Gay Marriage is Not a Right

[Brooks]

Marriage does not require a license For the state to recognize it requires a license.. that's different.

Couldn't we assume all along that we've been discussing state recognized marriages?

 

[Brooks]

As far as gun control in NY? Pretty stupid really...but hey.. as long as people FEEL they are safer.

As far as limitations and rights...

You can have rights.. and they can be limited. My right to own a gun.. is limited when the exercising of that right impinges on your rights... in other words.. all rights have limitations. I have a right to drive a car.. but I do not have the right to drive over you on the way to the bank. Therefore.. the government.. in its role to protect rights (my right to drive, your right to not be driven over).. the government can restrict my right to an extent that legitimately protects your right. I.E require that I am at least of a certain age. That I have insurance, so you don't have to pay the bill if I destroy your property etc.

Guns:
You don't have gun rights, you qualify for ownership.
A seemingly small distinction but an important one.

Driving:
Driving isn't a right, you have to qualify and fit certain criteria.
The things you can't do in a car are codified into law, that's different from rights. For example, if you drive over someone, in your example I assume you mean intentionally, that's an assault.

 

[Brooks]

....but id say its common sense that a successful post is one that isnt false, pretty basic, after that it becomes circumstantial and i had no intentions of playing games with a dishonest poster unless they are my own

Hmmm, a good OP is true and basic.
I think I can accomodate you:

People who believe in God are the most religious.
President Obama is the best current president we have.
Why are Senior Citizens so old?
OMG Miley!
The airplane could be the Wright brothers' most significant achievement.

When the successful OP's kick in this place is gonna rock!

 

[AGENT J]

Hmmm, a good OP is true and basic.
I think I can accomodate you:

People who believe in God are the most religious.
President Obama is the best current president we have.
Why are Senior Citizens so old?
OMG Miley!
The airplane could be the Wright brothers' most significant achievement.

When the successful OP's kick in this place is gonna rock!

its ok, no need to be sore, threads fail sometimes, just try not to use false premises to start them and they wont get destroyed before they even make it to page two. Hopefully the lesson takes.

46 pages in and the fact remains marriage is a right.

 

[Brooks]

its ok, no need to be sore, threads fail sometimes, just try not to use false premises to start them and they wont get destroyed before they even make it to page two. Hopefully the lesson takes.

46 pages in and the fact remains marriage is a right.

You have posted (possibly but I'm not counting) between 20 and 30 times on a thread you consider a failure.

I envy your spare time.

 

[AGENT J]

You have posted (possibly but I'm not counting) between 20 and 30 times on a thread you consider a failure.

I envy your spare time.

correct, ill probably post more
i hope you dont think responses alone are what makes a successful thread
when good threads that im interested in arent going on the best second form of entertainment around here is pointing out lies, opinions pushed as facts and joining in on people destroying failed threads like this one.

 

[Brooks]

correct, ill probably post more
i hope you dont think responses alone are what makes a successful thread
when good threads that im interested in arent going on the best second form of entertainment around here is pointing out lies, opinions pushed as facts and joining in on people destroying failed threads like this one.

But I truly do envy your spare time.

Take it as the compliment it is intended to be.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)But I truly do envy your spare time.

Take it as the compliment it is intended to be.

1.) hey entertainment is worth it, if im here why not enjoy myself
2.) it just is what it is

 

[jaeger19]

Couldn't we assume all along that we've been discussing state recognized marriages?

No.. because you are the one splitting hairs about rights and saying it doesn't exist because you need a license.

I don't need a license to have a marriage. Its my right. Now to have the state recognize my marriage and confer the benefits it gives other married couples requires a license.

 

[jaeger19]

Guns:
You don't have gun rights, you qualify for ownership.
A seemingly small distinction but an important one.

Driving:
Driving isn't a right, you have to qualify and fit certain criteria.
The things you can't do in a car are codified into law, that's different from rights. For example, if you drive over someone, in your example I assume you mean intentionally, that's an assault.

Again.. no.. I have the right to own a gun. Its a right.... my right is limited by how it affects others rights.. and that's were the government can constitutionally step in.

I have the right to drive a car.. the government cannot simply say.. sorry.. your white, you cannot drive. Or tell my wife.. your Asian, so you cannot drive.. (though we would all be safer:2razz. They can only take away her right if they have just cause to take away her right.. i.e. she runs over someone, becomes blind etc.

And you point it out.. the things you can't do are codified in into law.. that's exactly right.. and you are exactly right that its different from rights... but YOU are arguing that because their are restrictions in law... that that means a right doesn't exist.. (but have already pointed out how distinct those laws are from rights)

 

[Brooks]

No.. because you are the one splitting hairs about rights and saying it doesn't exist because you need a license.
I don't need a license to have a marriage. Its my right. Now to have the state recognize my marriage and confer the benefits it gives other married couples requires a license.

I think we are just muddling this up by going down a road such as this.
I could just as easily say I don't need a license to drive a car or to hunt. When someone says he NEEDS a license to drive it's not true in the sense of the physically possible, but I really didn't think we were talking about these activities in that way.

Can we possibly color code the discussion to distinguish between the two types of "need" in this case?

 

[Bodi]

Opposing SSM is bigoted and just as discriminatory as feeling that Separate But Equal was fine...

 

[Brooks]

1. Again.. no.. I have the right to own a gun. Its a right.... my right is limited by how it affects others rights.. and that's were the government can constitutionally step in.

2. I have the right to drive a car.. the government cannot simply say.. sorry.. your white, you cannot drive. Or tell my wife.. your Asian, so you cannot drive.. (though we would all be safer:2razz. They can only take away her right if they have just cause to take away her right.. i.e. she runs over someone, becomes blind etc.

3. ...but YOU are arguing that because their are restrictions in law... that that means a right doesn't exist.. (but have already pointed out how distinct those laws are from rights)

1. I agree, rights are always affected by how they affect others.
But, your gun ownership isn't only affected by how it affects others. It is also affected by your age, mental state, physical capabilities, etc. I would call these qualifications or criteria. That puts us back in the realm of earning the privilege.

2. No, not for being white, but they CAN say "you're too young, you can't drive" or "your not mentally competent, you can't drive". Again, an earned privilege.

3. This sounds like you've found an inconsistency in what I've been saying, but I don't quite understand what you mean.


"Or tell my wife.. your Asian, so you cannot drive.. (though we would all be safer:2razz."
That's the best thing I've read on this forum so far.

 

[AGENT J]

Opposing SSM is bigoted and just as discriminatory as feeling that Separate But Equal was fine...

yep theres no reason to fight against it legally.
every reason has been debunked.

i havent heard ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about women’s rights, equal rights, interracial marriage etc. The reasons were dumb, bigoted and or illogical then and they most certainly still are today, even more so since not only common sense and facts proves them wrong but history does too.

 

[Brooks]

Opposing SSM is bigoted and just as discriminatory as feeling that Separate But Equal was fine...

Which is why I'm for it.

One can advocate an outcome but not be in favor of burning the house down to achieve it.
Don't panic. There's a system in place. Keeping it consistent and fair to all is more important than any single issue.

Our system is supposed to function like the trees in Lord of the Rings. A slow but unstoppable momentum, no overreactions, no rushing without thinking, just steady progress so as to make as few mistakes as possible to avoid having to undo them.
It makes for impatience, but better legislation and decisions.

 

[Brooks]

yep theres no reason to fight against it legally.
every reason has been debunked.

i havent heard ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about women’s rights, equal rights, interracial marriage etc. The reasons were dumb, bigoted and or illogical then and they most certainly still are today, even more so since not only common sense and facts proves them wrong but history does too.

I read a lot of posts with great points but with which I disagree overall.
Some people are here to absorb others' knowledge with an open mind. With that attitide it's almost impossible not to find a good or well defended point from a person whose beliefs are typically antithetical to what they themselves believe.

Others are here to bluster with a closed mind. They are the ones who insist others are completely wrong.
They generally don't learn from the experience of being here, but that's okay because that's not what they're here for anyway.

 

[disneydude]

In reality, NO marriage is a right.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.

Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.

I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.

Actually you are wrong. The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that human beings have. Sorry to blow your premise.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I read a lot of posts with great points but with which I disagree overall.
2.) Some people are here to absorb others' knowledge with an open mind.
3.) With that attitude it's almost impossible not to find a good or well defended point from a person whose beliefs are typically antithetical to what they themselves believe.
4.) Others are here to bluster with a closed mind. They are the ones who insist others are completely wrong.
They generally don't learn from the experience of being here, but that's okay because that's not what they're here for anyway.

1.) me too! some of my favorite posters and best conversations I have had have been with people i have different OPINIONS than.
2.) I agree im one of them
3.) depends on the issue, facts are facts and reality is reality.
4.) yes i have seen those people, they are easily defeated, all you have to do is ask for facts and they can never provide any.
5.) I agree with this also they typically just continue to post lies or troll

now if you would like to get back on the topic of my post i qouted, if you agree or disagree id love to know. And please base it on what i actually said and save the assumptions or simple ask for more info if you think its needed.

also since you are a rookie this topic has been thoroughly discussed in many threads, two huge ones by me, one that had to be closed because of its size.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/71580-gay-marriage-right-stop.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/78677-gay-marriage-right-stop-part-ii.html

and to give you more content of my statment to help you ill quote the whole thing

Hello everyone, the other thread reached almost 2000 posts and 192 pages!!!!
It had to be closed because at around 2000 post it becomes taxing on the server, thanks independent_thinker2002

Anyway lets keep it going since we had some great talks, some people even woke up and saw theres no reason and some had some at least semi-sensible new angles but still fell short. Not to mention I wanna continue because its funs and supports my research.

Heres the link below and Ill also repost the OP.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/71580-gay-marriage-right-stop.html

Also just for an FYI the poll was spammed and the new one will be public but last CC (Captain Courtesy) checked it mirrored the results of the others I have conducted under THIS premise or is it right to stop not what you believe and that was AROUND 75% no and 25% yes.

Now on to the OP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only am I looking for your opinion im looking for your reasoning if your answer is yes.

I have discussed gay marriage many many times and have yet to hear ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage. Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about women’s rights, equal rights, interracial marriage etc. the reason were dumb illogical then and the most certainly still are today, even more so since not only common sense and facts proves them wrong but history.

now mind you, pay attention to my verbiage, I said reason to STOP it.

That means in America I think its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc

and i also believe and support in your rights to do so but once you try to stop it I think you wrong on so many levels.
I can’t imagine how AMERICANS think they have the right to tell two CONSENTING ADULTS who and who they cant marry lmao

Does it get anymore pompous, arrogant, selfish, hypercritical and anti american than that. How anybody thinks they have the right to tell a consenting adult they cant marry another consenting adult is beyond me.

Also to be clear Im also not saying its wrong for you to VOTE on the subject everybody has that right of course.

I myself am not gay so I REALLY feel its non of my business but has an american I have to call BS on the other so called americans that do think its there business some how.

Anyway maybe this time will be different, it’ll actually be VERY interesting if it is different. So does anybody have ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

Who thinks they have a sound reason why they should get to tell one American consenting adults they cant marry another consenting American adult.


Also for some reference Ill try to list the general reasons people thought of that have been thoroughly debunked.

Religion/god/bible – Meaningless and debunked

Slipper slope argument: I should be able to marry my dog, pedophiles marring children etc. – Ludicrous and debunked

Marriage is between a man and woman – this is a lie/opinion. Meaningless and debunked

Morals – your morals are subjective, shouldn’t be forced on others and your morals aren’t effected one bit, you still get to believe in them as you see fit. Meaningless and debunked

Gay Parents will “turn” their kids gay – LMAO this is also a uneducated fantasy. It has been proven that that children raised by gay parents are no more likely to be or not be gay. It has also been proven that children raised in a multi-parent home on average do better than a single parent home no matter the sex. Ignorant and debunked

Churches will lose their rights – another silly argument that appeals to emotion and could probably be added under the “slipper slope” argument as well. Churches are already protected and will never lose their rights, they discriminate RIGHT NOW against who they want including STRAIGHT couples and will be able to continue to do so under the first amendment. Ludicrous and debunked

Alright heres the most current update and lets have fun!

let me know if you got anything im very curious

 

[Sykes]

I am for gay marriage. However I'm not going to panic and advocate inconsistencies within the law to make it happen.
We have a system in place and just as I wouldn't want it abused to achieve things of which I am not in favor, I don't believe in abusing it to achieve my preferences either.

Whatever word you use, if straights have it and gays don't - then that is wrong.

 

[Sykes]

Actually you are wrong. The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that human beings have. Sorry to blow your premise.

I rather hate that whole "marriage is not a right" argument. It's bull****. If one group has it, and the other group doesn't, then an injustice has occurred, and needs to be remedied.

 

[Removable Mind]

In reality, NO marriage is a right.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.

Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.

I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.

Brooks...don't mind if I jump in do ya?

While the following S.C. case was about interracial marriage, the same NOW applies to same sex marriage (which I agree with btw...). Just thought I'd offer the following...see if clears anything up for you regarding marriage and rights:


Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868.

The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

[maquiscat]

I think we are just muddling this up by going down a road such as this.
I could just as easily say I don't need a license to drive a car or to hunt. When someone says he NEEDS a license to drive it's not true in the sense of the physically possible, but I really didn't think we were talking about these activities in that way.

Can we possibly color code the discussion to distinguish between the two types of "need" in this case?

Actually one does not need a license to drive a car or hunt. I could do so easily on my own property with no requirement from the government at any level requiring licensing. I would need them to do so on public property or property not my own.

 

[Brooks]

Actually you are wrong. The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that human beings have. Sorry to blow your premise.

No need to apologize, I'm sorry to repeat this to people who've read all the posts to this point.

The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a right, but by the time it filters through the states, the state burdens this "right" with qualifiers and criteria. When you fulfill these obligations they issue you a license. Once the state does all that, the activity has become a privilege.

A right is something you automatically have until it is taken away.
A privilege is something you have to earn and/or qualify for.

Can you think of any licensed activity that is a right?

 

[Brooks]

1.) me too! some of my favorite posters and best conversations I have had have been with people i have different OPINIONS than.
2.) I agree im one of them
3.) depends on the issue, facts are facts and reality is reality.
4.) yes i have seen those people, they are easily defeated, all you have to do is ask for facts and they can never provide any.
5.) I agree with this also they typically just continue to post lies or troll
now if you would like to get back on the topic of my post i qouted, if you agree or disagree id love to know. And please base it on what i actually said and save the assumptions or simple ask for more info if you think its needed.
also since you are a rookie this topic has been thoroughly discussed in many threads, two huge ones by me, one that had to be closed because of its size.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/71580-gay-marriage-right-stop.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/78677-gay-marriage-right-stop-part-ii.html
and to give you more content of my statment to help you ill quote the whole thing
let me know if you got anything im very curious

BAsed on the above perception you have of yourself, why the need to insult?

 

[Brooks]

Whatever word you use, if straights have it and gays don't - then that is wrong.

That's a different discussion.
If the criteria that a places on earning a marriage license is unfair, then we go to our legislators or the courts to correct it that wrong (I prefer legislation since if represents 300 million people rather than 9).

Nothing in my premise or in anything I've said has been anti gay-marriage. I just believe we'd all have a better understanding of the process if we understood certain fundamentals such as rights vs privileges.