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.
Stacy said:
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.