Neoclitorus
Best
were they called interracial marriages? Or mixed marriages? There's that word.
Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
were they called interracial marriages? Or mixed marriages? There's that word.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You just admitted that laws were created to prevent interracial marriage. Therefore interracial marriage before those laws was legal. Therefore retards who insisted on "change" (in other words, liberals) made up some laws.
You just destroyed your own argument.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Dick burn.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, it's never been about the "right to sexuality" for me, and I have never said anything about denying homosexuals the right to be gay. I've never argued anything remotely close to that, so you are clearly misinformed.
No, that has never been my argument. Homosexual marriage will lead to other sexually deviant marriages, and they will have to be protected under the 14th, because we've defined the parameters of marriage based on sexual behaviors. This is about marriage, not homosexuality.
I understand what the 14th says, and the fundamental purpose for it. If we establish a law which grants some 'right' to a group of people on the basis of what kind of sex they have, then we MUST apply the 14th and extend the same 'right' to any other kind of sex people have, because that is the basis on which the law was established. Either marriage can be perverted on the basis of someone's sexuality, or it can't. You simply can't apply the 14th to one group, and deny the 14th to another.
Again, try to get your mind off this being about homosexuality. It's about MARRIAGE, not HOMOSEXUALITY! No one is advocating we prohibit homosexual behavior! No one is suggesting we BAN homosexuals from society! No one has proposed outlawing homosexual activity! This is about MARRIAGE, and how we define MARRIAGE in this country! Once the state allows marriage to be defined on the basis of sexuality, it MUST apply the 14th amendment protections to ALL marriage based on sexuality equally!
Again, stop trying to turn this into an argument over homosexuality! I have not condemned homosexuality, or homosexuals! I am opposed to 'redefining' marriage to accommodate a sexually deviant lifestyle, I think it is foolish and short-sighted, and would be detrimental to the concept of Family.
Now, Family is an important concept in our culture, regardless of how much importance you might personally place on it. It is the foundation of our civilization and society. How can Family be harmed with Gay Marriage? Let's look into the future... Imagine a society with no inhibitions about homosexuality, and fully accepting of Gay Marriage on the same equality as traditional marriage... You have a 16-yr-old daughter... you, as a parent, may be inclined to encourage her to have a homosexual relationship as opposed to a traditional relationship, to avoid the pitfalls of pregnancy and the burden of procreating a family. Go out and find a nice girlfriend, and forget about the boys! This will become a preferable culture, because same-sex unions do not have the same burdens and responsibilities as a traditional marriage. Eventually, only the really stupid people are getting traditionally married, opting for getting their "love on" in a different way, where they can escape the burdens and responsibilities associated with Family! From that point, you are only a few generations away from our civilization collapsing, because we aren't procreating and contributing to the survival of the species.
Well here we are again.... What "system" would you prefer we have? Do you want to have a Supreme Court full of godless libertarians to make our choices for us, or what? I am unclear on what you propose we do, other than govern our society by the will of the people! It's kind of what we do here, I thought!
No, there has been no amendment attempted yet. There has been an Act... DOMA, it was signed into law by Bill Clinton! You can talk about irrelevant examples, and act confidently about your idiocy all you like, but a vast majority of Americans simply do not agree with you. In all the years you've been debating this here, you've not changed a single mind on the issue. People are fairly set on what they believe, and that is not likely to change anytime soon.
The 14th doesn't apply, and has never applied, to homosexual marriage! Homosexual people are NOT denied due process! Every "right" a straight person has, is also enjoyed equally by a gay person! Everything that is not permitted to a gay person, is also not permitted for heterosexual people!
There is nothing in the Constitution enumerating the right to the Federal government to define marriage, therefore, it is a right reserved by the state and the people. That's the 10th Amendment, in case you have forgotten.
Sorry, but I have read a lot of shit from these guys, and I don't see anything that established these "general moralities" you spoke of. The D of I states that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, but I thought you were opposed to 'religious dogma' being imposed on us?
Any "right" we "extend" to homosexuals, must be extended to any other sexual deviant behavior on the same basis. Your parameters are irrelevant, because WE established the parameters. We define when someone is a 'victim' and when they are not. We set the boundaries for what is 'harmful' to others and why. These are all MORAL judgments we've established, and they are largely based on the same religious morality that opposes same-sex marriage.
Moral relativism is the belief that there is no "right" or "wrong" and we all establish our own individual morality. That isn't what I believe, or what I have stated. My viewpoint is more of a "Moral Realism" concept, where collective society establishes the criteria for "right and wrong" through democracy and advocacy within the political process.
Neoclitorus
Best
Im even for gay marriage but im against stringfield in this thread. It's cuz he's such a dick.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
You're against Stringy not because you disagree with him (you actually agree), but because you don't like him, personally. Well, that's just great...
Neoclitorus
Best
His arguments are weak. Words do mean things, and his belief that he can redefine them at his convenience makes him a dick.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I think asshat likes stringy dicks which is why he's for gay marriage.
Neoclitorus
Best
This whole problem is so easily solved.
Let them have civil unions. Then pass a law that civil union is equal to marriage in matters of law and institutional policy.
Everybody should be happy. but no, stringfield insists on redefining the word.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
This whole problem is a non-problem. Let them file power of attorney so they can take care of each others affairs and leave the government out of it.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
That is PLAIN dumb Dixie-I would argue that the major benefit to society that comes from marriage is children raised in a stable environment. Who is to say that homosexuals can not provide such a stable environment? PLUS, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION? Artificial insemination and surrogate parenting have allowed for those physically unable to bear children to do so without violating any exclusivity principles. A homosexual(getting their "love on") couple would not have to physically engage a third party for procreation anymore than an infertile heterosexual couple would. That way YOU DONT HAVE TO FEAR about "a few generations away from our civilization collapsing" It is still usually the case that one partner will have a more dominant role in taking care of the home and children. I see no reason to deny them to homosexual couples, who are capable of maintaning similar roles
Last edited:
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Then why not leave the word out completely a make (civil union) it uniform to all unions?
Neoclitorus
Best
Why not have both?
I fixed part of it, but your argument still falls flat.
So then, before laws were passed to specifically bar same sex marriage (many of the first marriage laws never bothered to address it) it was legal. Therefore, retards who insisted on "change" (in other words, social conservatives) made up some new laws, including DOMA.
You just destroyed your own argument.
Mine still stands. Read the Virginia court in Loving. The argument was that God put us on seperate continents and did not intend for us to intermarry. Only the, somehow, "unnatural" acts of migration put us into contact with one another and made laws against miscegenation necessary. That was the argument of your kind and it is similar to what you will respond with now that it has been pointed out to you that same sex marriage was previously left unaddressed.
The laws against miscegenation preceded the colonies. They existed in Europe and were replicated almost immediately upon forming governments here.
Further, how do you now argue for allowing changes that barred more than two participants to a marriage or that disallowed marriage based on age? They were not part of any original marriage law. If marriage must be some unchanging monolith then they will have to be repealed.
The first known laws concerning marriage (Hammurabi's Code) only laid out the contractual obligations and rights under the marriage and how it might be dissolved. Because that is how marriage is defined.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
We have the right to self-determination, that we are sovereign individuals, free to steer the course of our own destinies, free from the abuse of government power, and that governments are to be put into place only to keep other people from violating these rights, namely by protecting us from violence, theft, fraud, and by enforcing contracts. Which brings us to marriage. In religious terms, marriage is a covenant between you, your spouse, and God. In legal terms, marriage is a contract between you and your spouse, enforced by the state. A contract is a contract, limited only by the legality of promised actions and the informed consent of the signers.
All marriage should be civil union, not just gay marriage. Preserving the sanctity of marriage is an occupation best suited to religion. As far as the State is concerned, all a marriage is is a contract, nothing else. The only stipulations on a contract are that all parties give their informed consent, so to tell two people or a group of people that they cannot enter into a consentual contract smacks of Jim Crow.
Neoclitorus
Best
See, your political agenda is more important than actually getting the same legal basis for everyone. having two terms is fine. The religious definition came BEFORE the state got involved. so if the state wants to get involved in can use a different word for unions which don't meet the religious definition, which was the first one.
Neoclitorus
Best
What's a non religous word for PRIEST?
put on your 'refiners' everybody, so you can figure it out.
put on your 'refiners' everybody, so you can figure it out.
Next argument to be presented by the retarded social conservatives....
Blacks and women were not allowed to vote until liberals redefined voting. Everybody knows that a word is only defined by who is allowed to do it. For instance, marriage is defined as something one man and one woman do. Alcohol is defined as something someone 21 or older drinks. Driving a car is defined as something 15 year olds do with a licensed adult or someone 16 years old or above do alone. President is defined as a job someone 35 years old or older has....
We should restore the original definition of voting or otherwise, we'll have to let trees and mailboxes vote.
Blacks and women were not allowed to vote until liberals redefined voting. Everybody knows that a word is only defined by who is allowed to do it. For instance, marriage is defined as something one man and one woman do. Alcohol is defined as something someone 21 or older drinks. Driving a car is defined as something 15 year olds do with a licensed adult or someone 16 years old or above do alone. President is defined as a job someone 35 years old or older has....
We should restore the original definition of voting or otherwise, we'll have to let trees and mailboxes vote.
Last edited:
Southern Chicken
Verified User
IF that is the case then why not use the same term on a "same legal basis for everyone"? How is it equal if you have two legal terms to describe the same thing? "Civil Union" is just a way, I believe, of society trying to deal with the same-sex issue without having to acknowledge that the same love is involved in them as in most relationships, like they're robots and not people. I believe the purpose of the term "civil union" is to grant a union as a compromise, but withold the meaning of it as some unfair price. The difference in the terminology is the meaning in regard to the values involved. "Civil Union" differs from "Marriage" in emotional meaning, which is crucial when we are talking about peoples love lives, and how they can represent them in the world.
It's not the same. "Civil Union" would just be another closet imposed on people by the greater society. It would force them to still live without a context to exist freely in, an emotional context. Marriage provides not just a legal arrangment for people, but an emotional home as well in society. I mean the point of the term "Civil Union" is to grant the legal arrangment, without the terminology that would indicate the purpose of why people want to be together.I mean those feelings of love that marriage is supposed to based on. What is conspicuously absent form the term, I'm saying, is the emotional charge of the word "Marriage".
There is definitely a differnce between the experience of someone who can say "I'm married", and those who have to say something else, or would have to qualify it. I think there would also have to be a hint of shame in having to say something else. Who has the right to impose that on anyone?
You know, giving everyone else "marriage", while giving the few "civil unions" is like most people being invited to a grand banquet, while others are kept out in the cold and served gruel in a tin cup. It's not the same. It's the government trying to regulate the meaning of peoples love lives, telling some their relationships don't mean something that others do. People are free to think that, of course, but the government has no right to enforce it.
Last edited: