- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
If you really think that the founders would have supported gay marriage, then you're beyond reason (not that the founders were necessarily right about everything).
would the founders have killed you imprisoned you for being gay..... no.
the problem on the issue of being gay is .....when people try to force their ideas, and their way of life on other people.
freedom means people have the right to reject how other people lives their life's
however we live in a time, where others do not want that rejection, and are bound and determined to use the force of law, to make others accept them..
I see the point you're trying to make but yes, the founders would have most certainly jailed you for being openly gay.
and how do you draw that conclusion?
Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers. In Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth, “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone stated:
Source
History.
It did until 2003.
I find your calling leftists ignorant and intolerant offensive.
The only person that I see talking about slavery on this thread is you.
The rest of us are talking about marriage.
Nope. Tried to educate you. You simply demonstrated that you aren't willing to learn. Not gonna waste my time on people who refuse to learn. Sorry.
That's also been covered previously in this discussion. You just keep ignoring it. Sorry, I'm not reposting what other people have written.
would the founders have killed you imprisoned you for being gay..... no.
the problem on the issue of being gay is .....when people try to force their ideas, and their way of life on other people.
freedom means people have the right to reject how other people lives their life's
however we live in a time, where others do not want that rejection, and are bound and determined to use the force of law, to make others accept them..
No, it didn't. The constitution doesn't change based on supreme court rulings. The constitution provides guidelines for how to determine issues like this. It does not have a simple list. The constitution did not allow for the criminalization of consensual sex acts like these since the passage of the 14th amendment. That no one had gone through the proper legal channels to determine this does not mean that when they did, in 2003, that the text or meaning of the constitution changed. It still says the same things it always did, only now it has been applied to this specific question. That's how American law and jurisprudence actually works.
This was just posted on Reddit, and its pretty applicable to the 'freedom' mantra of being able to reject people and pass laws against them. Just substitute "gay," "muslim" or whatever you want with the word "Christian":the problem on the issue of being gay is .....when people try to force their ideas, and their way of life on other people.
freedom means people have the right to reject how other people lives their life's
however we live in a time, where others do not want that rejection, and are bound and determined to use the force of law, to make others accept them..
This was just posted on Reddit, and its pretty applicable to the 'freedom' mantra of being able to reject people and pass laws against them. Just substitute "gay," "muslim" or whatever you want with the word "Christian":
"I have no problem with you being a Christian, but don't teach it in schools, or to my children. It's not being Christian that's wrong, it's the act that's wrong. The act of going to Church -- the act of praying. I have no problem with you being Christian, but do it in your home and keep it there. It's unnatural you see. No one is born Christian, you have to develop those beliefs, and it's a choice to act on Christian beliefs, such as going to Church or praying.
And your religion shouldn't be legally recognized as a religion, because that would force me to accept Christianity as legitimate, and that would degrade my religion. So I'm going to fight for Traditional religion with a capital "T". If you want to have Christianity legally recognized and to get tax exempt status, then you would be stepping on my religious freedoms. I shouldn't have to recognize your religion as legitimate.
Just to reiterate: I have no problem with Christians. Just the act of being Christian. I love Christians! You can be Christian all you want, just leave it at the home and don't talk about it to my children or bring it into society. Christianity shouldn't be legally recognized because that would force me to recognize it as legitimate, which I don't. I don't want to have to recognize it as equal under the protection of the law to my own religion. Freedom means people have the right to reject how other people live their lives."
They did go through the proper legal channels, the SCOTUS ruled that sodomy laws were constitutional in 1978.
The difference of course is that Christianity is good whereas sodomy is bad.
Then it's a perfect match for your original comment. Which is of course why I made it.
Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhere do you get these "protected classes" of citizens? Can you share a source for this? I always thought that all were due equal protection of the law and due process.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This was just posted on Reddit, and its pretty applicable to the 'freedom' mantra of being able to reject people and pass laws against them. Just substitute "gay," "muslim" or whatever you want with the word "Christian":
"I have no problem with you being a Christian, but don't teach it in schools, or to my children. It's not being Christian that's wrong, it's the act that's wrong. The act of going to Church -- the act of praying. I have no problem with you being Christian, but do it in your home and keep it there. It's unnatural you see. No one is born Christian, you have to develop those beliefs, and it's a choice to act on Christian beliefs, such as going to Church or praying.
And your religion shouldn't be legally recognized as a religion, because that would force me to accept Christianity as legitimate, and that would degrade my religion. So I'm going to fight for Traditional religion with a capital "T". If you want to have Christianity legally recognized and to get tax exempt status, then you would be stepping on my religious freedoms. I shouldn't have to recognize your religion as legitimate.
Just to reiterate: I have no problem with Christians. Just the act of being Christian. I love Christians! You can be Christian all you want, just leave it at the home and don't talk about it to my children or bring it into society. Christianity shouldn't be legally recognized because that would force me to recognize it as legitimate, which I don't. I don't want to have to recognize it as equal under the protection of the law to my own religion. Freedom means people have the right to reject how other people live their lives."
The difference of course is that Christianity is good whereas sodomy is bad.
Where do you get these "protected classes" of citizens? Can you share a source for this? I always thought that all were due equal protection of the law and due process.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The difference of course is that Christianity is good whereas sodomy is bad.
Do you have the name of the 1978 case? I've been able to find only a vague reference to it that suggests that it was anything but definitive. Lawrence v Texas doesn't mention such a case. My guess is that the court did not rule on the constitutionality of such laws at all in the 1978 case.
I think you're just doing it wrong.
Republicans are most certainly left-wing so I am not sure what you are attempting to say.
Bowers v Hardwick. It was 1986 however.
"In overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court stated that "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today."
Georgia itself struck down its own law that this case was based on, before lawrence v texas. What this guy is whining about affected only a few states, of a law seldom enforced, that has virtually no support in 2013. He's therefore taking an extremist position.
LOL what a legally solid argument that is. Don't knock it till you tried it and all. Anyway, know who takes part in the most sodomy? Hetero couples. Guess we better ban hetero marriage.
He's therefore taking an extremist position.
If you want to argue that Christianity and sodomy are equivalent then by all means please do so, but don't just act as though it's so obvious that you don't need to argue about it, or if you do act as though it's so obvious then don't get upset when your argument is dismissed out of hand by those who disagree with your premises. Even though some heterosexual couples engage in sodomy, sodomy is not inherent in a heterosexual marriage.
Actually I think that my position is supported by around 20% or so of Americans, not that the number of people who support a proposition is what makes it right or wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?