APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

Southern Man said:
No, I just expect the government to set standards...
Click to expand...

not at all....you want the government to stay out of private employer's policies, that is a standard....yet you want the government to intrude into private people's lives by dictating that they cannot marry someone of the same gender....

it is further not standards at all because the act of homosexuality is not illegal....

you are hypocritical when it comes to government roles in our lives....
 
Southern Man said:
I don't see your point, because I do want to protect the tradition, along with the institution, and children. *shrug*
Click to expand...
Why do you suddenly not want to protect the traditions that were around for centuries before the far more recent history of government intrusion?

And child abuse laws are a different subject to argue. The only way a child could become the victim of marriage is if they were forced into one. Now, they may be abused by a married couple, either mentally or physically, but that is a different thing altogether. It isn't and wasn't the marriage that abused them, it was people.
 
Damocles said:
BTW - "Cause and Effect"...

The laws directly stated that people of different races couldn't marry without a state license and then regulated which kinds would be allowed. It isn't that fricking hard.
Click to expand...

If he couldn't get it hard then he shouldn't be marrying her...

j/k

So some States bastardized the institution. That then allows them to continue to do so?

I honestly don't see your point.
 
Yurt said:
not at all....you want the government to stay out of private employer's policies, that is a standard....yet you want the government to intrude into private people's lives by dictating that they cannot marry someone of the same gender....

it is further not standards at all because the act of homosexuality is not illegal....

you are hypocritical when it comes to government roles in our lives....
Click to expand...

You're stretching, Yurt. I don't want the Feds to do either. States, however, should regulate marriage as they do other agreements between parties, and grant licenses to only those qualified. Queers ain't.
 
Southern Man said:
If he couldn't get it hard then he shouldn't be marrying her...

j/k

So some States bastardized the institution. That then allows them to continue to do so?

I honestly don't see your point.
Click to expand...
All states regulating this religious institution are violating the constitution. That it is done with your happy support doesn't change that it is the wrong thing to do.

Secondary point: Traditionally it was the churches that regulated this institution, and it should remain so.
 
Damocles said:
Why do you suddenly not want to protect the traditions that were around for centuries before the far more recent history of government intrusion?

And child abuse laws are a different subject to argue. The only way a child could become the victim of marriage is if they were forced into one. Now, they may be abused by a married couple, either mentally or physically, but that is a different thing altogether. It isn't and wasn't the marriage that abused them, it was people.
Click to expand...

Back centuries ago no sane person would suggest that two queers get married.
 
Southern Man said:
Back centuries ago no sane person would suggest that two queers get married.
Click to expand...
And this matters how? The government's role in marriage is spurious and solely made to protect the religious tradition of the majority. The government should never have the role of choosing your religious dogma over that of another, and traditionally they didn't. This is solely a new thing, done so that the majority could enforce their religious traditions onto others.
 
Damocles said:
All states regulating this religious institution are violating the constitution. That it is done with your happy support doesn't change that it is the wrong thing to do.

Secondary point: Traditionally it was the churches that regulated this institution, and it should remain so.
Click to expand...

States aren't governed by the Constitution in these matters, and are free to regulate what they desire: Amendment X. You're trying to make this a civil rights issue and it ain't.

Traditionally, churches were't liberal, and folks weren't as mobile in society.
 
Southern Man said:
States aren't governed by the Constitution in these matters, and are free to regulate what they desire: Amendment X. You're trying to make this a civil rights issue and it ain't.

Traditionally, churches were't liberal, and folks weren't as mobile in society.
Click to expand...
Except they are, because of the incorporation inherent in the 14th Amendment. Actually, all governments down to the smallest local government, are all bound by the 1st Amendment, it's been ruled that way consistently by the SCOTUS.

And again, that doesn't matter even one iota. It is not the government's purview to involve themselves in the regulation of religious ceremonies and traditions. It isn't their place to support your dogma over any other, in fact it is directly against the Constitution to do so.

I swore to uphold that document, and to protect it. I believe in it.
 
Southern Man said:
You're stretching, Yurt. I don't want the Feds to do either. States, however, should regulate marriage as they do other agreements between parties, and grant licenses to only those qualified. Queers ain't.
Click to expand...

due to religious beliefs....

homosexuality is legal....thus, you should not deny two homosexuals the right to marry, you are intruding on their private life....their fundamental rights...yet you want the government to stay out of private employer's lives....

:rolleyes:
 
SM, I don't suppose you had any intention of commenting on the other 10 items on the list of benefits that gays could not gain by other means?

And as for the gov't not interfering in private business, you would be fine with removing the FMLA from the books?
 
Damocles said:
Except they are, because of the incorporation inherent in the 14th Amendment. Actually, all governments down to the smallest local government, are all bound by the 1st Amendment, it's been ruled that way consistently by the SCOTUS.

And again, that doesn't matter even one iota. It is not the government's purview to involve themselves in the regulation of religious ceremonies and traditions. It isn't their place to support your dogma over any other, in fact it is directly against the Constitution to do so.

I swore to uphold that document, and to protect it. I believe in it.
Click to expand...
Except, of course, that the 14th Amendment doesn't require the States to issue licenses to unqualified individuals.
 
Yurt said:
due to religious beliefs....

homosexuality is legal....thus, you should not deny two homosexuals the right to marry, you are intruding on their private life....their fundamental rights...yet you want the government to stay out of private employer's lives....

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Folks are required to be religious to be married, just heterosexual. *shrug*
 
WinterBorn said:
SM, I don't suppose you had any intention of commenting on the other 10 items on the list of benefits that gays could not gain by other means?

...
Click to expand...

Since the very first item in your list was so easy to debunk, I didn't think it necessary to embarrass you further...
 
Southern Man said:
Since the very first item in your list was so easy to debunk, I didn't think it necessary to embarrass you further...
Click to expand...

Oh please spare us the lies. You would relish the opportunity to embarrass me.

But I am not embarrassed, and you did not debunk anything at all. You stated "The government shouldn't control private employer's policies". Since the gov't does provide those benefits thru the FMLA, I asked if you agreed that it should be removed from the books.

You didn't answer and left 10 more unanswered.
 
Southern Man said:
Except, of course, that the 14th Amendment doesn't require the States to issue licenses to unqualified individuals.
Click to expand...

the racists used the same argument

:clink:

and just as CA supreme court did, SCOTUS will strike down laws banning homosexuals from marrying....even state constitutions
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
the racists used the same argument

:clink:

and just as CA supreme court did, SCOTUS will strike down laws banning homosexuals from marrying....even state constitutions
Click to expand...
You tried both these arguments before. SCOTUS made mistakes before, racist ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top