Another judge finds law against gay marriage unconstitutional

[Stace]

I don't think that you understand your opposition's argument.

1st. There is no "right of homosexuals to marry". It simply does not exist. There is nothing too "withold". It can not be interpreted from Liberty, or anything ells. It's existence can not be prooven because it is virtually imposable to prove a negative.[/QUOTE}

I think you're forgetting pursuit of happiness here.

When a "strictly legal contract" requires it's signers to be of opposite genders, it violates nothing. The gender requirement is simply a condition, a term. You can either chose to comply, or you can choose not to sign.

Or, just like with any other contract, you can negotiate the terms.

To allow a third option is to warp that "strictly legal contrat" out of recognition and render it meaningless.[/QUOTE}

Third option? What was the second option? Allowing more options is not warping anything, it is simply redefining the terms.

3rd. There is a "Compelling State Interest" in the mental health of it's citizens.
Issuing the blanket notion that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy
is to condone some of the first causes of the manifested homosexuality.
These causes may include sexual confusion during puberty, a lifestyle choice made due to abuse, and varying degrees of Gender Identity Disorder (not to be confused with the formerly recognized Psycosexual Disorder: Homosexuality).

So you think homosexuality is a mental disorder? Every homosexual I know, and even quite a few heterosexuals, would disagree with you.

Rather than clarifying ones sexual identity, healing psychological trauma resulting from abuse, or treating/managing Gender Identity Disorder, allowing homosexuality to go unfettered regardless of what caused it is to condone sexual confusion, some psychological scaring/trauma and mental disorder.

If someone actually chooses to be homosexual because of abuse or some other reasoning, that's their choice. If they choose not to undergo therapy to treat the issue, that is also their choice. It is not condoning anything because it's not up to you, me, or the government as to who someone decides to have an intimate relationship with.

That is how homosexuality hurts the individual. It robs a person of their right to Liberty. Liberty of identity. Liberty of mental health.
On that basis alone can same-sex 'marriage be denied.

That has got to be one of the most skewed arguments I've ever seen.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why is this an issue? Why can't people mind their own god-damn business?

 

[Busta]

Busta:
1st. There is no "right of homosexuals to marry".It simply does not exist. There is nothing too "withold". It can not be interpreted from Liberty, or anything ells. It's existence can not be prooven because it is virtually imposable to prove a negative.

I think you're forgetting pursuit of happiness here.

"Persuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Since the legal body that created the DoI no longer exists, and was never a part of the United States Government, the DoI does not have legal standing.

However, you may be able to find or start a thread which is open to a conversation regarding various interpretations of original intent. In such conversations the DoI is fair game, as are all of the Federalist Papers.
I must caution you though, that if you ever do engage in such a discusion, your debating adversary will start quoting terms out of the DoI such as "God", "divine providence", "Laws of Nature" and "Creator".

Busta:
""When a "strictly legal contract" requires it's signers to be of opposite genders, it violates nothing. The gender requirement is simply a condition, a term. You can either chose to comply, or you can choose not to sign."

Or, just like with any other contract, you can negotiate the terms.

You could choose to see it that way, yes. But if that is how you wish to treat marriage, then you must also accept into society such term/conditions which allow for underage 'marriage, polygamy, insest, etc.

Busta:
"To allow a third option is to warp that "strictly legal contrat" out of recognition and render it meaningless."

Third option? What was the second option? Allowing more options is not warping anything, it is simply redefining the terms.

Option 1: You choose to comply with the requirements of said contract under law.
Option 2: You choose not to sign.

***
The 14th. Amend. will eliminate nearly all of the terms/conditions, rendering marriage to be little more than a cell phone contract or mortgage.
Given that the respect for "the institution of marriage" is in decline, once the legal aspect of marriage has been opened so as to allow most all behaviors, and any "higher meaning" of marriage shunned, it is my assertion that marriage will not be taken seriously by the super majority of the population as a whole......Britany Spears being a good example of this attitude.

So you think homosexuality is a mental disorder? Every homosexual I know, and even quite a few heterosexuals, would disagree with you.

Gender Identity Disorder most certainly is, by definition, a mental disorder.
Many homosexual people do not suffer from Gender Identity Disorder. Their manifested homosexual feelings and behavior come from some other first-caws.

One of my older sisters, for example, felt compelled to engage in a homosexual lifestyle due to abuse. After dealing with her issues many years later, she gradually, eventually choose a different lifestyle on her own.

If someone actually chooses to be homosexual because of abuse or some other reasoning, that's their choice.

Yes, and with that choice comes consequences....like not being able to marry your life partner.
One could also legally choose to leave untreated an open wound....and with that choice comes consequences.

If they choose not to undergo therapy to treat the issue, that is also their choice.

And that's fine. I do not seek to take away anyone's choice, only to point out that every choice has consequences.

It is not condoning anything because it's not up to you, me, or the government as to who someone decides to have an intimate relationship with.

Ah. So then it is none of the government's business if a 45 year old man and a 5 year old girl choose to be "intimate", gotcha; and if that 5 year old girl is my child, that is also non of my buisness, per your rules.

Aside from that, if marriage is "a strictly legal contract", then it most certainly is the government's business to regulate that contract, due to the transfer of property and taxation.

Oh, but wait, you said that it is not the government's business to regulate relationships.

Well, the government does not do that now.
You can go and have any relationship you chose....well, not 45 year old men with 5 year old girls, anyway.

You could go and have a very loving and meaningful homosexual relationship right now. The government can not stop you due to your 1st. Amendment right to express yourself.

You just can not become legally married.......and you know what, that shouldn't mien anything of consequence to you if your relationship is true; I know that consept from experience. My wife and I were together for @4 years before we got married. We were married for about 3 years before we made it legal.

If our legal marriage were dissolved right now, it would not make any meaningfull consequence to our marriage.

If one's realationship is based on law, not love and respect, then that realationship is doomed before it begins.

That has got to be one of the most skewed arguments I've ever seen.

Heh, back at ya.
And I'm not even trying. It is not my goal now to argue against gay 'marriage, though it is fun to put my old arguments through the passes again.

My point here is to caution you that this whole issue regarding marriage is yet another sign that we are closing in on increadably difficult times, so that you can prepair and be ready for them.

 

[Busta]

Why is this an issue? Why can't people mind their own god-damn business?

Tell that to aps, s/he started this thread.
Tell that to vauge, he started this forum, and this blog.

Here that, pro GM folks. Billo says that you should not make same-sex 'marriage an issue.....and I agree.
Stop it.

 

[aps]

Tell that to aps, s/he started this thread.
Tell that to vauge, he started this forum, and this blog.

Here that, pro GM folks. Billo says that you should not make same-sex 'marriage an issue.....and I agree.
Stop it.

Busta, why get defensive? I started this thread because I support gay people being allowed to marry. If churches want to define marriage as between a man and a woman--I have no problem with that. If states want to do it, I have a problem with it. If states want to change all unions to "civil unions," I support that.

And I'm a "she." That's why I have "chick" under my name since I know aps is very gender neutral.

 

[cnredd]

And I'm a "she." That's why I have "chick" under my name since I know aps is very gender neutral.

so she SAYS....

 

[aps]

so she SAYS....

I would think you might hope I was a woman since you have flirted with me before. :shock:

:lol:

 

[jallman]

I would think you might hope I was a woman since you have flirted with me before. :shock:

:lol:

I wouldnt be so sure...just ask ole redd about naughty nurse and see him get flustered...:mrgreen:

 

[aps]

I wouldnt be so sure...just ask ole redd about naughty nurse and see him get flustered...:mrgreen:

Oh, good one! Tell us all about it, cnredd.

 

[cnredd]

Oh, good one! Tell us all about it, cnredd.

Nothing to see here folks!...Move along!...:3oops:

 

[jallman]

Nothing to see here folks!...Move along!...:3oops:

You're always such a good sport about that whole joke...you're definitely not the typical conservative on this forum...:2wave:

 

[cnredd]

You're always such a good sport about that whole joke...you're definitely not the typical conservative on this forum...:2wave:

That's the problem that I'm always confronted with...

The PERCEPTION of the "typical Conservative"...

 

[aps]

Nothing to see here folks!...Move along!...:3oops:

You're cute when you're embarrassed. DO NOT worry--I am all woman.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aps:
You're cute when you're embarrassed. DO NOT worry--I am all woman.

And I am all man.

 

[aps]

And I am all man.

Tell me more.....

 

[jallman]

That's the problem that I'm always confronted with...

The PERCEPTION of the "typical Conservative"...

True...you definitely dont fit the mental image I have of most conservatives. But then I have heard it said I am not the "typical liberal" either. Just take what I said as a compliment and dont ever become like stsburns, m14 shooter, or *shudder to think* Navy Pride and that compliment will always apply to you.

 

[cnredd]

True...you definitely dont fit the mental image I have of most conservatives. But then I have heard it said I am not the "typical liberal" either. Just take what I said as a compliment and dont ever become like stsburns, m14 shooter, or *shudder to think* Navy Pride and that compliment will always apply to you.

Haven't you heard?...

Navy Pride thinks I'm a Liberal...:doh

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=202545&postcount=200

 

[jallman]

Haven't you heard?...

Navy Pride thinks I'm a Liberal...:doh

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=202545&postcount=200

All I can say to that is...damn. I havent been keeping up around here lately...make a couple posts here and there but I have been finding it hard to sit for too long without getting tired. Even when I do I worry my posts dont sound right because I have been so drugged. Give it a couple more weeks and I should be back up to speed again.

 

[Busta]

Busta, why get defensive? I started this thread because I support gay people being allowed to marry. If churches want to define marriage as between a man and a woman--I have no problem with that. If states want to do it, I have a problem with it. If states want to change all unions to "civil unions," I support that.

And I'm a "she." That's why I have "chick" under my name since I know aps is very gender neutral.

If I ever get defensive, perhaps then I can answer your question as to why that happened.

It's just irritating when someone comes into a public forum, one place where it is wholly appropriate to discuss many things both *public* and privet, and tells everyone that they should just mind their own business.

***
My primary issue with same-sex marriage does not have to do with sexual orientation, or even an additional legal allowance for what marriage can be legally defined as.
My primary issue with same-sex marriage has to do with how it is being sought. The 14th. Amendment will simply warp marriage into little more than a Living Will by stripping away nearly all of the requirements which make marriage a special union. If a Living Will, Power of Attorney, Final Will and Testomit, or similar, is what 'you' want, then just go get that; and leave marriage alone.

Ironicly, the only way to realize same-sex marriage is through the 14th. Amendment, because absolutely no other argument is strong enough to make it through the legislature.

Ultimately the only way to keep marriage intact, is for the pro.GM movement to simply cease and desist.
Since that is not going to happen, the institution of marriage is doomed.

It is yet another biblical prophecy being fulfilled.

***
I typed "s/he" in my last post because, quite frankly, I was just too d@mn lazy to check.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aps:
Tell me more.....

What, and leave nothing for your imagination. That wouldn't be right.

 

[Busta]

True...you definitely dont fit the mental image I have of most conservatives. But then I have heard it said I am not the "typical liberal" either. Just take what I said as a compliment and dont ever become like stsburns, m14 shooter, or *shudder to think* Navy Pride and that compliment will always apply to you.

Had a spat with M14, aye?
Does he even stray out of the 2nd. Amend. threads?

I confess, I have yet to read any of his gun-related posts that I did not agree with.

 

[Navy Pride]

I wouldnt be so sure...just ask ole redd about naughty nurse and see him get flustered...:mrgreen:

ROTFLMAO :rofl

 

[Navy Pride]

True...you definitely dont fit the mental image I have of most conservatives. But then I have heard it said I am not the "typical liberal" either. Just take what I said as a compliment and dont ever become like stsburns, m14 shooter, or *shudder to think* Navy Pride and that compliment will always apply to you.

jallman, my feelings are hurt.......I thought we were buds.....

 

[aps]

If I ever get defensive, perhaps then I can answer your question as to why that happened.

It's just irritating when someone comes into a public forum, one place where it is wholly appropriate to discuss many things both *public* and privet, and tells everyone that they should just mind their own business.

I think Billo was saying that the whole same sex marriage issue is no one's business in that it should be a private issue between two people. I don't think he was telling you to mind your own business.

My primary issue with same-sex marriage does not have to do with sexual orientation, or even an additional legal allowance for what marriage can be legally defined as.
My primary issue with same-sex marriage has to do with how it is being sought. The 14th. Amendment will simply warp marriage into little more than a Living Will by stripping away nearly all of the requirements which make marriage a special union. If a Living Will, Power of Attorney, Final Will and Testomit, or similar, is what 'you' want, then just go get that; and leave marriage alone.

Ironicly, the only way to realize same-sex marriage is through the 14th. Amendment, because absolutely no other argument is strong enough to make it through the legislature.

How does allowing two members of the same sex warp marriage? No one's marriage has any impact on my marriage or the sanctity of my marriage. Are you married? If a friend of yours (female) had a husband who was beating the crap out of her, would that have any impact on your marriage? If a friend of yours had a spouse who was an alcoholic, would that impact your relationship? I find it rather sad when people argue that allowing gay people to marry will somehow diminish the meaning of marriage. The divorce rate is 50%. My parents have been married for almost 40 years. The divorce rate hasn't affected them. Marriage is what the two individuals make of it--not what others outside the marriage make of it. I don't get this argument at all.

You're right--no other argument is strong enough because the other arguments are based upon small-mindedness. "Oh, if we allow gay people to marry, what will happen next? People marrying 2 other individuals, or people marrying their pets?? OMG, it will just make marriage go down the tubes." Oh brother. To me, the 14th Amendment is a very valid reason for allowing gay people to marry. Why are you and I entitled to this benefit just because we are heterosexuals?

Ultimately the only way to keep marriage intact, is for the pro.GM movement to simply cease and desist.
Since that is not going to happen, the institution of marriage is doomed.

It is yet another biblical prophecy being fulfilled.

Again, I just don't get this mentality. No one's relationship, outside of the relationship with my spouse, has any impact on me and the hubster's committment. While I believe we have a very strong marriage, I don't think our dedication to one another is unique. Maybe people are less strong than I am, so it's hard for me to even fathom that allowing two members of the same sex to marry somehow denigrates my own marriage. It doesn't even make sense.

I typed "s/he" in my last post because, quite frankly, I was just too d@mn lazy to check.

I wasn't offended--just letting you know I am a woman.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think Billo was saying that the whole same sex marriage issue is no one's business in that it should be a private issue between two people. I don't think he was telling you to mind your own business.




How does allowing two members of the same sex warp marriage? No one's marriage has any impact on my marriage or the sanctity of my marriage. Are you married? If a friend of yours (female) had a husband who was beating the crap out of her, would that have any impact on your marriage? If a friend of yours had a spouse who was an alcoholic, would that impact your relationship? I find it rather sad when people argue that allowing gay people to marry will somehow diminish the meaning of marriage. The divorce rate is 50%. My parents have been married for almost 40 years. The divorce rate hasn't affected them. Marriage is what the two individuals make of it--not what others outside the marriage make of it. I don't get this argument at all.

You're right--no other argument is strong enough because the other arguments are based upon small-mindedness. "Oh, if we allow gay people to marry, what will happen next? People marrying 2 other individuals, or people marrying their pets?? OMG, it will just make marriage go down the tubes." Oh brother. To me, the 14th Amendment is a very valid reason for allowing gay people to marry. Why are you and I entitled to this benefit just because we are heterosexuals?




Again, I just don't get this mentality. No one's relationship, outside of the relationship with my spouse, has any impact on me and the hubster's committment. While I believe we have a very strong marriage, I don't think our dedication to one another is unique. Maybe people are less strong than I am, so it's hard for me to even fathom that allowing two members of the same sex to marry somehow denigrates my own marriage. It doesn't even make sense.




I wasn't offended--just letting you know I am a woman.

I agree sex between to consenting adults should be a private issue but when you forcibly try and redefine the meaning of marriage against the will of the majority of Americans then you make it a public issue.....

That does not even address my concerns about the polygamy or inner family marriages......