Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

WinterBorn said:
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).
Click to expand...
The Southern Man does not accept the transgression of others who have less intellect and who do not see the immorality of defying men their natural rights.

It is simply not natural or moral for a man to lay with a man or a woman to lay with a woman.
 
Southern Man said:
Defining legal terms is certainly within the bounds of the Fed's enumerated powers. Again it has nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...
However, defining religious terms is not one of the powers granted to them. Your doe-eyed praise of their exercise of powers extends from the hypocritical stance that they are exercising power in a way that only steps on others rights, that it is okay so long as you are not effected. I find that somebody who would otherwise be against such exercise of government power into defining religious ceremonies that supports this simply hypocritical BeeEss...

The largest disconnect between you and I is that I consistently support and ask the question, "How can Americans be more free?" While your question appears to be, "How can the government protect my personal beliefs?" I find your dichotomy disgusting. In one thread you argue religious freedoms, in this one you argue government definitions of religious ceremonies simply because you like the result.
 
Southern Man said:
In certain Democrat States, yes, but not in North Carolina.

Again, The Southern Man never used such an argument.
Click to expand...

NC had an anti miscegenation law at the time of Loving.

You have used the argument here. The fact that you apply it inconsistently is not really something of which you should be proud.
 
Southern Man said:
The Southern Man does not accept the transgression of others who have less intellect and who do not see the immorality of defying men their natural rights.

It is simply not natural or moral for a man to lay with a man or a woman to lay with a woman.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn does not accept your claim to superior intellect or morality.

No one is defying anyone of their natural rights except for those who would deny gay marriage. Throughout human history, homosexuality has been present. Even when the punishment was death, there was a portion of the population that practiced it. There is medical evidence that people are born gay.

The argument is not about whether it is natural or not.
 
Damocles said:
However, defining religious terms is not one of the powers granted to them. Your doe-eyed praise of their exercise of powers extends from the hypocritical stance that they are exercising power in a way that only steps on others rights, that it is okay so long as you are not effected. I find that somebody who would otherwise be against such exercise of government power into defining religious ceremonies that supports this simply hypocritical BeeEss...

The largest disconnect between you and I is that I consistently support and ask the question, "How can Americans be more free?" While your question appears to be, "How can the government protect my personal beliefs?" I find your dichotomy disgusting. In one thread you argue religious freedoms, in this one you argue government definitions of religious ceremonies simply because you like the result.
Click to expand...
I consider your flowery descriptions of my beliefs to be a baseless ad hom. When you want to continue a logical debate then I'll look forward to it.
 
RStringfield said:
NC had an anti miscegenation law at the time of Loving.

You have used the argument here. The fact that you apply it inconsistently is not really something of which you should be proud.
Click to expand...
Prior to the Southern Man's existence North Carolina was controlled by Democrat slavers. I don't see your point.
 
WinterBorn said:
WinterBorn does not accept your claim to superior intellect or morality.

No one is defying anyone of their natural rights except for those who would deny gay marriage. Throughout human history, homosexuality has been present. Even when the punishment was death, there was a portion of the population that practiced it. There is medical evidence that people are born gay.

The argument is not about whether it is natural or not.
Click to expand...
You appear to be arguing that those who would deny men of natural rights such as the right to marry the woman he chooses are equivalent in intellect and morality of The Southern Man. What is your basis for this accusation?

Throughout human history, murder has been present. Even when the punishment was death, there was a portion of the population that practiced it. There is medical evidence that people are born murderers.
 
Southern Man said:
Throughout human history, murder has been present. Even when the punishment was death, there was a portion of the population that practiced it. There is medical evidence that people are born murderers.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between murder and allowing gays to marry. Your caricature of my argument is laughable.

Homosexuality itself is not illegal. Neither is sodomy.
 
Southern Man said:
Prior to the Southern Man's existence North Carolina was controlled by Democrat slavers. I don't see your point.
Click to expand...

The party in control has no bearing. That the federal gov't can step in and change laws involving marriage is the point.

The point has been made numerous times that teh state has no business being involved in marriage at all. This would be the best answer. Remove all the gov't granted benefits of marriage and remove the gov't from the situation completely.
 
Southern Man said:
Prior to the Southern Man's existence North Carolina was controlled by Democrat slavers. I don't see your point.
Click to expand...

You said not in NC. I misunderstood that to be in response to my second paragraph and apparently you meant it as a response to the first paragraph.
 
WinterBorn said:
The party in control has no bearing. That the federal gov't can step in and change laws involving marriage is the point.

The point has been made numerous times that teh state has no business being involved in marriage at all. This would be the best answer. Remove all the gov't granted benefits of marriage and remove the gov't from the situation completely.
Click to expand...
Wrong, again because of the same reason: The Feds have no jurisdiction over non-Constitutional powers; those are left up to the States or to the People. Non-discrimination is a Federal mandate; defining legal terms may be a Federal mandate; legitimizing perversions is not.
 
Southern Man said:
Throughout human history, murder has been present. Even when the punishment was death, there was a portion of the population that practiced it. There is medical evidence that people are born murderers.
Click to expand...

Murder is a direct violation of a persons most fundamental rights, as is denying someone the right to marry whomever they choose. Consensual sexual acts do not violate the rights of any other person.
 
WinterBorn said:
There is a huge difference between murder and allowing gays to marry. Your caricature of my argument is laughable.

Homosexuality itself is not illegal. Neither is sodomy.
Click to expand...
I never claimed either was illegal. Your caricature of my argument is laughable.
 
RStringfield said:
Murder is a direct violation of a persons most fundamental rights, as is denying someone the right to marry whomever they choose. Consensual sexual acts do not violate the rights of any other person.
Click to expand...
Gays have the right to marry, just not of the opposite sex, unless of course they live in a State where it is permitted. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Wrong, again because of the same reason: The Feds have no jurisdiction over non-Constitutional powers; those are left up to the States or to the People. Non-discrimination is a Federal mandate; defining legal terms may be a Federal mandate; legitimizing perversions is not.
Click to expand...

The federal gov't has already struck down anti-sodomy laws. This is not about sex. It is about antidiscrimination laws.

Other than religious reasons, there is no rational reason for denying gays the ability to marry. And religious reasons would be unconstitutional.
 
Southern Man said:
Wrong, again because of the same reason: The Feds have no jurisdiction over non-Constitutional powers; those are left up to the States or to the People. Non-discrimination is a Federal mandate; defining legal terms may be a Federal mandate; legitimizing perversions is not.
Click to expand...

The only rational answer would be to remove the gov't (state or federal) from the process completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top