- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 11,963
- Reaction score
- 3,543
- Location
- Naperville, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Yeah, in your wet dreams.
Why do you think we keep bringing up incest? Do you think we're just stupid?
Honestly, it seems to me that the right keeps bringing up incest and pedophilia and all that because they're trying to paint homosexuality as being a slippery slope towards those totally unrelated things... It's like arguing "if we let the blacks into the schools, what's next? will we need to let the dogs in too?" No offense, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but it's just a way to hype of bigotry against gays.
You'll change your mind the first time you see pro-gm support incest, poligamy, etc, in a DP thread.
Pro-gm has argued against me in support of those things, that's why I bring them up.
I would even support incest for this reason.
As a rule of thumb, unless it's clear that you're dealing with a raging lunatic, anytime you think someone is just bigoted that's a clear sign that you simply don't understand their argument.
As for incest, I do seem to recall somebody saying they're ok with incest... Let me search... Ah yes, here it is:
I totally disagree. I think all of us carry around at least some prejudices and I think that even those people who don't will sometimes take a position that is bigotry without realizing that's what they're doing.
So a friend of mine posted this on Facebook:
Barack Obama Ignores The 14th Amendment When It Comes To Same-Sex Marriage Equality Across America
And it got me thinking. The 14th Amendment states:
“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.”
According to Loving v Virginia (Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), this means that marriage requirements cannot be based on race.
So does this mean, then, that the right to marriage cannot be restricted based on gender?
I am interested to see what people think of this.
Funny thing is that driving an automobile is not mentioned in the Constitution... but I dare say we would all agree that the government is prevented by the Constitution in discriminating against a certain race by preventing them from obtaining drivers licenses.If traditional marriage is not in the constitution then how can anyone with at least a ounce of common sense say that gay marriage is a Constitutional Right?
If traditional marriage is not in the constitution then how can anyone with at least a ounce of common sense say that gay marriage is a Constitutional Right?
Funny thing is that driving an automobile is not mentioned in the Constitution... but I dare say we would all agree that the government is prevented by the Constitution in discriminating against a certain race by preventing them from obtaining drivers licenses.
Please explain. I'd hate to misinterpret your post.Not if we're talking about Asians, no.
What happens to this "right" if all the states repeal their marriage laws?I think it is the 10th amendment. And SCOTUS has ruled that that marriage is a right with the 10 th one can make the argument that marriage is a Constitutional right as well as the 14th.
Funny thing is that driving an automobile is not mentioned in the Constitution... but I dare say we would all agree that the government is prevented by the Constitution in discriminating against a certain race by preventing them from obtaining drivers licenses.
Again if it is not listed in the US constitution then it is not a constitutional right.
Two questions.
1. Would you object if the government announced tomorrow that everyone of your particular skin color or racial descent was not allowed to drive an automobile?
No it wouldn't be based on the Constitution.2. Would your objection, should you object, be based in some part upon the Constitution?
Again if it is not listed in the US constitution then it is not a constitutional right.
What happens to this "right" if all the states repeal their marriage laws?SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a right.
What happens to this "right" if all the states repeal their marriage laws?
What happens to this "right" if all the states repeal their marriage laws?
There is no fedral law that creates the institution of marrige.Nothing since it is a federal issue at this point. Full Faith and Credit Clause:
No it wouldn't be based on the Constitution.
Marriage in and of itself is not a right,
it was originally a religious ceremony.
It was originally a transference of property when women and children were treated as chattel.
Are you arguing that state cannot repeal their marriage laws?Now what happens to the "right" if marriage laws are repealed. The problem is we are talking about two different things. Marriage in and of itself is not a right, it was originally a religious ceremony. If you got rid of the marriage license, you can return it again to a fully religious event. But because the government has taken it, it has become valid to our rights, specifically in the case of marriage Right to Contract. You can't get rid of that right no matter what. You can remove the institution of marriage from it, but you cannot end Right to Contract, it is a fundamental right of all freemen.
There is no fedral law that creates the institution of marrige.
If all the state laws that create and recongnize the institution of marriage are repealed - therefby eliminating any FF&C argument - then how does the institution of marriage still exist? What happens to the "right"?
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?