No, it doesn't. Feel free to post it.
Thats all theory and no fact behind it.
Blaming Christianity is a very weak argument unless you want to conclude all people who "come out" are Christians. :roll:
A funny joke but thats all it is and you know it.
And I said White to Black not Black to White specifically to avoid that ridiculous notion.
Pedophiles are attracted to children. Should we grant them marriage privileges as well?
The attracted to argument is not a basis for designing new law when you can't even prove its not a choice.
hmmmm, except that we live in a society ruled by a representative government. what that government does, WE are doing; and what the government supports, WE are supporting. now everyone's not going to come to an agreement (IE; you might personally not support the war in Iraq even as your taxes go to 'actually' support it) about what we want to do, which is why we vote. What i am pointing out is that the American people have the right to choose not to support the institution of homosexual marriage via their government.
No, it doesn't. Feel free to post it.
Thats all theory and no fact behind it.
Blaming Christianity is a very weak argument unless you want to conclude all people who "come out" are Christians. :roll:
Pedophiles are attracted to children. Should we grant them marriage privileges as well?
The attracted to argument is not a basis for designing new law when you can't even prove its not a choice.
There is no basis in genetics or any boilogical evidence to support your claim.
There are people who have gone from being heterosexual to homosexual and vise versa.
Haven't seen one person go from white to black.
And the sexual biological reaction to stimulus always results in the same outcome. The body prepares for procreation, a purely heterosexual act and the only way to pass genetic material from one generation to another naturally. Homosexuality has no basis in either genetics or biological sexual reaction which is why you cannot equate it to either race or heterosexuality as being equal.
I've always thought this to be a state matter. If California doesn't want it, then that's that. The people have spoken.
When SFPD start going into houses and beating innocent gays, I'll get involved.
No. If it's not a law, and it's not in the Constitution, then there's nothing there. God isn't going to come down and force people to hand out gay marriages.
It's a recognized civil right because it's there, yes. It only got there with a 2/3 vote in Congress. Otherwise, you couldn't even claim that gay marriage is a legally protected right.
You don't have a choice. Especially in this case, when it's not a "right" being denied but rather a word being defined.
You obviously don't care whether it's in the Constitution or not, so let's say for a sec that the 14th Amendment doesn't exist. If states must recognize gay marriages, who's going to force them to? Nobody can. You can't rely on the Magical Rights Fairy to enforce rights.
That kind of argument could be aimed at any alternative lifestyle. Think I could find one you wouldn't approve of even if they aren't forcing you?
And why is that exactly? It's not like you get to chose either one.
Pedophiles are attracted to children. Should we grant them marriage privileges as well?
roguenuke said:As I posted earlier, would it be okay for a state to make a law and/or state constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to those of the same religion? Interfaith marriages would not technically be protected by freedom of religion since there are many religions that don't even approve of such marriages.
That settles it then -- marriage is not a right.Laws have consequences, but they do not determine what is right and wrong. For example, Blacks didn't lack the right to be free when the Constitution allowed slavery, the right simply was not recognized. So it still comes down to whether something is logically a right or not, not whether it's in the Constitution or not.
That settles it then -- marriage is not a right.
That settles it then -- marriage is not a right.
Bottom line argument seems to be:
Bigotry and discrimination are perfectly fine so long as the majority thinks it's OK.
Got it.
Laws have consequences, but they do not determine what is right and wrong. For example, Blacks didn't lack the right to be free when the Constitution allowed slavery, the right simply was not recognized. So it still comes down to whether something is logically a right or not, not whether it's in the Constitution or not.
This is only because our society culturally believes in utilizing democratic processes. Kings were able to legitimately rule by fiat in the eyes of the people when people believed in divine right. Someday democracy, too, may be replaced with a better alternative.
Let's "pretend" for a moment that gay marriage is not enforced by the Constitution.
The Constitution being the only thing that can trump the democratic process (even though, in a way, it's subject to the democratic process), what else is there to trump democracy? (Hint: nothing.)
And there's some strawmen in your posts, too. Not making gay marriage legal is not bigotry, it's traditionalism. Not handing out gay marriages is fine only if you think it is; it's legal if a majority wants that to be the case.
Let's "pretend" for a moment that gay marriage is not enforced by the Constitution.
The Constitution being the only thing that can trump the democratic process (even though, in a way, it's subject to the democratic process), what else is there to trump democracy? (Hint: nothing.)
Except this has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with legal or illegal. I agree that allowing gay marriage would be the right thing to do. I disagree that there's some way to do it that circumvents the will of the people.
It may be more useful to compare sexual orientation to religious affiliation. Religious affiliation certainly is a choice to a greater extent than sexual orientation, even conservatives can acknowledge that, yet we do not expect people to tolerate different legal treatment based upon religious affiliation.
Every step away from civil liberties toward popular madate is a step from republicanism to populism.
The only right the majority was supposed to have in this country is the ability to decide who our civil administraters will be. They aren't supposed to have any real authority over the law, which is no real sense can be contingent on the will of the people.
Oh, agreed. Just like it used to be perfectly allowable to discriminate against blacks under the Constitution.
The fact that discrimination and bigotry are allowed by law doesn't mean it's not still bigotry and discrimination.
But, as you know, the laws are written to protect the minority from (as the founders put it) "the tyranny of the majority." Sometimes doing the right thing means going against the majority views.
There's no honor or bravery in cowing down to the majority.
Erm, you realize this is a thread about gay marriage right? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and until recently it wasn't even considered that it might be otherwise. So not suddenly changing that is not a step away from republicanism, since we started there to begin with. Especially since if gay marriage is made legal democratically, it will be through elected representatives, i.e. republicanism.
Your post is irrelevant anyways. The public votes on its government; its government votes on its laws. The will of the people matters there.
Again, not wanting gay marriage is not bigotry.
Again you miss the point, which is that before, you and others (or at least others) seemed to want gay marriage to be made legal without any form of democracy being involved. I keep trying to point out that this is impossible
Please explain why. Seriously, ever explanation against it I have seen is basically "I want them to be second class citizens not able to get the same rights I have." I mean, that's the very definition of bigotry, really.
Oh sure, bigots can convince themselves that there is some reason for their discrimination -- they always can -- but when you boil it all down, it's basically "I don't like it."
Our courts are appointed or elected by us, so when a court decides something, that is as much a part of our democracy as anything else. We the people don't vote personally on every single law and regulation, after all.
But even then, even the founding fathers did not want the people deciding everything, worrying about "mob rule" and "the tyranny of the majority." Having the courts protect a minority viewpoint from being trampled by the majority is about as pro-American as you can get.
There is no basis in genetics or any boilogical evidence to support your claim.
There are people who have gone from being heterosexual to homosexual and vise versa.
Haven't seen one person go from white to black.
And the sexual biological reaction to stimulus always results in the same outcome. The body prepares for procreation, a purely heterosexual act and the only way to pass genetic material from one generation to another naturally. Homosexuality has no basis in either genetics or biological sexual reaction which is why you cannot equate it to either race or heterosexuality as being equal.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman...
Dav said:Again, not wanting gay marriage is not bigotry.
So was every person in history who ever lived, before a few decades ago, a bigot?
It's not bigotry, it's caution towards fundamentally changing something in an area where it has remained the same for thousands of years. People are afraid of the implications of such seemingly arbitrary power over tradition. Please don't call my family bigots, because they're not, and lost and lots and lots of anti-gay marriage people are not the least bit homophobic.
Yes... but the court's job is to interpret the law and the Constitution. If the right to gay marriage is in neither (which is what I believe to be the case) then they are irrelevant to this.
The courts do not protect a minority viewpoint, the laws and Constitution which the courts interpret do.
Also, the founding fathers were not for gay marriage. Until recently, nobody was.
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?