Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
PMP, do you accept the Church of Satan as normal?

No, you have said as much.

And yet, two satanists being married by a satanic priest is accepted by the gov't. It does not force you to accept it.


Convicted murderers can marry, and you obviously do not hold much respect for, or accept, murderers. But the gov't accepts the marriage. It does not force you to accept murderers.
Click to expand...

same answer I have given several times already.....no laws need to be changed.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
same answer I have given several times already.....no laws need to be changed.....
Click to expand...

So you are fine with murderers and satanists being married because no laws have to be changed.

But gays getting married is unacceptable because laws have to be changed?

Is changing laws the issue?
 
WinterBorn said:
So you are fine with murderers and satanists being married because no laws have to be changed.

But gays getting married is unacceptable because laws have to be changed?

Is changing laws the issue?
Click to expand...

yes...I'm fine with murderers and satanists....as free says, it could be worse....I could end up with a gay couple as neighbors instead of Charles Manson

have you read any of my posts?....yes, changing laws is the issue.....having a liberal cram law changes down my throat because they want to make lifestyle choices is the issue.....has any of this registered with you yet?......:pke:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you know this isn't true....we've covered it many times......the left seeks to require the government to treat gay relationships as the equivalent of marriage.....why do you deny that "require" means "require"?......
Click to expand...

Is that like people were trying to require the Government to treat inter-racial marraiges as the equivelant of what the social norm was for a marriage??
Why do you accept that requirement and deny this one??
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the laws the state has that govern the issuance of marriage licenses, not the Constitution.....
Click to expand...

please point to a state law that substantiates your claim....and are you claiming that the constution is not law? isn't the constitution the supreme law of the land?

this is the fifth or sixth time i've asked you to cite a law....

you claim it is not the constitution, YET....the majority, if not all, the laws that denied homosexual marriages were done through states amending their constitution....just like california

i ask again....what state law? give me one example that has been on the books since statehood, EG, a law that didn't need changing....
 
Yurt said:
please point to a state law that substantiates your claim....
Click to expand...
are you not aware that states set their own law regarding the issuance of marriage licenses?.....please, you have to be aware of that....it isn't in the federal or any state constitution.....it is a matter of state statute....
Revised Statutes of 1846 (EXCERPT)
Chapter 83. Of marriage and the solemnization thereof.


551.2 Marriage as civil contract; consent; license; solemnization.
Sec. 2.

So far as its validity in law is concerned, marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of parties capable in law of contracting is essential. Consent alone is not enough to effectuate a legal marriage on and after January 1, 1957. Consent shall be followed by obtaining a license as required by section 1 of Act No. 128 of the Public Acts of 1887, being section 551.101 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or as provided for by section 1 of Act No. 180 of the Public Acts of 1897, being section 551.201 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and solemnization as authorized by sections 7 to 18 of this chapter.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
and
Revised Statutes of 1846 (EXCERPT)
Chapter 83. Of marriage and the solemnization thereof.


551.9 Solemnization of marriage; form; declaration by parties; witnesses.
Sec. 9.

In the solemnization of marriage, no particular form shall be required, except that the parties shall solemnly declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and the attending witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife; and in every case, there shall be at least 2 witnesses, besides the person solemnizing the marriage, present at the ceremony.In Wiccan ceremonies, black cats are prohibited from serving as witnesses
Click to expand...

omigorsh, I was wrong...they do talk about Wiccans........:cof1:...
[/quote]
 
WinterBorn said:
How about a line based on rational thought? Say, limiting it to consenting adults over the age of 18 who are not related and not currently married.

Sounds rational and reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
I prefer the traditional definition, refined over the centuries, rather than your arbitrary one.
 
Yurt said:
so then you admit you're only drawing an arbitrary line...

if that is the case, you should really consider your belief that you have a right to tell same sex couples they cannot get the legal benefits of marriage and the recognition of marriage. it is goign to do nothing to hetrosexual marriage. this is not a theocracy. if homosexual sex has been deemed legal (anti sodomy laws illegal), then there really is absolutely no excuse for the government not to marry them and give them the benefits that you enjoy.

as a conservative, you should tell the government that since scotus has ruled that we have no business in their bedroom, anti sodomy laws, then we have no business telling them they cannot marry.
Click to expand...
Not arbitrary at all. The traditional definition has been refined over centuries, and has never included what you propose.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
are you not aware that states set their own law regarding the issuance of marriage licenses?.....please, you have to be aware of that....it isn't in the federal or any state constitution.....it is a matter of state statute....
Click to expand...

yes, i've already stated that...why do you think i keep asking you for an example and why do you think i keep referring you to loving v. virginia? what state is that from? and did you notice your statute was altered regarding consent in 1957? why do you keep ignoring california? let me ask you this:

if a state, like CA doesn't have it defined, are you then going to honestly admit that such state cannot deny gays the right to marry?

further, you apparently are not aware, no matter how many times i keep bringing up and you ignorantly swipe it away.....states set their own law regarding the issuance of marriage licenses by not allowing interracial marraiges.....

tell me....how did that turn out for them...

you have lost the legal argument, but i did enjoy your efforts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top