Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[Timshel]

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.

How do you know that the religious definition came first? Which religion are we going to use? Are we going to use the old school religious definition, i.e, the ones that allowed polygamy, or some new one?

 

[Neoclitorus]

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.

Sometimes things are defined by who can do it. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. like an arrest is between a perp and a cop, not a mailman and your momma.

 

[Neoclitorus]

anyone who talks about a civil union has obviously never been married. <--joke

 

[Timshel]

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.

That was a such a great solution the first time we did it as the Jim Crow laws. There is no reason for it. The only purpose it can serve is in giving the fucking immoral religious reich the sense that they are better, as recognized in law. They are not better. Their uinons and commitment are no more important than anyone else's. the state should not create seperate classes based on their discrimination.

 

[Neoclitorus]

That was a such a great solution the first time we did it as the Jim Crow laws. There is no reason for it. The only purpose it can serve is in giving the fucking immoral religious reich the sense that they are better, as recognized in law. They are not better. Their uinons and commitment are no more important than anyone else's. the state should not create seperate classes based on their discrimination.

you're a loon dude. See, your whole issue is not about rights for gays. It's about attacking christians. When you renounce your racist faith ill listen to your bullshit on religious hypocrisy.

 

[Timshel]

Sometimes things are defined by who can do it. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. like an arrest is between a perp and a cop, not a mailman and your momma.

Can you give an actual example of that? You can be arrested by someone other than a police officer. "Arrest" does not necessarily mean it is legal or has anything to do with law. Arrest simply means to stop. Legally, the meaning includes more detail, but can still be carried out by someone other than a police officer.

And if your argument is correct then marriage was redefined when black white marriages were allowed, polygamy was barred and when marrying age laws were changed. You are fucking splitting hairs, retard.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Can you give an actual example of that? You can be arrested by someone other than a police officer. "Arrest" does not necessarily mean it is legal or has anything to do with law. Arrest simply means to stop. Legally, the meaning includes more detail, but can still be carried out by someone other than a police officer.

And if your argument is correct then marriage was redefined when black white marriages were allowed, polygamy was barred and when marrying age laws were changed. You are fucking splitting hairs, retard.

Im talking about the legal definition of arrest. Just like you;re referrring to the legal definition of marriage.

 

[Timshel]

you're a loon dude. See, your whole issue is not about rights for gays. It's about attacking christians. When you renounce your racist faith ill listen to your bullshit on religious hypocrisy.

Not all Christians or religious people oppose gay marriage. My problem is not with them. My problem is with the immoral assholes who try to shove their absurd immorality down the throats of others. My issue is with those who employ force in order to deny others freedom of choice, due process or equal rights.

I would have had a problem with the, primarily, religious opponents of interracial marriage but not the very influential religious organizations that fought to overturn such laws.

 

[Timshel]

Im talking about the legal definition of arrest. Just like you;re referrring to the legal definition of marriage.

As was pointed out to you, it's not defined by who may arrest.

 

[Timshel]

Arrest means to stop, dumbfuck. The difference between stop and arrest in legal terms, only has to do with to what extent it impedes the liberty of the suspect or arrested person.

Now let me ask, how come the "legalist" get to define arrest?

You can continue trying to split hairs all you like, but most things are not defined by who may legally participate in them and you have not offered an example of one.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Arrest means to stop, dumbfuck. The difference between stop and arrest in legal terms, only has to do with to what extent it impedes the liberty of the suspect or arrested person.

But the legal definition means more than stop. And it has an implied actor: A cop, and a recipient, the suspect.

Now let me ask, how come the "legalist" get to define arrest?

You can continue trying to split haris all you like, but most things are not defined by who may legally participate in them and you have not offered an example of one.

At least you acknowledge that words can contain an implied actor (s).

 

[Timshel]

But the legal definition means more than stop. And it has an implied actor: A cop, and a recipient, the suspect.

Dumbfuck, with the exception of NC, every state in this nation allows a citizen's arrest. It is the same in virtually every common law nation. Arrest is not defined by who may make the arrest. Try again.

At least you acknowledge that words can contain an implied actor (s).

I didn't. The actor may be implied by common practice but a change in the actor would not change the definition of the act. It just changes who may act. Allowing homosexuals to marry does not redefine marriage in any meaningful way and certainly not moreso than any of the other changes we have made to who may marry.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Dumbfuck, with the exception of NC, every state in this nation allows a citizen's arrest. It is the same in virtually every common law nation. Arrest is not defined by who may make the arrest. Try again.

LOL. citizens arrest. Nice try. The board rejects you.

I didn't. The actor may be implied by common practice but a change in the actor would not change the definition of the act. It just changes who may act. Allowing homosexuals to marry does not redefine marriage in any meaningful way and certainly not moreso than any of the other changes we have made to who may marry.

Unless you define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

Like fertilization is a union between a sperm and an egg, Not a door and a shoe.

 

[Timshel]

LOL. citizens arrest. Nice try. The board rejects you.

Do you think this is responsive? You bascially just forfeited.

Unless you define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

Like fertilization is a union between a sperm and an egg, Not a door and a shoe.

OMG, you are retarded. A sperm and an egg are not the kind of participants I had in mind and you know it. But alright. Does it matter which type of sperm or which type of egg? Nope. Even when you go to the absurd strawman you fail.

A shoe and a door can not meet in fertilization no matter what the law is. The only reason homosexuals cannot marry is because of the law. A marriage is not defined as a male and female. That's a heterosexual couple. Marriage is a contract for the purposes of cohabitation. That's all it is.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

Can you not read what people are writing? No one is proposing just giving gay people "civil unions" while continuing to ordain traditional marriage. Perhaps that is what you WISH were being said, so you can make the "separate but equal" arguments work, but it's not what I have suggested, nor what others have suggested with regard to CU's.

We can't start getting into the "emotionalness" of this, people don't have the right to not be upset emotionally about something, sorry! And IF they did, what about the devoutly religious people who would be upset emotionally because you've changed the definition of something they hold sacred? Does their "emotion" not count or something?

No one wants to try and regulate the meaning of your love life. No one wants to prohibit gay people from being gay, or loving who they choose. Love is not based on a "marriage license" and it is not required to experience and know love. It is largely a civil agreement between a man and woman, and it is widely recognized in the church as something sacred. We just can't CHANGE what it means because we need for it to mean something else! There is another solution to this problem, it has been spelled out for you, but the "pro-gay marriage" crowd doesn't want any part of it. That's curious to me... I think it's because you are hypocrites, you don't really give two shits about gay people or their rights, this is about attacking religious traditions and customs, and supporting liberalism like a fucking football team!

 

[DamnYankee]

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.

No it was never legal. Stop being retarded.

 

[apple0154]

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!

Marriage is based on sexuality. How do we determine who is a man and who is a woman? It's not by the job they hold or how they dress. It's by their sex. Even going back to the Bible it says it's better to marry than to "burn", walking around horny all the time.

Marriage vows include "forsaking all others". Why is it necessary to forsake all others if it's not about sex?

Furthermore, as I believe the Catholic Church stipulates, marriage must be consummated. Consummated, as in, sex.

Marriage is and always has been about sex.

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.

You must be joking. Six billion people in the world and you're worried about a lack of procreation? If there ever was a shortage of offspring just tell adolescents to have sex and not use birth control. I can assure you we would have plenty of offspring.



//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

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.

 

[Timshel]

No it was never legal. Stop being retarded.

Black/white marriages were never legal. Not in this country. Not until the "definition" of marriage was changed.

Your argument was that there were no laws making it illegal, therefore it was legal. But that is the same as saying there was no laws making same sex marriages illegal therefore it was legal.

I am just pointing out YOUR retarded hypocrisy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Marriage is based on sexuality. How do we determine who is a man and who is a woman? It's not by the job they hold or how they dress. It's by their sex. Even going back to the Bible it says it's better to marry than to "burn", walking around horny all the time.

Marriage vows include "forsaking all others". Why is it necessary to forsake all others if it's not about sex?

Furthermore, as I believe the Catholic Church stipulates, marriage must be consummated. Consummated, as in, sex.

Marriage is not based on "sexuality" dimwit. Learn the meaning of the words you're using, and stop acting like you're retarded.

Marriage is and always has been about sex.

No, marriage is the union of a MAN and a WOMAN. You do not have to engage in sex to be married.... trust me, I know.

You must be joking. Six billion people in the world and you're worried about a lack of procreation? If there ever was a shortage of offspring just tell adolescents to have sex and not use birth control. I can assure you we would have plenty of offspring.

Nope, I am not worried about it, because Gay Marriage is never going to be accepted by this society. And excuse me, but I wouldn't accept your assurances on much of anything, you are an absolute idiot and have proven it many times here.

This is just simple evolution, or 'de-evolution' of the species. Once we've come to a place where homosexuality is considered equal to heterosexuality, and gay marriage is considered equal to traditional marriage, the culture shifts... it is what we have created! Over time, it would become less popular for young people to engage in 'traditional' relationships, and more popular to explore homosexual behaviors. Remove the moral implications, and homosexual relationships have some significant advantages as far as responsibilities go, the biggest being, no children. Another would be the fundamental differences between man and woman... we tend to 'get along' better with those who think like us... women think like women, men think like men. All things being equal, and living in a culture taught to respect homosexuality on an equality with heterosexuality, and the entire concept of "Family" literally withers on the vine.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

if we're going wading in filth, shallow is better......less likely to drown in it.....

The wade away, I'll stand here on the edge and watch you wallow.