Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

Southern Man said:
No that would be an unnatural choice. They can always choose a woman who looks like a boy, like you did.
Click to expand...

Natural or unnatural has nothing to do with it. The federal gov't is still offering benefits to certain people and denying them to others for no valid reason.

Other than religious restrictions, there is no reason gay marriages should be illegal.
 
Solitary, I realize that you would do almost anything in your quest to win an argument from me. I have argued that Solitary = Winterborn, and all you have to do to prove me wrong is to post your picture.

Homosexuality isn't normal natural moral and healthy as you liberals claim. Homosexuality doesn't equate to race as you liberals claim. Therefore, in a morally just society, marriage shall remain the union between one man and one woman. You folks in Massachusetts, Vermont and California can't force your immorality on The South.
 
Southern Man said:
Homosexuality isn't normal natural moral and healthy as you liberals claim. Homosexuality doesn't equate to race as you liberals claim. Therefore, in a morally just society, marriage shall remain the union between one man and one woman. You folks in Massachusetts, Vermont and California can't force your immorality on The South.
Click to expand...

Using the natural as a criteria for laws is pure insanity. There is nothing natural about many of our laws.

Morality is not an issue unless it harms someone, such as theft or murder. The reason you maintain that homosexuality is immoral is because of your religious beliefs. Those beliefs have no standing under the US Constitution where our laws are concerned.

Healthy is another area that you try and bring into it, but you would throw fits if the gov't tried to legislate health in other areas.



Gay couples are as moral and healthy as any other. Considering that half of marriages end in divorce and domestic violence occurrs in between 4 and 6 million intimate relationships annually, the claims that marriages are the bastion of morality is laughable.

The fact remains that the fed bestows benefits on one group for getting married, and then refuses to allow another group access to marriage.

As Damo said, the gov't has no business regulating marriages between consenting adults.
 
Southern Man said:
If you had followed along with the sequence of posts instead of just reading one you would have realized that the "State" that I am referring to is North Carolina, which does maintain that it is a Christian State. See post 57.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did read the entire thread and did note that you wish to speak strictly to North Carolina. If you would actually pull your head from your ass you would see the ignorance in your posts more clearly.
 
Southern Man said:
The Feds didn't define marriage; they enforced equal protection. Again, any man can marry any woman who will take him.
Click to expand...

Okay, great. The feds should once again enforce equal protection. Why should a man have the right to marry a woman while a woman does not have the same right?

As for normal/natural/healthy nonsense... Again the same things were said about mixed race couples.
 
Southern Man said:
It mentions equal protection, so all men should be granted the privilege of being married to a woman who agrees to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes, it mentions equal protection. However the rest of your post is simply YOUR biased crap. Unless you care to show us where it states the bullshit you posted.
 
Superfreak said:
Actually, I did read the entire thread and did note that you wish to speak strictly to North Carolina. If you would actually pull your head from your ass you would see the ignorance in your posts more clearly.
Click to expand...
Since my head was never in my ass your point escapes me.
 
Southern Man said:
You sound like Asshat with the conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
And you sound like somebody who has run out of excuses to support the government usurpation of a personal and religious right. You've ran out of actual argument and started into an attempt at ad hominem.
 
RStringfield said:
Okay, great. The feds should once again enforce equal protection. Why should a man have the right to marry a woman while a woman does not have the same right?

As for normal/natural/healthy nonsense... Again the same things were said about mixed race couples.
Click to expand...

A woman does have the right to marry any man who will take her.

The Southern Man has never argued that any race of people is not normal natural and healthy. You Democrats did that.
 
Damocles said:
And you sound like somebody who has run out of excuses to support the government usurpation of a personal and religious right. You've ran out of actual argument and started into an attempt at ad hominem.
Click to expand...
That's not an ad hom but an observation of your argument. You brought up something that sounded like a conspiracy yet you offer no basis for the claim.
 
Southern Man said:
Wrong-o.
Click to expand...

Lets see, with the gov't issued marriage licence the marriage is valid. Without the gov't issued marriage licence the marriage is not valid.

Not much argument that the gov't is not part of the religious ceremony.
 
Southern Man said:
A woman does have the right to marry any man who will take her.

The Southern Man has never argued that any race of people is not normal natural and healthy. You Democrats did that.
Click to expand...

A man has a right to marry any woman who will take him. But a woman does not have the right to marry any woman who will have her. Not equal rights.



You personally have not argued that, but people from numerous states did argue that. The comparison is valid.

Race is not a choice and neither is sexual orientation (according to most experts).
 
Southern Man said:
That's not an ad hom but an observation of your argument. You brought up something that sounded like a conspiracy yet you offer no basis for the claim.
Click to expand...
Yet I do, you simply pretend not to hear it and rinse and repeat the tired and same argument that "protects" your specific religion's view on the religious ceremony we've been speaking about throughout the thread.

Your argument is pretensive and disingenuous throughout the thread, it begins with the premise that the government should step into this freedom because you want the "definition" protected even though "protection of definitions" is not one of the powers granted either to the State or Federal governments. There is no rational basis for the government to step in to "define" this particular exercise of personal freedom, other than to protect the "sanctity" as defined by your religion. It's a direct rejection of the 1st, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments and of a limited government and WHY the founders wanted that government limited.

Limited government cuts both ways, including into things you would like.
 
Damocles said:
Yet I do, you simply pretend not to hear it and rinse and repeat the tired and same argument that "protects" your specific religion's view on the religious ceremony we've been speaking about throughout the thread.

Your argument is pretensive and disingenuous throughout the thread, it begins with the premise that the government should step into this freedom because you want the "definition" protected even though "protection of definitions" is not one of the powers granted either to the State or Federal governments. There is no rational basis for the government to step in to "define" this particular exercise of personal freedom, other than to protect the "sanctity" as defined by your religion. It's a direct rejection of the 1st, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments and of a limited government and WHY the founders wanted that government limited.

Limited government cuts both ways, including into things you would like.
Click to expand...

Defining legal terms is certainly within the bounds of the Fed's enumerated powers. Again it has nothing to do with religion.
 
RStringfield said:
And the right to marry any woman that will take her.

I am not a Democrat. You use the same argument against same sex marriages that were used to deny the right of mixed race marriages.
Click to expand...

In certain Democrat States, yes, but not in North Carolina.

Again, The Southern Man never used such an argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top