Gay marriage

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Well since it would appear you missed out on the last marathon 1101 posts and 74 pages of *** marriage debate, have at 'er.

But just so you know where I stand, since you feel you need to know, I think queers should take their "civil union" and shut the **** up. No one in the last 1101 posts and 74 pages was EVER able to answer the question... "WHY DO THEY NEED FOR IT TO BE *MARRIAGE*, WHY DO THEY FEEL THE NEED TO DESECRATE THE HOLY UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN IN THE EYES OF GOD WITH THEIR BUTT POKING, CRACK LAPPING, SICK PERVERTED WAYS"?!

If they can enjoy ALL the LEGAL benefits of marriage with a civil union, WHY must they feel the need to be MARRIED? That's for a MAN and a WOMAN, not dick licking fags or crack lapping lezbos.

There's my debate....

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. wow! So full of hate, is that how Jesus would have responded?

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by deciophobic
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. wow! So full of hate, is that how Jesus would have responded?

Well, if you're going to quote Jesus, tell the whole story. He also said, " Go forth and sin no more ". He was not condoning prostitution! And condemning the sexual perversion known as homosexuality does not mean that one is "full of hate."

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by Meridian Clear
I've never been much for labels. If it comes down to a gay/lesbian partner for decades getting insurance and such I'm for it. I suppose I'm for it because I think we should be able to do what we want and marriage to me is a freedom that shouldn't be ruled by government.

You just contradicted yourself. You state that gays should be able to marry...this means the GOVERNMENT would be backing and approving this kind of marriage. THEN you state that "marriage to me is a freedom that shouldn't be ruled by government." This is a contradiction to you first statement. You need to pick one. You can't have it both ways, which seems to be the trend with the libbies.

The argument that made me feel against the whole idea is that they are saying they want equal rights. What they don't seem to get through their over-inflated heads is they HAVE equal rights. Gays CAN get married-to a person of the opposite sex, same as a straight person. A straight person has no right to marry the person of the same sex. So why should gays be any more special?

 

[MrMarbles]

Under a fair and democratic society, everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. If they choose to spend their time with someone of the same sex, so be it, it is not our right to tell them what to do, but it is theirs to beaable to have the same benefits as hetero's. You don't have to call it marriage if you don't want to, but at least give them the same rights, and privelages.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Under a fair and democratic society, everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. If they choose to spend their time with someone of the same sex, so be it, it is not our right to tell them what to do, but it is theirs to beaable to have the same benefits as hetero's. You don't have to call it marriage if you don't want to, but at least give them the same rights, and privelages.

what rights and priviledges do they not have?

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Under a fair and democratic society

also, we are NOT a democratic society. We are a Representative Republic. So that argument is moot.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by musicman

The Constitution was not designed to be in the " inclusion" or " exclusion" business. It's purpose is to specifically enumerate the powers of the federal government, granting all powers not so enumerated to the states, or to the people. That's why Affirmative Action and Roe vs. Wade are, quite simply, bad law. The federal government was never supposed to get into social issues like these.

Those seeking some Constitutional protection of marriage are merely trying to derail a runaway judiciary which has made a mockery of the constitutional process, and routinely circumvents the will of the American people. I think it's a perfectly appropriate remedy - and a great start.

While I agree in concept, you just stated the Constitution is not designed for anything other than power distribution. I agree.

Adding a new Amendment causing the document to be what it isn't supposed to be further deteriorates the document.

The solution is to ban all marriage benefits and incentives.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
also, we are NOT a democratic society. We are a Representative Republic. So that argument is moot.

Constitutional Republic.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by NewGuy
While I agree in concept, you just stated the Constitution is not designed for anything other than power distribution. I agree.

Adding a new Amendment causing the document to be what it isn't supposed to be further deteriorates the document.

Good point. However, I think we can be - if not forgiven - at least understood, for seeking some constitutional remedy to the prevailing madness. The Judiciary are acting like some kind of moral aristocracy, and it's going to have to be stopped soon!

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Constitutional Republic.

Dare I enter the fray, temporarily? Federal Constitutional Republic.

State are SUPPOSED to count.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Dare I enter the fray, temporarily? Federal Constitutional Republic.

State are SUPPOSED to count.

Are you meaning we are corrupted into CURRENTLY acting as a Federal Constitutional Republic?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Are you meaning we are corrupted into CURRENTLY acting as a Federal Constitutional Republic?

No I'm speaking to the 10th amendment. You disagree?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
No I'm speaking to the 10th amendment. You disagree?

Of course.

What you state lists states subservient to federal rule, but the federal body does not supercede the Constitution.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Of course.

What you state lists states subservient to federal rule, but the federal body does not supercede the Constitution.

Huh? I consider the amendments part and parcel of the consititution. You don't?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Huh? I consider the amendments part and parcel of the consititution. You don't?

Of course, but that doesn't invalidate authority of each division of power, nor the chain of command.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Of course, but that doesn't invalidate authority of each division of power, nor the chain of command.

Hmmm, can you explain, in staightforward manner. Otherwise, I'll have to wait til you're in the hot room....:dev1:

 

[NewGuy]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What is the chain of command?

Constitution>Federal Bodies>State Govt./Citizens.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Federal anything.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
What is the chain of command?

Constitution>Federal Bodies>State Govt./Citizens.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Federal anything.

So you're position is the US central government is Supreme?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
So you're position is the US central government is Supreme?

No..............The CONSTITUTION is.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
No..............The CONSTITUTION is.

and the constitution does not give the states right, setting up the federalist system?