Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

I don't need to read your mind as your position contradicts concepts concerning the importance of consent.

Contradicts concepts? Who's "concepts" are contradicted, and why? What exactly IS my position here? We've been discussing what SOCIETY'S position is, not mine.

....Concerned about the importance of what? Consent? What exactly do you base your view of this "consent" thing on, and why is that of importance to me in my personal life? You know, it seems to me, you ain't much different than them 'evil chishtuns' who want to 'force their ruligen' on people! All of this 'concern about importance' nonsense, and the "contradicting" of your "concepts!" LMFAO!

Why are you hypocritical? You want to apply your own standards... "concepts of consent" and this is something you find important and fundamental to society, so you can accept that moral determination and judgment, it's okay because you have your concepts.... Those who support Traditional Marriage though.... their 'importance of concepts' is not valid to you. That's when you pull out your Constitutional hammer and pound them on the head with it, because they are forcing you to accept their standards or moral judgments. As your words demonstrate, you aren't any different, you just have different parameters and priority for your moralities.


You can base your opinion on whatever you like. You can't justify state action based on whatever you like, under our system.

Again, MY justifying 'state action' is self evident. I am a citizen of a state, I pay the salaries of every employee of the state with my tax dollars, and I do the hiring and firing at the ballot box. Individually, I can't make the state do or not do anything specifically, but along with people of like mind, I can lobby the government and petition them to redress my complaints. If there are enough of us, we can generally pass any law we wish to pass as a state. A constitutional challenge is very often made in light of an unpopular referendum, but yes... I can indeed effect state action in any way I see fit, and you can't stop me from doing so. In fact, I find it quite odd that you would be suggesting the people don't have this right over the State. ....I look for you to post; "Dixie, I can't believe you don't think people deserve the right to vote in America!" As if you have read something completely opposite of what has been posted!

OUR "system" gives each of us the inalienable right to voice our political opinion on any matter, regardless of whether it is religious or not, regardless of whether you like it or not, and to mold, shape, and guide, our governmental (state) function in our societal life. You are probably thinking of RUSSIA, where the State tells the people what its 'interests' are and the people accept it like proles.

Yet, you offer nothing to support state action but religious morality.

The State exists as a result of a religious morality, you fuckwit! When the First Amendment says the right to "exercise our religion" do you think it just means we can take it out for a walk in the park daily, and as long as we carry a pooper-scooper, you're cool with it? People BELIEVE whatever they BELIEVE! It has NOTHING to do with their Constitutionally mandated RIGHT to express their religion OR political viewpoint!

There are a NUMBER of reasons people oppose Gay Marriage! Not ALL of them are Religious or religiously-based! I presented my objections on purely legal and constitutional (14th Am) issues and subsequent legal problems of implementing such a thing. I don't deny that I have also defended the church's constitutional right to maintain the integrity and sanctity of an institution which is fundamental to their freedom of religious expression. I think this is a valid argument, regardless of the fact it defends Christians. I accept that you disagree with that, I don't expect you to!

There were no bans on blacks marrying, at the time of Loving. Noe one told them they could not marry because they were black. Loving definitely applies, because the court found that the "equality" of the prohibition did not protect it from 14th amendment limits.

The "inequality" was RACIAL, you dumbfuck! It was of a RACIAL nature that marriage was being denied, it was RACIST to do so. Homosexuality is NOT a RACE! Gays are not mentioned in the CRA of 1964! Also, almost any marriage of any man and woman in America, could be considered "interracial" to some extent, we were applying an unfair standard to specifically deny black people the right to marry white people. Loving, in no way, changed the definition of marriage.

I am not replacing anything. I am arguing for our current system, you are arguing for some incoherent nonsense, where laws are justfied because politicians have an interest in getting reelected. LOL

Well, sure you are! Just tell us what you favor instead of a democratically-elected representative republic? What should we replace our "every man gets a vote" system with? You are obviously not happy with the results of the current system and how these things work, so what else can we do? Tell us Stringy!! Should we have Stringy's Libertarian Gestapo out there running around stamping out any religious thought in politics? Maybe we should round up all the Baptists and intern them like Roosevelt did the Japs in WWII... at least until your War on Christians has ended!

Okay.... Straight Up, Stringy.... Let's lobby for a nationwide ballot initiative and put it up for a vote by the people, they either want Gay Marriage or they want Traditional Marriage to remain unfettered. I'm all for that! Do it state by state, and we can even ratify an Amendment to the Constitution and put the results in stone forever!

I indicated that we based it largely on science concerning human development. How does that amount to sticking our finger in the air? It's still a guess....It does relate to physical maturity as the brain physically develops and that is the source of "maturity."

But Science doesn't show that to be the case at all, why would we establish such a rule on the opposite of what science tells us? People "mature" physically at different rates, and mentally as well. And when we get into mental maturity, or social maturity, what do we mean by that? Isn't the answer based on your fundamental understandings of what constitutes a "mature" person? Isn't that a "moral-based" viewpoint? Do you think your judgment of "maturity" is the same as everyone, or maybe somehow ...superior?

The fact is, what I said was true, we base almost every aspect of our rules (law) on what our moral foundations are, and whatever they may be influenced by. Different people have different standards of morality, we don't all view things the same in a moral aspect, but collectively, as a society, we have established some universal ideas or moral values. Religious morality is a part of that, as much as it pains you to accept.

It is not based on their ability to know right from wrong. If you are 12 and you don't know about all there is to know on right and wrong then you are screwed. 18 is when we expect they are sufficiently responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions. It is not based on a moral prinicple but our knowledge of human development.

And the marathon pinhead dance continues!

...when we expect they are sufficiently responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions...

What the FUCK?????? "Responsible enough" has a LOT of different meanings to a LOT of different people, Stringy! Who is this "WE" that gets to decide what I believe to be "responsible enough" to be held accountable? And what "actions" do you mean? Like doing things that older people can do? Wow, you sure do have a lot of constraints on my liberty here, I don't get to make my own choices? I have to meet your contrived "standard" of what "WE" think is old enough to be what YOU think is responsible?

You have stated that all of our laws are based on religious morality, but no one consulted religion? Okay.

Let's clarify... Not ALL, just about all... are based on some principle or concept that can be found somewhere in some religious dogma. Uhm, that's like saying that somewhere in Grand Central, you will find some used gum. The fact is, since RELIGION is the teaching of fundamental principles of "GOOD" behavior, it stands to reason, most of our rules on how to behave "GOOD" in society, would have some commonality. To formulate an argument as you have, we have to discard all the law based on any religious morality, and that includes almost all of them to some degree.
 
Contradicts concepts? Who's "concepts" are contradicted, and why? What exactly IS my position here? We've been discussing what SOCIETY'S position is, not mine.

....Concerned about the importance of what? Consent? What exactly do you base your view of this "consent" thing on, and why is that of importance to me in my personal life? You know, it seems to me, you ain't much different than them 'evil chishtuns' who want to 'force their ruligen' on people! All of this 'concern about importance' nonsense, and the "contradicting" of your "concepts!" LMFAO!

Why are you hypocritical? You want to apply your own standards... "concepts of consent" and this is something you find important and fundamental to society, so you can accept that moral determination and judgment, it's okay because you have your concepts.... Those who support Traditional Marriage though.... their 'importance of concepts' is not valid to you. That's when you pull out your Constitutional hammer and pound them on the head with it, because they are forcing you to accept their standards or moral judgments. As your words demonstrate, you aren't any different, you just have different parameters and priority for your moralities.




Again, MY justifying 'state action' is self evident. I am a citizen of a state, I pay the salaries of every employee of the state with my tax dollars, and I do the hiring and firing at the ballot box. Individually, I can't make the state do or not do anything specifically, but along with people of like mind, I can lobby the government and petition them to redress my complaints. If there are enough of us, we can generally pass any law we wish to pass as a state. A constitutional challenge is very often made in light of an unpopular referendum, but yes... I can indeed effect state action in any way I see fit, and you can't stop me from doing so. In fact, I find it quite odd that you would be suggesting the people don't have this right over the State. ....I look for you to post; "Dixie, I can't believe you don't think people deserve the right to vote in America!" As if you have read something completely opposite of what has been posted!

OUR "system" gives each of us the inalienable right to voice our political opinion on any matter, regardless of whether it is religious or not, regardless of whether you like it or not, and to mold, shape, and guide, our governmental (state) function in our societal life. You are probably thinking of RUSSIA, where the State tells the people what its 'interests' are and the people accept it like proles.



The State exists as a result of a religious morality, you fuckwit! When the First Amendment says the right to "exercise our religion" do you think it just means we can take it out for a walk in the park daily, and as long as we carry a pooper-scooper, you're cool with it? People BELIEVE whatever they BELIEVE! It has NOTHING to do with their Constitutionally mandated RIGHT to express their religion OR political viewpoint!

There are a NUMBER of reasons people oppose Gay Marriage! Not ALL of them are Religious or religiously-based! I presented my objections on purely legal and constitutional (14th Am) issues and subsequent legal problems of implementing such a thing. I don't deny that I have also defended the church's constitutional right to maintain the integrity and sanctity of an institution which is fundamental to their freedom of religious expression. I think this is a valid argument, regardless of the fact it defends Christians. I accept that you disagree with that, I don't expect you to!



The "inequality" was RACIAL, you dumbfuck! It was of a RACIAL nature that marriage was being denied, it was RACIST to do so. Homosexuality is NOT a RACE! Gays are not mentioned in the CRA of 1964! Also, almost any marriage of any man and woman in America, could be considered "interracial" to some extent, we were applying an unfair standard to specifically deny black people the right to marry white people. Loving, in no way, changed the definition of marriage.



Well, sure you are! Just tell us what you favor instead of a democratically-elected representative republic? What should we replace our "every man gets a vote" system with? You are obviously not happy with the results of the current system and how these things work, so what else can we do? Tell us Stringy!! Should we have Stringy's Libertarian Gestapo out there running around stamping out any religious thought in politics? Maybe we should round up all the Baptists and intern them like Roosevelt did the Japs in WWII... at least until your War on Christians has ended!

Okay.... Straight Up, Stringy.... Let's lobby for a nationwide ballot initiative and put it up for a vote by the people, they either want Gay Marriage or they want Traditional Marriage to remain unfettered. I'm all for that! Do it state by state, and we can even ratify an Amendment to the Constitution and put the results in stone forever!



But Science doesn't show that to be the case at all, why would we establish such a rule on the opposite of what science tells us? People "mature" physically at different rates, and mentally as well. And when we get into mental maturity, or social maturity, what do we mean by that? Isn't the answer based on your fundamental understandings of what constitutes a "mature" person? Isn't that a "moral-based" viewpoint? Do you think your judgment of "maturity" is the same as everyone, or maybe somehow ...superior?

The fact is, what I said was true, we base almost every aspect of our rules (law) on what our moral foundations are, and whatever they may be influenced by. Different people have different standards of morality, we don't all view things the same in a moral aspect, but collectively, as a society, we have established some universal ideas or moral values. Religious morality is a part of that, as much as it pains you to accept.



And the marathon pinhead dance continues!

...when we expect they are sufficiently responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions...

What the FUCK?????? "Responsible enough" has a LOT of different meanings to a LOT of different people, Stringy! Who is this "WE" that gets to decide what I believe to be "responsible enough" to be held accountable? And what "actions" do you mean? Like doing things that older people can do? Wow, you sure do have a lot of constraints on my liberty here, I don't get to make my own choices? I have to meet your contrived "standard" of what "WE" think is old enough to be what YOU think is responsible?



Let's clarify... Not ALL, just about all... are based on some principle or concept that can be found somewhere in some religious dogma. Uhm, that's like saying that somewhere in Grand Central, you will find some used gum. The fact is, since RELIGION is the teaching of fundamental principles of "GOOD" behavior, it stands to reason, most of our rules on how to behave "GOOD" in society, would have some commonality. To formulate an argument as you have, we have to discard all the law based on any religious morality, and that includes almost all of them to some degree.

And yet, you continue to be a coward when it comes to you having to defend your lies regarding gays.
 
Contradicts concepts? Who's "concepts" are contradicted, and why? What exactly IS my position here? We've been discussing what SOCIETY'S position is, not mine.

Your position is that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry the person they want. You claim they are free to make a choice they do not wish to make and pretend that that is equal.

We are talking about your position. "Society's" is changing and you blather on about how that will unleash a plague of horrors but can't make an intelligent argument as to how or why these things will happen. You don't understand or you reject the concepts that form the foundation of our society or common law.


Again, MY justifying 'state action' is self evident. I am a citizen of a state, I pay the salaries of every employee of the state with my tax dollars, and I do the hiring and firing at the ballot box. Individually, I can't make the state do or not do anything specifically, but along with people of like mind, I can lobby the government and petition them to redress my complaints. If there are enough of us, we can generally pass any law we wish to pass as a state.

Nope. This is the US, dickhead, where the individual and therefore minorities (does not have to be black or gay... could be just people who want to practice some strange religion) are protected from majority will.


The State exists as a result of a religious morality, you fuckwit! When the First Amendment says the right to "exercise our religion" do you think it just means we can take it out for a walk in the park daily, and as long as we carry a pooper-scooper, you're cool with it? People BELIEVE whatever they BELIEVE! It has NOTHING to do with their Constitutionally mandated RIGHT to express their religion OR political viewpoint!

There would be no state without religion? Okay. You just make this stupid shit up as you go and don't seem to filter at all.

There are a NUMBER of reasons people oppose Gay Marriage! Not ALL of them are Religious or religiously-based! I presented my objections on purely legal and constitutional (14th Am) issues and subsequent legal problems of implementing such a thing.

You have not. You have spouted some retarded nonsense about how protecting homosexual marriage under the 14th must lead to allowing marriage to minors and incestuous marriages. But the court has already held that the 14th amendment protects the right of all to engage in consentual sex, even the sexually deviant homosexual. That did not lead to overturning laws against stat rape or incest. This proves your argument is just non sequitur horse shit and that you don't know the first thing about the constitution or our system of laws.


I don't deny that I have also defended the church's constitutional right to maintain the integrity and sanctity of an institution which is fundamental to their freedom of religious expression. I think this is a valid argument, regardless of the fact it defends Christians. I accept that you disagree with that, I don't expect you to!

Marriage is not a collective right or a constitutional right of any one church asnd you are not arguing that churches should be permitted to choose who they marry. Marriage is an individual right, just like all the others.

The "inequality" was RACIAL, you dumbfuck! It was of a RACIAL nature that marriage was being denied, it was RACIST to do so. Homosexuality is NOT a RACE! Gays are not mentioned in the CRA of 1964!

Again, the CRA of 64 is not mentioned in the Loving ruling. The 14th was. Race is not mentioned in the 14th. 14th amendment protections extend to everyone.

Also, almost any marriage of any man and woman in America, could be considered "interracial" to some extent, we were applying an unfair standard to specifically deny black people the right to marry white people. Loving, in no way, changed the definition of marriage.

And white people were denied the right to marry blacks. It was all equal, just like heteros and homos are not allowed to marry someon of the same sex.

Well, sure you are! Just tell us what you favor instead of a democratically-elected representative republic? What should we replace our "every man gets a vote" system with? You are obviously not happy with the results of the current system and how these things work, so what else can we do? Tell us Stringy!! Should we have Stringy's Libertarian Gestapo out there running around stamping out any religious thought in politics? Maybe we should round up all the Baptists and intern them like Roosevelt did the Japs in WWII... at least until your War on Christians has ended!

Nope. I support our sytem of limited democracy. The limits are individual rights.

Okay.... Straight Up, Stringy.... Let's lobby for a nationwide ballot initiative and put it up for a vote by the people, they either want Gay Marriage or they want Traditional Marriage to remain unfettered. I'm all for that! Do it state by state, and we can even ratify an Amendment to the Constitution and put the results in stone forever!

I don't fucking care what the majority wants. They can do as they like so long as they don't infringe on the rights of the individual. If the majority demanded that we bring back slavery or start killing off the Christians it would not be okay or in keeping with our system of government.

But Science doesn't show that to be the case at all, why would we establish such a rule on the opposite of what science tells us? People "mature" physically at different rates, and mentally as well. And when we get into mental maturity, or social maturity, what do we mean by that? Isn't the answer based on your fundamental understandings of what constitutes a "mature" person? Isn't that a "moral-based" viewpoint? Do you think your judgment of "maturity" is the same as everyone, or maybe somehow ...superior?

Science shows exactly what I said it does, which was not that all people develop and mature at the same rate. Your dishonesty only makes your desperation and inability to articulate a coherent argument obvious.

The fact is, what I said was true, we base almost every aspect of our rules (law) on what our moral foundations are, and whatever they may be influenced by. Different people have different standards of morality, we don't all view things the same in a moral aspect, but collectively, as a society, we have established some universal ideas or moral values. Religious morality is a part of that, as much as it pains you to accept.

No, our universal morality is based on freedom of choice. Morality is impossible without it. Now you will come back with some stupid shit about the freedom of a choice of a murderer or rapist and completely ignore how that violates the freedom of choice of the victim.


And the marathon pinhead dance continues!

...when we expect they are sufficiently responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions...

What the FUCK?????? "Responsible enough" has a LOT of different meanings to a LOT of different people, Stringy! Who is this "WE" that gets to decide what I believe to be "responsible enough" to be held accountable? And what "actions" do you mean? Like doing things that older people can do? Wow, you sure do have a lot of constraints on my liberty here, I don't get to make my own choices? I have to meet your contrived "standard" of what "WE" think is old enough to be what YOU think is responsible?

The collective decides this. This is a legitimate area for majority will to make laws. The laws are not based on discrimination, but protection of individual rights. That makes it a legitimate state interest. You don’t understand our system or you are being purposefully obtuse in order to pervert it to your ends.



Let's clarify... Not ALL, just about all... are based on some principle or concept that can be found somewhere in some religious dogma. Uhm, that's like saying that somewhere in Grand Central, you will find some used gum. The fact is, since RELIGION is the teaching of fundamental principles of "GOOD" behavior, it stands to reason, most of our rules on how to behave "GOOD" in society, would have some commonality. To formulate an argument as you have, we have to discard all the law based on any religious morality, and that includes almost all of them to some degree.

Nope. I have explained this numerous times. If the law serves a legitimate state interest then it is permissible, regardless of whether you can find some support in the bible or some other religious text. The promotion/preservation of religion/tradition is not a legitimate state interest and so it cannot be used to justify restraints on the individual.

Your religious testimony cannot be relied on.

The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. TJ Notes on the state of Virginia, Query 17
 
Last edited:
The collective decides this. This is a legitimate area for majority will to make laws.

The same is the the case with Gay Marriage, doofus!

Your position is that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry the person they want.

No, it's not. Homosexuals should be free to marry anyone of legal age, who consents and is alive, not related to them closer than 2nd cousin, and of the opposite sex... the same criteria we require for ALL marriage, because that is what MARRIAGE is!

I don't object to homosexuals joining in a union together as husband and wife, or pretending they are "married" like a heterosexual couple. They are free to fantasize in any way they so desire behind closed doors, and I do not condone or favor restricting their right to privacy or prohibiting their homosexual behavior in any way.

I do NOT favor alteration or change to the definition of traditional marriage under the law of the land, to legitimize their sexually deviant behavior, and I have made my case for that opinion. I do not favor state or federal sanctioning of such unions as "marriage" because that is not what "marriage" has ever meant, I don't believe we should be allowed to redefine words to suit what we want to do at the moment, it's a stupid and dangerous path to go down.
 
The same is the the case with Gay Marriage, doofus!



No, it's not. Homosexuals should be free to marry anyone of legal age, who consents and is alive, not related to them closer than 2nd cousin, and of the opposite sex... the same criteria we require for ALL marriage, because that is what MARRIAGE is!

I don't object to homosexuals joining in a union together as husband and wife, or pretending they are "married" like a heterosexual couple. They are free to fantasize in any way they so desire behind closed doors, and I do not condone or favor restricting their right to privacy or prohibiting their homosexual behavior in any way.

I do NOT favor alteration or change to the definition of traditional marriage under the law of the land, to legitimize their sexually deviant behavior, and I have made my case for that opinion. I do not favor state or federal sanctioning of such unions as "marriage" because that is not what "marriage" has ever meant, I don't believe we should be allowed to redefine words to suit what we want to do at the moment, it's a stupid and dangerous path to go down.

[translation]Seperate; but equal[/translation]
 
The same is the the case with Gay Marriage, doofus!

It is not the same with gay marriage, retard. What is the legitimate state interest in prohibiting same sex marriages? You have not given us one.

Majority will is not one. The politicians desire to be reelected is not one either. Claiming that they are shows that you are out of your league. Either of those would give the government unlimited power to pass whatever law they wished.
 
No, it's not. Homosexuals should be free to marry anyone of legal age, who consents and is alive, not related to them closer than 2nd cousin, and of the opposite sex... the same criteria we require for ALL marriage, because that is what MARRIAGE is!

And of the same race. What's the difference in adding that? Some of your other requirments are not actually requirements but more like general guidelines. One by one...

Legal age... not a requirement, as you can get around it if you can demonstrate your reasons for making an exception to the satisfaction of the state, and the legal age varies quite a bit from state to state. It's really just a guideline.

Consents and is alive... duh. It's fucking stupid that you even include these things. But it is a product of your ridiculous spin on this subject where you pretend that all limits are equivalent (except inexplicably, if it has some connection to race or religion). You cannot make a contract with someone against their will or without their consent. Of course, a corpse can't contract.

Closer than second cousin... again, not really a requirement but more like a guideline. Again, you can get around it if you can demonstrate your reasons for making an exception to the satisfaction of the state, and these vary quite a bit from state to state.

The only thing you have mentioned (outside of opposite sex) as being necessarily part of the definition is consent. The reason for that is obvious.

Your other two parts of THE definition of marriage you give, are not part of THE definition of marriage, certainly not at a federal level. They are guidelines which HAVE changed and to which allowances are made. They are not written in stone and they are permissable because they impact a legitimate state interest.

There is no reason to say you cannot enter a contract with someone of the same sex, though. You can, without any limit, except in marriage. There is no legitimate state interest in the requirement just as there is no legitimate state interest in prohibiting an interracial marriage or an interfaith marriage.
 
And of the same race. What's the difference in adding that? Some of your other requirments are not actually requirements but more like general guidelines. One by one...

Well, the difference is "racial discrimination" which is against the law.

Legal age... not a requirement, as you can get around it if you can demonstrate your reasons for making an exception to the satisfaction of the state, and the legal age varies quite a bit from state to state. It's really just a guideline.

No, it's the law in Alabama and every other state I am aware of. Certain exceptions are sometimes granted for extenuating circumstances, but most all states have an age requirement for obtaining a marriage license.

Consents and is alive... duh. It's fucking stupid that you even include these things. But it is a product of your ridiculous spin on this subject where you pretend that all limits are equivalent (except inexplicably, if it has some connection to race or religion). You cannot make a contract with someone against their will or without their consent. Of course, a corpse can't contract.

Why is it "stupid" to list these criteria? You can't marry someone who doesn't consent, and if someone is dead, they can't consent. This isn't a "guideline" as you started out claiming when you posted it, the law is very clear.

Closer than second cousin... again, not really a requirement but more like a guideline. Again, you can get around it if you can demonstrate your reasons for making an exception to the satisfaction of the state, and these vary quite a bit from state to state.

I don't know of any state that allows marriage of relatives closer than 2nd cousin. That's where most states establish the law, and there are no exceptions to this as far as I know.

The only thing you have mentioned (outside of opposite sex) as being necessarily part of the definition is consent. The reason for that is obvious.

Is it obvious? Consent is a parameter we set by laws governing age of consent. They can theoretically be changed any way we please. If the meaning of "marriage" can be altered, why not the meaning of "consent" as well? Go ahead, explain to us how this is not possible?

Your other two parts of THE definition of marriage you give, are not part of THE definition of marriage, certainly not at a federal level. They are guidelines which HAVE changed and to which allowances are made. They are not written in stone and they are permissable because they impact a legitimate state interest.

It is written in stone that marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's been the case for over 5,000 years. It's one of the few things that probably IS literally "written in stone" somewhere!

There is no reason to say you cannot enter a contract with someone of the same sex, though. You can, without any limit, except in marriage. There is no legitimate state interest in the requirement just as there is no legitimate state interest in prohibiting an interracial marriage or an interfaith marriage.

You are right! No reason you can't enter in a contract with someone of the same sex! Marriage is not a regular contract, it is the union of a man and woman, and the government issues a license for it.

Again, with this "state interest" crap, in the United States, the PEOPLE dictate "state interest" not the other way around. You are thinking of Russia! Here in America, We The People determine whatever the "state interest" is, because the State is represented by US, the PEOPLE! We make the rules and laws, and the State is obligated to uphold them, that is their ONLY interest.
 
[translation]Seperate; but equal[/translation]

No.... NOT separate... same parameters apply to homosexuals as applies to heterosexuals. You've not demonstrated where someone is being denied "equality" here, all you seem to be able to do, is LIE and CLAIM it, when it's not the case.

Marriage has a definition, it means what it means, you can't claim it needs to mean something else, therefore it means something else! That's what you keep doing, and it is logical fallacy. Electrician means a certain thing, a Plumber is NOT an electrician... not because we are discriminating against the Plumber, but because Plumbing is not electrical work, and a Plumber is not certified to be an Electrician. There is no discrimination, because the Plumber is perfectly able to go out and get certified in electrical work and become an Electrician if he so desires. But we can't change the meaning of Electrician to include Plumbers, because words mean what they mean.
 
Well, the difference is "racial discrimination" which is against the law.

As is any discrimation that does not serve a legitimate state interest. Again, nothing in the 14th that says some may denied the right to due process, just not blacks or based on race. The 14th applies to everyone.



No, it's the law in Alabama and every other state I am aware of. Certain exceptions are sometimes granted for extenuating circumstances, but most all states have an age requirement for obtaining a marriage license.

14 is the law in Alabama (well that is what Damo cited and you do not supply anything to contradict that). That's not the law in other states. It's not part of THE unchangeable definition of marriage. Certainly not at the federal level.

Why is it "stupid" to list these criteria? You can't marry someone who doesn't consent, and if someone is dead, they can't consent. This isn't a "guideline" as you started out claiming when you posted it, the law is very clear.

I did not say it was a guideline, dumbfuck. Of course, you cannot enter a contract without the consent of all parties. That would clearly violate the right to contract of the non consenting party. A dead person cannot be held to any contractual obligations, nor can they act on rights granted under the contract.

This distinction is stupid and not equivalent to any and all distinctions.

I don't know of any state that allows marriage of relatives closer than 2nd cousin. That's where most states establish the law, and there are no exceptions to this as far as I know.

Again, Damo cited a case where a related couple (weren't they brother and sister?) were allowed to marry. Have you challenged that or showed it to be false? No, then I will assume it is valid. Well, actually here is some more proof that shows you are wrong.

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

Is it obvious? Consent is a parameter we set by laws governing age of consent. They can theoretically be changed any way we please. If the meaning of "marriage" can be altered, why not the meaning of "consent" as well? Go ahead, explain to us how this is not possible?

I was not referring to statutes concerning age of consent, but actual consent. That is you can't marry that celebrity without her consent or a dead person, who obviously cannot consent.

The "meaning of marriage" is not being changed. Your stupid requirement that is not supported by a legitimate state interest is being challenged, just as Virginia's requirement that the couple be of the same race was challenged.

It is written in stone that marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's been the case for over 5,000 years. It's one of the few things that probably IS literally "written in stone" somewhere!

You are right! No reason you can't enter in a contract with someone of the same sex! Marriage is not a regular contract, it is the union of a man and woman, and the government issues a license for it.

It's not. There is no reason to prohibit same sex marriage. The fact that it has been prohibited in the past is not a reason in and of itself.

Marriage is a contract. It does not differ significantly from other contracts, except that some give religious or moral import to it. That is not a valid reason to limit the rights to contract for others.

Again, with this "state interest" crap, in the United States, the PEOPLE dictate "state interest" not the other way around. You are thinking of Russia! Here in America, We The People determine whatever the "state interest" is, because the State is represented by US, the PEOPLE! We make the rules and laws, and the State is obligated to uphold them, that is their ONLY interest.

Oh, it's just crap? Okay. It has not been a major consideration in every constitutional challenge to legislative powers?

The legislative powers, vested in the majority or through them in the form of representatives, are not unlimited. If you don't know that, then you are horribly misinformed concerning our system of government.

The idiocy you spew as justifying state action would be laughed out of any court in the nation. Roy Moore would tell you to stfu.
 
Last edited:
No.... NOT separate... same parameters apply to homosexuals as applies to heterosexuals. You've not demonstrated where someone is being denied "equality" here, all you seem to be able to do, is LIE and CLAIM it, when it's not the case.

Marriage has a definition, it means what it means, you can't claim it needs to mean something else, therefore it means something else! That's what you keep doing, and it is logical fallacy. Electrician means a certain thing, a Plumber is NOT an electrician... not because we are discriminating against the Plumber, but because Plumbing is not electrical work, and a Plumber is not certified to be an Electrician. There is no discrimination, because the Plumber is perfectly able to go out and get certified in electrical work and become an Electrician if he so desires. But we can't change the meaning of Electrician to include Plumbers, because words mean what they mean.

Now you attempt to equate a marriage to that of an occupation.
You truly are delusional and should seek immediate help. :good4u:

All your comments do, is cement the fact that you're underlying belief is nothing more then "seperate; but equal". :palm:
 
this misses the greater issue....it is not just the judeo christian pov that is against gay marriage...it is most religions and there are those who are not religious that are against gay marriage...

first amendment is a weak cornerstone....imho...the 14th, using loving v. virginia....is the greatest tool to end the unequal treatment of marriage. if we use your first amendment train of thought, then we must of course get government out of marriage and i just do not see that happening....
Yea I think you hit the nail right on the head. Ever notice how the arguments used by the opponents of gay marriage are virtually the same arguments used by those that opposed interracial marriage?
 
As is any discrimation that does not serve a legitimate state interest. Again, nothing in the 14th that says some may denied the right to due process, just not blacks or based on race. The 14th applies to everyone.

Not correct. You need to go look up the word "discrimination" and try to understand, we routinely "discriminate" all the fucking time! We are not allowed to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, creed, religion, or national origin. The right to due process is not being denied to gay people in this argument, if anything, the right to due process is being denied to those who wish to prohibit gay marriage!!!


14 is the law in Alabama (well that is what Damo cited and you do not supply anything to contradict that). That's not the law in other states. It's not part of THE unchangeable definition of marriage. Certainly not at the federal level.

I never claimed it was, again you are deliberately attempting to misconstrue something I said for the sake of being right in an argument. It's silly and childish, and you need to stop it. The "age of consent" (regardless of what that age might be in any state) is an arbitrary age we determined and set into law! It is not a scientific or natural point at which anything transpires physically or mentally with an individual, it is a point WE ESTABLISHED based on our morals and ethics.

I did not say it was a guideline, dumbfuck. Of course, you cannot enter a contract without the consent of all parties. That would clearly violate the right to contract of the non consenting party. A dead person cannot be held to any contractual obligations, nor can they act on rights granted under the contract.

Well, at first you said it was a 'guideline' and you were going to go through them one by one, when you got to this one, you claimed it was silly for me to be pointing out it was a rule and not a guideline. I don't know what the fuck you are smoking in your crack pipe, but it is obviously deteriorating your brain rapidly!

This distinction is stupid and not equivalent to any and all distinctions.

I never said it was equivalent to any and all distinctions, just that it was part of the parameters of marriage, along with being a single male and female of the opposite sex.

Again, Damo cited a case where a related couple (weren't they brother and sister?) were allowed to marry. Have you challenged that or showed it to be false? No, then I will assume it is valid. Well, actually here is some more proof that shows you are wrong.

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

*sigh* The link you gave confirms exactly what I stated to be the case.

I was not referring to statutes concerning age of consent, but actual consent. That is you can't marry that celebrity without her consent or a dead person, who obviously cannot consent.

Again, the word "consent" can be 'redefined', if we can 'redefine' marriage! What you claim is or isn't 'consent' at this time, becomes irrelevant... Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman... at this time.

The "meaning of marriage" is not being changed. Your stupid requirement that is not supported by a legitimate state interest is being challenged, just as Virginia's requirement that the couple be of the same race was challenged.

You're damn straight the meaning of marriage is not being changed. Gay people can call their thing something else. State interest is self evident, the people of the state reject Gay Marriage! End of discussion! The State holds NO power to supersede the will of the people!

It's not. There is no reason to prohibit same sex marriage. The fact that it has been prohibited in the past is not a reason in and of itself.

The People oppose it, that is reason enough!

Marriage is a contract. It does not differ significantly from other contracts, except that some give religious or moral import to it. That is not a valid reason to limit the rights to contract for others.

The People oppose it! That is the "reason" to prohibit it.

Oh, it's just crap? Okay. It has not been a major consideration in every constitutional challenge to legislative powers?

The legislative powers, vested in the majority or through them in the form of representatives, are not unlimited. If you don't know that, then you are horribly misinformed concerning our system of government.

The idiocy you spew as justifying state action would be laughed out of any court in the nation. Roy Moore would tell you to stfu.

I'll tell ya what "state action" you'll get from Alabama, an almost unanimous vote to ratify a Constitutional amendment protecting Traditional Marriage. You keep shoving this shit down people's throat, and that is what will happen. If you don't believe me, just keep pushing for it, and we'll see! There are CONSIDERABLY more people opposed to changing traditional marriage to include homosexuals, than those who wish to see Gay Marriage become law of the land. That is why you are having to completely ABANDON libertarian principles to avoid admitting we should all get to vote on it.
 
Back
Top