Nonsense. The court has already held that the 14th amendment protects a "right to sexuality." If your concerns (that 14th amendment protection of sexuality must lead to protection of all forms of sexuality, regardless of consent) were legitimate this would overturn all the laws against "sexual deviancy" (Ditzyspeak for stat rape, incest and bestiality).
Why would only a ruling on marriage lead to an expansion of 14th amendment protections to these things?
This isn't about a "right to sexuality." It's about defining marriage on the basis of sexuality, rather than the traditional definition of a man and woman. I haven't argued that homosexuals don't have a right to be homosexual, just that they do not have a right to adopt 'marriage' to define their unions.
A ruling allowing ANYTHING to be redefined to accommodate Group A, can not be denied or abridged for Group B. It violates the 14th to do so. Therefore, once you condone 'marriage' by the legal state definition on the basis of sexual behavior, this becomes the criteria in which ALL marriages can be defined from here on out. It is the
consequence of this, which will open the door to examination of other 'arrangements' that we may not be so comfortable with as a society. I don't like being a hypocrite, so I don't want to allow Gay Marriage, then have to disallow something more perverted down the road. In the words of Barney Fife... Nip it in the bud!
I ask for people to be free to make their own choices while you demand that they live by yours. You are immoral. More than that, you are a despicable piece of shit and a liar.
No you didn't want people to be free to make their own choices, you said it was "mob rule" and claimed we weren't capable of using democracy to settle this issue. I actually have a pretty open mind about a solution, but so far, no one seems to be interested except Damo.
I'll even give you a multiple choice, any of the three, I will be satisfied with...
1. Comprehensive Civil Unions, as I have outlined before, where the 'government' gets out of the 'marriage license' biz, and starts using a civil unions contract between any two legal age adults, regardless and irrespective of their relationship.
2. Let the people of each state vote up or down and decide at the ballot box, Gay Marriage or Keep Traditional Marriage.
3. If you aren't interested in #1 or #2, then the alternative will have to be this one... The Nuclear Option... We'll pass a Constitutional amendment respecting marriage as being between one man and one woman, and it will become a part of the Constitution permanently.
A homogenous society with lots of varying viewpoints and opinions. lol
It's not homogenous which is why we should not enforce one specific and detailed view of morality.
Are we all going to publish our own independent law books? Seems to me things are going to get a bit confusing if we don't establish some boundaries. I think we kinda have to settle on one specific view on most things, and I think people with morality deserve the right to express their viewpoint in establishing the laws, just as you have that right.
Yet, it is okay for the majority to force it's religious principles on to others? It is not and it does not matter that the practices are shared by 1 religion or 50 or even shared by the non religious. For relgious or moral practice to exist it must be unencumbered from the moral principles of others. Only a general morality may exist in government without violating this. Moral choices must be free from intiations of force against the individual or laws that deny equal protection and due process to minority views in the absence of a legitimate state interest.
Wow! Talk about talking yourself in a circle! Where does government get this "general morality" and who determines that? What are the parameters and guidelines for it, I haven't seen those? Why do you suppose I don't have naked people swinging in the trees outside my house right now? Do ya think it might have something to do with mankind developing morals, and deciding it best to make people wear their clothes? The Bible speaks of this, in the story of Adam and Eve, they used to walk around naked in Eden, until Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit, and then they had to cover themselves from then on.... so since this is a Biblical principle, taken right out of Genesis, we shouldn't force this principle on others... we should all run naked!
