone will want to marry their dog!" nonsense.

Let me post it for the 4th or 5th time. It boils down to consenting adults.

As for polygamy, give me a reason it is illegal?

It's not nice to see that you ignore one thing animals cannot give consent for anything. They are sold monthly for breeding stock. Do they give their consent then? Do they give their consent to used as food? Please enlighten us.

As for polygamy, give me a reason it is illegal

Would people going to jail be enough reason to say it's illegal?

That is because animals are owned. They cannot legally enter into a contract.

As for polygamy, you showed that it is illegal, not the reason why it is illegal.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's called cause and effect.

When do we stop giving special right to everybody.

Special rights? We want to give ordinary benefits to more people. Can you see the difference?

There is no right to marry, give gays a right to marry is giving someone a special right.

I did not say there was a right to marry. I simply said we want to give the benefits to more people.

 

[WinterBorn]

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.
There is no fundamental right for same sex marriage.
__________________

just how exactly do you figure that? Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant. An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is still unconstitutional.

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not. It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant. You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?

He was not addressing whether gay marriage is a right. BigRed asked whether marriage was a right. Blue answered that question. And now you want to pretend a different question was asked so his answer is invalid?

 

[BDBoop]

just how exactly do you figure that? Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant. An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is still unconstitutional.

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not. It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant. You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?

He was not addressing whether gay marriage is a right. BigRed asked whether marriage was a right. Blue answered that question. And now you want to pretend a different question was asked so his answer is invalid?

Yes. There is a rabbit with a pancake on its head, therefore we need to change the subject.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

just how exactly do you figure that? Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant. An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is still unconstitutional.

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not. It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant. You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?

He was not addressing whether gay marriage is a right. BigRed asked whether marriage was a right. Blue answered that question. And now you want to pretend a different question was asked so his answer is invalid?

I clarified my statement their is no right for same sex marriage.

 

[BluePhantom]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?

Same sex marriage no. But the specific topic was whether marriage itself was a "right" enjoyed by United States citizens. According to Loving v. Virginia...yes it is a "right". It's not a "privilege", it's not a "perk", it's a "right". The SCOTUS defined it twice in that very section I quoted as a "right". And not just a "right" but a "vital right".

So to deny gays marriage is denying them their "rights" according to Loving v. Virginia. Now here we go again: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"

You can't use a case that was designed to rule because of race. When Loving vs VA was ruled on homosexual acts were illegal so Loving vs VA is moot for this issue.

Oh yeah you can pal. In fact it's been applied already. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; Perry v. Schwartzenegger (2010)

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.” Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.” Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.&#8221....

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2012) points out as well that prior to Proposition 8 same sex marriage was not illegal in California...it had simply never been defined. They write:

Before considering the constitutional question of the validity of Proposition 8's elimination of the rights of same sex couples to marry....

The word "elimination" in their decision was emphasized in italics. They make clear that prior to Prop 8 gays had the right to marry. Thus the court has ruled that banning gay marriage is indeed the elimination of rights and not the establishment of new ones. It was not until 1977 (ten years after Loving v. Virginia) that same-sex marriage was made illegal in California (see page 8).

They further write:

...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'...

We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

In their opinion the 9th Circuit directly references and upholds the opinion by the 8th Circuit in Perry v. Schwartzenegger.

 

[BluePhantom]

A revised version of the bible? Dude wake the **** up the homosexual act is unnatural and not of God. It is a sin No matter how much of your perversions try's to make it not a sin.

Translation: he can't answer the question either.

No it's you who can't answer. Face the facts speaking of the bible why would God create a man and a woman ?

In regards to legal and constitutional rights the question is totally irrelevant: Lemon v. Kurtzman is very clear that religious dogma has no validity in this regard. I linked you to my previous posts on the Bible and I am not going to allow you to derail the thread into a Biblical debate or a debate on what God intends or does not intend. Those are questions that have no bearing on the legal and constitutional question of gay marriage.

Here we go again....can't answer so derail, deflect, and twist. Next you will be calling me a bigot like Arte did when he couldn't answer the question.

 

[BuddyColt]

Why would anyone care if someone else marries someone of the same sex?

What possible difference could it make to you?

I am a newbie here and a Libertarian on most issues. But, I want to play the devil's advocate here for a moment.

According to the law, marriage is a Right. Also, by law, marriage is defined in legal dictionaries as a union between one man and one woman. Yet, virtually everybody that wants to be married goes to the government and obtains a marriage license in order to get married.

Why do so many people forfeit a Right and seek out a license in order to get married? Licenses are permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. Look it up in a legal dictionary.

You don't go to the government and say you want to join the XYZ church, do you? Why? You have Freedom of Religion. So, if you have a Right to marry, why ask the government's permission?

The answer to the poster's question is simple:

America was founded as a Christian nation, NOT as a theocracy, but a nation founded on Christian principles. Any gay couple can go to the church that agrees with gay marriage; they could do a name change in court to have the same last name and the rest of us would be none the wiser. They would be "married."

The real reason this practice threatens us is that it requires us to validate gay marriage. People want into the arrangement, NOT because they lack a Right to get married, but for the benefits. Aside from wanting to change the definition of marriage, the gays want benefits... benefits that most of us feel we're compelled to be a part of whether we like it or not.

For example, we must pay for public schools. So, many parents use the schools and send their children there. But, although they pay for the schools, even a majority of the parents have little say in WHO teaches their children or what they are taught. Gay marriage means that people you wholly disagree with will teach your children.

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

Maybe people simply do not want to submit to a yoke of slavery. If the gays were not getting married primarily for the benefits of marriage that society offers to a man and a woman, gay marriage would be an easier sell.

The gays want us to be forced into accepting their lifestyle AND be forced into participating in it. You'll help provide them a job; help subsidize their medical care via insurance premiums, etc. You do not have a choice. OTOH, they can live together, go through a ceremony, change their names and live as a "married" couple without the validation of the public.

 

[amrchaos]

divide marriage in to religious marriage and non-religious marriage.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Translation: he can't answer the question either.

No it's you who can't answer. Face the facts speaking of the bible why would God create a man and a woman ?

In regards to legal and constitutional rights the question is totally irrelevant: Lemon v. Kurtzman is very clear that religious dogma has no validity in this regard. I linked you to my previous posts on the Bible and I am not going to allow you to derail the thread into a Biblical debate or a debate on what God intends or does not intend. Those are questions that have no bearing on the legal and constitutional question of gay marriage.

Here we go again....can't answer so derail, deflect, and twist. Next you will be calling me a bigot like Arte did when he couldn't answer the question.

Let's go back weren't you the one that brought up the Bible? Now you act as if the Bible is irrelevant? God created man and woman in his perfect plan now man is trying to contaminate that plan with lies and half truths

 

[WinterBorn]

No it's you who can't answer. Face the facts speaking of the bible why would God create a man and a woman ?

In regards to legal and constitutional rights the question is totally irrelevant: Lemon v. Kurtzman is very clear that religious dogma has no validity in this regard. I linked you to my previous posts on the Bible and I am not going to allow you to derail the thread into a Biblical debate or a debate on what God intends or does not intend. Those are questions that have no bearing on the legal and constitutional question of gay marriage.

Here we go again....can't answer so derail, deflect, and twist. Next you will be calling me a bigot like Arte did when he couldn't answer the question.

Let's go back weren't you the one that brought up the Bible? Now you act as if the Bible is irrelevant? God created man and woman in his perfect plan now man is trying to contaminate that plan with lies and half truths

Whether the Bible is relevant or not depends on your religious beliefs.

But what is relevant is that the US Constitution expressly forbids having any national religion. This means we do not base our laws strictly on religious dogma.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In regards to legal and constitutional rights the question is totally irrelevant: Lemon v. Kurtzman is very clear that religious dogma has no validity in this regard. I linked you to my previous posts on the Bible and I am not going to allow you to derail the thread into a Biblical debate or a debate on what God intends or does not intend. Those are questions that have no bearing on the legal and constitutional question of gay marriage.

Here we go again....can't answer so derail, deflect, and twist. Next you will be calling me a bigot like Arte did when he couldn't answer the question.

Let's go back weren't you the one that brought up the Bible? Now you act as if the Bible is irrelevant? God created man and woman in his perfect plan now man is trying to contaminate that plan with lies and half truths

Whether the Bible is relevant or not depends on your religious beliefs.

But what is relevant is that the US Constitution expressly forbids having any national religion. This means we do not base our laws strictly on religious dogma.

Slow down there sparky I wasn't the one who mentioned the bible, but when it's pointed out that your idea of the bible has holes and then turn around and act as if the Bible is irrelevant that's bullshit in my opinion don't use it then run away

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's go back weren't you the one that brought up the Bible? Now you act as if the Bible is irrelevant? God created man and woman in his perfect plan now man is trying to contaminate that plan with lies and half truths

Whether the Bible is relevant or not depends on your religious beliefs.

But what is relevant is that the US Constitution expressly forbids having any national religion. This means we do not base our laws strictly on religious dogma.

Slow down there sparky I wasn't the one who mentioned the bible, but when it's pointed out that your idea of the bible has holes and then turn around and act as if the Bible is irrelevant that's bullshit in my opinion don't use it then run away

I didn't quote the bible. I quoted a study that showed the Catholic Church performed weddings for two men hundreds of years ago.

I did not claim anything concerning religious views, but showed the fallacy of the "Marriage has been about 1 man and 1 woman for thousands of years" argument.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Whether the Bible is relevant or not depends on your religious beliefs.

But what is relevant is that the US Constitution expressly forbids having any national religion. This means we do not base our laws strictly on religious dogma.

Slow down there sparky I wasn't the one who mentioned the bible, but when it's pointed out that your idea of the bible has holes and then turn around and act as if the Bible is irrelevant that's bullshit in my opinion don't use it then run away

I didn't quote the bible. I quoted a study that showed the Catholic Church performed weddings for two men hundreds of years ago.

I did not claim anything concerning religious views, but showed the fallacy of the "Marriage has been about 1 man and 1 woman for thousands of years" argument.

But Blue what ever the rest of his name is did use the bible. But if that's what you are going with? The church that thinks bowing to idols is a good thing so be it.

 

[BluePhantom]

Slow down there sparky I wasn't the one who mentioned the bible, but when it's pointed out that your idea of the bible has holes and then turn around and act as if the Bible is irrelevant that's bullshit in my opinion don't use it then run away

I didn't quote the bible. I quoted a study that showed the Catholic Church performed weddings for two men hundreds of years ago.

I did not claim anything concerning religious views, but showed the fallacy of the "Marriage has been about 1 man and 1 woman for thousands of years" argument.

But Blue what ever the rest of his name is did use the bible. But if that's what you are going with? The church that thinks bowing to idols is a good thing so be it.

Nice try but that's not what happened, cowboy. Post #613. Arte said allowing gay marriage would be "tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard." He's incorrect about it being "thousands" of years...maybe more like 1,500 or so in Western culture but I saw no need to split hairs about the time frame.

Winter produced documentation (however reliable that documentation is can be debated - but documentation nonetheless) that Christianity did not always endorse an anti-homosexual position.

YOU referred to "scripture in the Bible" to refute his documentation:

There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin.

[spelling error yours]

I said in post #625 that those scriptures are not reliable and linked to previous posts on the topic most of which which have supporting documentation as well. You responded to my rejection of modern scripture in post #627 by quoting more modern scripture....not by addressing the validity of modern scripture and whether it has been impervious to mistranslation, cultural misinterpretation, political tampering, and the dangerous effects of Midrash just to name a few.

So sorry to burst your bubble pal but actually you were the one who brought the Bible into it.