Same sex marriage compromise

Lightning said:

You just proved my point.....if the mob, in this case the LGBT community wants things to be a certain way, than the rights of over 4/5 of the country's state which currently do not support the LEGALIZATION of gay marriage will be chucked out the window just because you do not want it to be that way. "To hell with the Constitution" is all I see coming from your posts.

Click to expand...

What right is violated of yours by legal gay marriage?

Lightning said:

Well than go debate in communist China or N. Korea. I'm sure they'll share your views about how "western law" is flawed and idiotic.

Click to expand...

Yes, always a great argument when your resort to "go to communist China or N. Korea.

However, same-sex marriage isn't very popular in China or North Korea, so.......

zstep18 said:

2 questions:

1. )What does SSM have to do with eroding freedoms?

2.)Since I apparently don't understand the rule of law, how should SSM be "done the right way"?

Click to expand...

1.) The codification of a law about marriage (eg. DOMA, and whatever SSM law comes out of this if it does) gives the government further overreach in an area that is CLEARLY unconstitutional since it has no legal basis, and it undermines the 10th amendment.

2.)Well, marriage should not be an issue to begin with. It is infuriating to realize that I'm sitting here debating about the LEGALITY OF MARRIAGE?? (utterly ridonkulous). But seeing as how the elimination of government in marriage is highly unlikely because government naturally likes to hold onto power, it should be left up to the residents of each state to decide how they want things done, just like the 10th amendment says it should be.

zstep18 said:

So, when did this "origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe" originate?

The Greeks had homosexual relations.

If you want to go into the Bible, we can definitely talk about what the Bible has said about marriage.

Click to expand...

Marriage began a long time ago, tracing its roots to before the agrarian revolution during which it really spread everywhere on the globe, long before religion, long before the Greeks.

From then, through now, "marriage" was created specifically being only between a man and a woman as husband and wife, and for understandable reasons.

The Greeks, what they allegedly did and likely didn't do, are irrelevant.

The Bible, with regard to what marriage was before and after the Biblical writers, is also irrelevant.

You continue to bring up irrelevancies, likely as subterfuge, to obfuscate by focusing on these irrelvancies, for the purpose of supporting your pre-conceived ideology's mindset on SS committed romantic relationships.

zstep18 said:

Yes, always a great argument when your resort to "go to communist China or N. Korea.

However, same-sex marriage isn't very popular in China or North Korea, so.......

Click to expand...

:spank: BAD ZSTEP18 bad! You're sticking your nose into a conversation that you it seems did not fully understand, especially, since bonzai started pouting and started to become angry after I repeatedly pointed out the flaws in his arguments.

And the whole point of that statement was in reference to his distaste of western law, which again shows how much you missed the point of our(bonzai and I) conversation.

Lightning said:

Well than go debate in communist China or N. Korea. I'm sure they'll share your views about how "western law" is flawed and idiotic.

Click to expand...

Or maybe you're just willing to accept achieving a C- level of human existence............................

Lightning said:

1.) The codification of a law about marriage (eg. DOMA, and whatever SSM law comes out of this if it does) gives the government further overreach in an area that is CLEARLY unconstitutional since it has no legal basis, and it undermines the 10th amendment.

2.)Well, marriage should not be an issue to begin with. It is infuriating to realize that I'm sitting here debating about the LEGALITY OF MARRIAGE?? (utterly ridonkulous). But seeing as how the elimination of government in marriage is highly unlikely because government naturally likes to hold onto power, it should be left up to the residents of each state to decide how they want things done, just like the 10th amendment says it should be.

Click to expand...

Denying same-marriage is prohibited under the 14th Amendment, and therefore, does not fall under the 10th Amendment.

Bonzai said:

Or maybe you're just willing to accept achieving a C- level of human existence............................

Click to expand...

The same is to be said of you... in fact most of the world would probably disagree with your distaste of western law. Just goes to show who really is right... I mean unless you're calling over half of the inhabitants on this planet complete idiots who got everything wrong. Western principles have shortfalls, but they're leagues and light years away from anything else this world has been able to muster.

Fiddytree said:

No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"

Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it as well.

zstep18 said:

Denying same-marriage is prohibited under the 14th Amendment, and therefore, does not fall under the 10th Amendment.

Click to expand...

Master zstep18 says "Denying same-marriage is prohibited under the 14th Amendment, and therefore, does not fall under the 10th Amendment.... and its that way because I say so!!!"..... all while offering no valid reasoning behind his statements.

Gina said:

I didn't want to go into the reasons and derail my discussion with SmokeandMirrors.

Polygamy is demonstrably bad for society and the women and children of polygamus unions, while SS and interracial marriage are not. Polygamy puts pressure on females to marry younger and to older men. Often more than one of the wives and her children are on welfare because the husband's salary is insufficient. Very often in Mormon compounds, young men are kicked out because they compete with older men for young wives.

Click to expand...

First off what you are having issue with is polygyny; one man many wives. Polyandry, BTW is one woman, many husbands and polygamy is simply many marriages, with no emphasis on either gender/role.

Secondly, well instead of reyping it I'll quote myself. (with reference to what I responded to):

Ikari said:

And there's arguments against polygamy given that almost every instance of polygamous society in the modern world has been one built on oppression, sexism, subjugation, and exile.

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

Only the ones that make the news. If there is no conflict then why should they report on it? However, let's now look at those marriages as shown on Sister Wives. Do those marriages look like they are built on oppression? Subjugation? Exile? Not unless you have definitions of these things that are way out there. Sexism? Well that one is open to a little more subjectiveness than the others, but is nowhere near what you see out of the religious whackos in Arizonia. I have no doubt that we could find families to be on Brother Husbands, but somehow I don't think the ratings would be enough to maintain it even through one season. Now there's sexism for you.

Click to expand...

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Polygamy actually has a much more straight-forward counter-argument: it often involves force. It should be illegal in any democracy for the same reason rape and slavery are.

Polyamory is polygamy where the partners are equal.

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

Do NOT even try this. You cannot take the example of a small group of people who are using the practice of polygamy, specifically polygyny, as an excuse to engage in reprehensible behavior as an indicator of the practice in and of itself. By that basis I can argue that marriage is equally bad based upon domestic violence.
Polyamory is the practice of holding multiple relationships, some or all of which may or may not be marriage also. Polygamy is the practice of holding multiple marriages. Excluding any play partners/swinging partners I may have I could have a polygamous marriage to two wives and another husband and also have polyamorous relationships with yet another woman and another man. The marriage, which is obviously only social/religious in nature, is the key difference.

There are many polygamous marriages among the polyamorous community. Granted some will only call it a polyamorous marriage, but they are still, by definition, polygamous. And personally find it offensive that you would use such a small group to paint the rest of us by. That is no better than calling all Muslims terrorist based on Al Qaeda.

Click to expand...

Lightning said:

I don't recall the 14th saying anything about same-sex marriage....oh wait that's right it doesn't! It is a religious institution by the way. I would like for you to point where in the constitution it explicitly talks about marriage. Didn't think so.

Click to expand...

Lightning said:

Well actually it was (religious) and should be. The reason it is not today is because of the freaking inclination for humans to stick their noses on others business. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation today.

Click to expand...

The one word marriage covers three seperate institutions; religious, civil and societal, although it could be argued that religious is a subset of societal. You can have any one without the other two, or even any two with out the third. The normative is to have all three, with note that there are more people who are religious, with a range from Wicca to Christianity to whatever, then atheist. While religion as a general idea has been interwoven with marriage throughout history, not all the instituions have dealt with marriage at all times. As I noted earlier, the Christian Church didn't make marriage a part of its overview until the 13th century. In China, where ancestor worship vice any religion per se' was practiced, they had a tradition of ghost marriages whereby the one spouse was married to a person already deceased. Sorry but marriage has its origins as all three institutions.

Ontologuy said:

You simply don't understand the origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe, that it was foundationally and remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

Click to expand...

Marriage has long been about power and property. It is only recently, historically speaking that marriage has been about love. Yes typically marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what also produced heirs. But there have been occasions in our history when a marriage was granted between members of the same gender or even members of the same family, not for the purpose of producing heirs, but to designate the heir and transfer money and power.

Lightning said:

You just proved my point.....if the mob, in this case the LGBT community wants things to be a certain way, than the rights of over 4/5 of the country's state which currently do not support the LEGALIZATION of gay marriage will be chucked out the window just because you do not want it to be that way. "To hell with the Constitution" is all I see coming from your posts.

Click to expand...

So then if 4/5 of the country want to say that blacks are not considered citizens, and thus are not afforded the protections of the Constitution then that is what should be?

Ontologuy said:

Marriage began a long time ago, tracing its roots to before the agrarian revolution during which it really spread everywhere on the globe, long before religion, long before the Greeks.

From then, through now, "marriage" was created specifically being only between a man and a woman as husband and wife, and for understandable reasons.

The Greeks, what they allegedly did and likely didn't do, are irrelevant.

The Bible, with regard to what marriage was before and after the Biblical writers, is also irrelevant.

You continue to bring up irrelevancies, likely as subterfuge, to obfuscate by focusing on these irrelvancies, for the purpose of supporting your pre-conceived ideology's mindset on SS committed romantic relationships.

Click to expand...

What I am saying is I really don't care what was "tradition" for so many years. Slavery was "tradition", violence against women was "tradition", so what? Saying that SSM should be outlawed because it's "tradition" is rather ridiculous. There were many "traditions" which were outright wrong.

Lightning said:

The same is to be said of you... in fact most of the world would probably disagree with your distaste of western law. Just goes to show who really is right... I mean unless you're calling over half of the inhabitants on this planet complete idiots who got everything wrong. Western principles have shortfalls, but they're leagues and light years away from anything else this world has been able to muster.

Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the harshness of my judgements towards " over half of the inhabitants on this planet"..................

Lightning said:

Master zstep18 says "Denying same-marriage is prohibited under the 14th Amendment, and therefore, does not fall under the 10th Amendment.... and its that way because I say so!!!"..... all while offering no valid reasoning behind his statements.

Click to expand...

How about because the 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th Amendment says those rights not prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states. The rights under the 14th Amendment are not reserved to the states.

maquiscat said:

However, I will say that if the wording and the weight of the two laws were exact except for one being titled "marriage" and the other being titled "civil union" then we don't have "seperate but equal". We have a difference of label.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what separate but equal means. And that is an unconstitutional approach.

Lightning said:

I don't recall the 14th saying anything about same-sex marriage....oh wait that's right it doesn't! I would like for you to point where in the constitution it explicitly talks about marriage. Didn't think so.

Click to expand...

Oh look, a complete lack of understanding of constitutional jurisprudence.

It is a religious institution by the way.

Click to expand...

Your religion is not grounds to control my ability to marry. Marriage is older than your religion and is not shaped by it. What Christians think of marriage has no standing in American law.

Lightning said:

Well actually it was and should be. The reason it is not today is because of the freaking inclination for humans to stick their noses on others business. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation today.

Click to expand...

So keep your nose and your state government out of my business and my rights.

Lightning said:

You're allowed to do whatever the hell you please. You are not and should not be allowed to shove your will and the will of the LGBT down the throats of regions around the country that do not support it.

Click to expand...

And yet you think that Christians can shove their will down the throats of their neighbors.

Lightning said:

Master zstep18 says "Denying same-marriage is prohibited under the 14th Amendment, and therefore, does not fall under the 10th Amendment.... and its that way because I say so!!!"..... all while offering no valid reasoning behind his statements.

Click to expand...

Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Romer v. Evans. Now you cite some precedent that supports your 10th amendment claims and your view that the federal government cannot protect SSM.

maquiscat said:

The one word marriage covers three seperate institutions; religious, civil and societal, although it could be argued that religious is a subset of societal. You can have any one without the other two, or even any two with out the third. The normative is to have all three, with note that there are more people who are religious, with a range from Wicca to Christianity to whatever, then atheist. While religion as a general idea has been interwoven with marriage throughout history, not all the instituions have dealt with marriage at all times. As I noted earlier, the Christian Church didn't make marriage a part of its overview until the 13th century. In China, where ancestor worship vice any religion per se' was practiced, they had a tradition of ghost marriages whereby the one spouse was married to a person already deceased. Sorry but marriage has its origins as all three institutions.


So then if 4/5 of the country want to say that blacks are not considered citizens, and thus are not afforded the protections of the Constitution then that is what should be?

Click to expand...

Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.

Secondly, you are confusing the right to codify sexual preference which is what we are talking about here, to the elimination of racism in this country. Two completely different things.

zstep18 said:

How about because the 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th Amendment says those rights not prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states. The rights under the 14th Amendment are not reserved to the states.

Click to expand...

Yeah because like I and others have said for about 4 million times now, the 14th amendment CLEARLY includes marriage.

Lightning said:

Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.

Secondly, you are confusing the right to codify sexual preference which is what we are talking about here, to the elimination of racism in this country. Two completely different things.

Click to expand...

You're just arguing FOR mob rule.................If it's ok in one case, than it's cool all the time.....................

Lightning said:

Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.

Secondly, you are confusing the right to codify sexual preference which is what we are talking about here, to the elimination of racism in this country. Two completely different things.

Click to expand...

Not that large a difference. Choosing to marry someone of a different race isn't that. Much different than choosing someone of the same gender. Discrimination against both has largely been unjust, unfair, and oppressive.

Lightning said:

Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.

Click to expand...

We probably shouldn't go by what marriage means in the Bible.


Or should we not get into the fact that the Bible says that a virgin who is raped must marry the rapist?

penn1954 said:

I'm thinking civil union? All the tax bennies etc.but no marriage certificate!

The govt probably has no business in it anyway.As a christian I do not

believe in gay marriage-but I don't make it my business.

Hate the sin but love the sinner!eace

Click to expand...

.....and, of course, as a Christian, you and I do not believe in divorce. Hate the sin love the sinner.

As homosexuality and divorce/re-marriage are both explicitly called out as wrong within the Bible, I'm not sure there is any more Biblical argument for (or against) one than the other. In other words, from a strictly Biblical perspective, our laws are inconsistent with regard to marriage.

Paschendale said:

Which is exactly what separate but equal means. And that is an unconstitutional approach.



Oh look, a complete lack of understanding of constitutional jurisprudence.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah that's right because including marriage under the 14th is the benign wisdom of the universe and displays complete understanding of reality. It is also ridiculous for the "SOCIALIST" to even mention the constitution.

Your religion is not grounds to control my ability to marry. Marriage is older than your religion and is not shaped by it. What Christians think of marriage has no standing in American law.

Click to expand...

OK???? I have made no mention of MY religion, or anything dealing with? Can you read? DO you have your glasses on?

So keep your nose and your state government out of my business and my rights.

Click to expand...

My nose is out of your business. If you like to smoke poles, by all means brother go ahead. I really don't care. State government?? I really don't understand you're argument here? In fact, there is no argument, it sounds like you're a zealous high school student who has no understanding of debate or the Constitution, which is kind of a DUH since you are a "Socialist". It is becoming clearer that you either cannot read or you do not have your glasses on because I am advocating complete dissolution of government from marriage. It's obvious you're cherry-picking and not taking the argument as a whole.

And yet you think that Christians can shove their will down the throats of their neighbors.

Click to expand...

And why should it be the reverse. Look the facts don't lie, 41 states still disapprove and you are naive to believe that th reason behind that is Christianity and its followers

Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Romer v. Evans. Now you cite some precedent that supports your 10th amendment claims and your view that the federal government cannot protect SSM.

Click to expand...

You obviously have no constitutional understanding as I've stated before, you're trying to use a limited precedent set by the SCOTUS to eliminate racism and to eliminate the constant labeling of people who are not white inferior to society, to sexual preference by certain individuals.

Stop cherry picking and become informed before you become an inflamed zealot please.

Bonzai said:

You're just arguing FOR mob rule.................If it's ok in one case, than it's cool all the time.....................

Click to expand...

Holy sheep **** batman we've been through this before bonzai in earlier posts. How is it any different in the reverse??

Boo Radley said:

Not that large a difference. Choosing to marry someone of a different race isn't that. Much different than choosing someone of the same gender. Discrimination against both has largely been unjust, unfair, and oppressive.

Click to expand...

It is in fact extremely different Boo Radley. We're talking about racism vs. sexual taste/preference.

Lightning said:

Oh yeah that's right because including marriage under the 14th is the benign wisdom of the universe and displays complete understanding of reality. It is also ridiculous for the "SOCIALIST" to even mention the constitution.



OK???? I have made no mention of MY religion, or anything dealing with? Can you read? DO you have your glasses on?




My nose is out of your business. If you like to smoke poles, by all means brother go ahead. I really don't care. State government?? I really don't understand you're argument here? In fact, there is no argument, it sounds like you're a zealous high school student who has no understanding of debate or the Constitution, which is kind of a DUH since you are a "Socialist". It is becoming clearer that you either cannot read or you do not have your glasses on because I am advocating complete dissolution of government from marriage. It's obvious you're cherry-picking and not taking the argument as a whole.





And why should it be the reverse. Look the facts don't lie, 41 states still disapprove and you are naive to believe that th reason behind that is Christianity and its followers



You obviously have no constitutional understanding as I've stated before, you're trying to use a limited precedent set by the SCOTUS to eliminate racism and to eliminate the constant labeling of people who are not white inferior to society, to sexual preference by certain individuals.

Stop cherry picking and become informed before you become an inflamed zealot please.

Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder who else's "rights" should be thrown to the discretion of the mob ?.......................