- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Id argue that freedom of speech covers that
Now there is a different tact....do tell.
j-mac
Id argue that freedom of speech covers that
Where in the Constitution does it say anything concerning atrernative life styles?
Call me old fashioned, but I don't recall granting the SCOTUS legislative authority.
These are government entities that you are up against. Their pocket book is limitless. I think you have to win the hearts and minds of the voter to win overall.
Thank you.
Gone about in the proper way, I see no reason to disagree. But, a subversion exists when you speak of law through judicial fiat IMHO.
Using your own definition here, tell me how the supposed "right to marry" is not negated as destructive to society as you define it above.
***Personally, I don't think it would necessarly be, but rather if gone about in the heavy handed way you describe, I think it would be.****
j-mac
I don't think that these arguments have any merit at all. However, if one wanted to open that door, the argument could go along religious grounds, since the term "Married" is most often affiliated with a church ceremony. Could not one argue civil unions with all the legal bindings of an actual church ceremony are one in the same?
j-mac
The problem with this idea is that the outcome of a Justice of the Peace wedding (i.e. non-religious ceremony) is marriage. Therefore the precedence has already been set that marriages do not have to be religious. Therefore if non-religious ceremonies can be marriages, why can't gay marriage? You can't use religion as a crutch anymore on marriages.
Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.
Now there is a different tact....do tell.
j-mac
Nowhere. But by the same token, it doesn't condemn alternative lifestyles either. So where is this justification to ban active participation in a government sanctioned institution?
There isn't one. But what else do we have to do except fight back using the same system?
I never once advocated that they should.
You may think that, but if you saw first hand what happened here in California this last election, you would understand that the major opposition is these family values lobbies and their source of funding does have a limit. How often do you think they are gonna go to their churches and ask for a "special offering" to raise money against gay marriage before people just say, "screw it. I don't have to marry a homo so it doesn't matter to me."
I think it's necessary to combat the opposition that is trying to use judicial fiat to stop us from doing what is not currently illegal.
First, I never stated there was a right to marry. There isn't a "right to marry" for gays or straights. But there is a right to equal treatment by our government and if the government is going to grant legal, financial, and social privileges to heterosexuals for marrying, then there is no choice but to grant those same privileges to homosexuals who marry.
With that out of the way, I need you clarify the rest of what you are asking. I'm not understanding what it is you want me to explain...
This would be nice, and much easier, though you know some hard core folks would still bitch...about a ****ing WORD.
The problem with this idea is that the outcome of a Justice of the Peace wedding (i.e. non-religious ceremony) is marriage. Therefore the precedence has already been set that marriages do not have to be religious. Therefore if non-religious ceremonies can be marriages, why can't gay marriage? You can't use religion as a crutch anymore on marriages.
Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.
Of course they would, but at least there wouldn't be any legal ramification of the argument like there is now. It would be considered opinion, instead of legal precedence.
I'm not even concerned that GM is being shot down in other areas. As long as a few States have it for now, that is a great first step. It will provide a working model for other States that have fears or are simply on the fence to show them that households with gay partnerships are as normal and functional as heterosexual setups.
FFS Tex, stop it. You're really being ridiculous on this one, and I don't know why...
You cannot compare marriage to murder.
Some areas of the nation will never see gay marriage. Others will. America is not a one size fits all country. The states can decide if they want it or not. As for the Federal government, it's none of their damn business.
When logic fails, bring up 12 year olds getting marriage, polygamy and murder. Bestiality comes next, wait for it. Appeals to emotion are so weak, and so predictable.
And when evidence of your claim of genetics fails, run for the hills or don't read your own studies that refute your argument.
I'm not comparing them. I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of pretending a catch all phrase covers your specific argument.
You never understood my argument. You also never supported yours.
It did cover it in relation to the phrase right before it. When taken as a whole, it clearly covers marriage. Murder is not covered, because it does not fit the whole thing.
Yes I did. I even quoted your study.
And my argument was based on your inability to prove your original claim of genetics.
No, you specifically claimed that the cause was not genetic, in explicit terms. I however, never claimed it was genetic, only that we do not know for sure and there is evidence that it might be.
No it does not.
It never says marriage, unions or anything of the sort. You are not reading. You are spinning the law and claiming it covers something that was never mentioned.
That is why you run for the hills when I demand you quote the specific part that claims that.
All you do is run back to a general phrase then dishonestly claim it covers your specific argument. Using your logic, I could make any claim and point back to that phrase then claim it covers my specific point.
Yes I did. I even quoted your study.
And my argument was based on your inability to prove your original claim of genetics.
So marriage is not "an aspect of life"? If it is, then it is covered, if it is not, I am curious to hear you explain how it isn't.
Which doesn't constitute proof. You obviously still don't get it. :doh
Ok, what you are talking about is the issuance of a Marriage license right? Also the priviliages that current married couples enjoy from marriage right? Then what about a civil union?
Well, you listed off some things in your response like: Division politics, yet you say that now is the time that the gay community use that as a tactic. also, personal adherence to tradition, would seem to fly in the face of the gay argument.
j-mac
What part of page 1 do you not understand?
Take a look. The first claim was that it was genetic.
After that, the burden of proof is on the people who claim that.
They failed.