Why homosexuality should be banned

[DamnYankee]

Gee; that would depend on whether or not you're going to admit that you were being obtuse when you said you were unaware of the bigotry of those that were against inter-racial marriage, when you said that you didn't see where my comment was coming from.

I'm still not aware of it. Nor does one have to do with the other.

 

[DamnYankee]

As if marriage was a measure.

First, can you tell me which Federal law protects the definition of a foot? Of a ton? Which one tells us that an ounce must forever be exactly as we currently define it? Can you also tell me why the government isn't insisting we use cubits? It's in your book just like marriage and clearly such "tradition" deserves to be protected...

Second can you tell me which federal power gives them a right to project your religion's traditions onto the rest of us as a matter of law?

1. Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 3 and 5.
2. Religion is not the issue here.

 

[Damocles]

I think that marriage is defined by society, not religion.....I have known atheists who have gotten married......

And they did before government decided to license and define this religious institution, either by paying a Priest or by simply calling their spouse a spouse....

I also know some homosexuals who got married recently. I hope your own marriage hasn't dissolved because of it.

 

[DamnYankee]

If a good reason existed to change the legal defination of the weight of a pound or the length of a foot I would be for it!

That's because you're a liberal, and want everything to change to suit your agenda.

 

[Damocles]

1. Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 3 and 5.
2. Religion is not the issue here.

Religion is the issue here.

And you are going to have to do better than "Paragraphs" 3 and 5. Here is article 1 section 8. Now which portions are you speaking of that give the government the right to codify religious definitions, institutions, and traditions into law?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I hope your own marriage hasn't dissolved because of it.

a silly response....I hope they don't come to me and ask for marital benefits under an employment contract.....

as for the rest, there was a time in Europe when the Church WAS society....at that time it controlled marriage.....the government supplanted the Church and the government took over control of society, including marriage.....in other parts of the world, religion had nothing to do with marriage, but whatever method by which society was monitored, whether it be the family or clan or tribe or whatever, that method also controlled "marriage"......

 

[DamnYankee]

Religion is the issue here.

And you are going to have to do better than "Paragraphs" 3 and 5. Here is article 1 section 8. Now which portions are you speaking of that give the government the right to codify religious definitions, institutions, and traditions into law?

1. Again, marriage is the issue, not religion.

2.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Since marriage is a legal contract, like a corporate contract, it has bearing on commerce between States. The definition of what constitutes a legal contract is certainly a standard.

Admittedly, from a conservative standpoint this is a stretch on the Enumerated Powers, but considering all the other laws passed by Congress, from a practical standpoint it is not.

The Southern Man has stated repeatedly in this thread that he would prefer that marriage continue to be regulated by the States. Again, if Massachusetts or California wish to redefine marriage, then so be it. Don't ask other States to recognize these contracts.

 

[Jarod]

so, let's say I choose to think a pound equals 17 ounces....should I demand that the government redefine "pound" to mean 17 ounces?....changing to 'cubits' doesn't change the meaning of the word "foot"

No but you can choose to live your life as if a pound equals 17 ounces. That would be your choice. If you had a compelling reason I would support the government changing the defination of a pound.

 

[Jarod]

That's because you're a liberal, and want everything to change to suit your agenda.

I just dont mind changing when that change is for the better. Everything changes.

 

[Jarod]

Change is the only constant in the universe.

 

[DamnYankee]

I just dont mind changing when that change is for the better. Everything changes.

By your definition of course. I want things to change back to a limited government, and the government out of my ass.

 

[Jarod]

By your definition of course. I want things to change back to a limited government, and the government out of my ass.

So do Gay people... They want the government to allow more freedom and to get out of the business of defining marriage in a way that limits them.

 

[DamnYankee]

So do Gay people... They want the government to allow more freedom and to get out of the business of defining marriage in a way that limits them.

But by redefining marriage you denigrate it. Try it in your state and see what it gets you.

 

[Jarod]

But by redefining marriage you denigrate it. Try it in your state and see what it gets you.

You denigrate it? How is that?

 

[WinterBorn]

lol.....don't kid yourself.....here's an example....I have a company with several thousand employees....the government says that two men are married....I choose to ignore that and refuse to give insurance benefits that married people qualify for......nobody else would care?.....

Ok, yo have a point there. Sp recognize them. Just like many, many companies are doing with Domestic Partner policies.

 

[Damocles]

a silly response....I hope they don't come to me and ask for marital benefits under an employment contract.....

as for the rest, there was a time in Europe when the Church WAS society....at that time it controlled marriage.....the government supplanted the Church and the government took over control of society, including marriage.....in other parts of the world, religion had nothing to do with marriage, but whatever method by which society was monitored, whether it be the family or clan or tribe or whatever, that method also controlled "marriage"......

I couldn't care less if they did ask for that.

My point isn't that the government should force you to accept it, only that the government has no business in it at all, and "traditionally" in all parts of the world marriages are, and have been, a religious ceremony. Even in Russian Orthodoxy. Buddhism, Taoism, so forth. In no part of the world has it solely been a government creation.

That the government "has" controlled something doesn't mean that it should continue to do so, or that it was ever right for them to do so. The founding of our nation was based on that principal.

 

[WinterBorn]

/boggle.....as far as I am aware ALL gay people are born that way...it's a genetically formed abnormal reaction to sexual stimulus.....just as alcoholism is an abnormal physical reaction to alcohol......

So you agree that gays are born that way?

So you expect them to never marry, simply because you don't want to change the definitoion of marriage?

 

[WinterBorn]

1. Again, marriage is the issue, not religion.

2.

Since marriage is a legal contract, like a corporate contract, it has bearing on commerce between States. The definition of what constitutes a legal contract is certainly a standard.

Admittedly, from a conservative standpoint this is a stretch on the Enumerated Powers, but considering all the other laws passed by Congress, from a practical standpoint it is not.

The Southern Man has stated repeatedly in this thread that he would prefer that marriage continue to be regulated by the States. Again, if Massachusetts or California wish to redefine marriage, then so be it. Don't ask other States to recognize these contracts.

And when it comes down to it, NC will follow the rest and allow gay marriages as well.

 

[WinterBorn]

But by redefining marriage you denigrate it. Try it in your state and see what it gets you.

Please tell us how redefining it denigrates marriage?

 

[WinterBorn]

I couldn't care less if they did ask for that.

My point isn't that the government should force you to accept it, only that the government has no business in it at all, and "traditionally" in all parts of the world marriages are, and have been, a religious ceremony. Even in Russian Orthodoxy. Buddhism, Taoism, so forth. In no part of the world has it solely been a government creation.

That the government "has" controlled something doesn't mean that it should continue to do so, or that it was ever right for them to do so. The founding of our nation was based on that principal.

I think removing the gov't from marriage would be an excellent idea. No tax benefits, no immunity from testimony against your spouse, and the things that can be gained by proper contracts and legal documents would be fair to do so.

But the gov't has never had any business in marriage.