Who equated pedos with homosexuals? Might want to pay closer attention to what you are reading. Gets rather hard to debate with someone who cannot follow the argument any better than expressed there.The fact that pedophiles do not equate to Homosexuals makes it invalid. I don't have to cry because your side is dying out and yeah, whether or not the majority likes it or not, it is coming because homosexuals are still protected under the Constitution of the United States. This is why your side is throwing its temper tantrum.
I really could not expect too too much more, based on experience. Its silly to be considered a basic civil right. If it is, indeed, a civil right, we are all obligatorily entitled, correct? Absurd.
Screw your legalese crap... this is society we are talking about here, not your day at the courthouse chatting it up with attorneys and paralegals.
We as a country do not have to stand for "what is reasonable in a court of law". If its wrong, we don't allow it. If we are forced to comply against the majority will, that is unreasonable.
I know, lets celebrate liberal activist judges overruling the will of the people. :roll:
I refuse to celebrate liberal activist judges running rough shod over the will of the people.
Nice incoherent rant... not much to pick from the muddled mess to discuss.
Perhaps these two.
You are free to love and to marry whomever you care to [ as long as they want as well ], nobody is stopping you. Just do not expect the marriage to be sanctioned by the state... or by the rest of us. Oh, and if your penchant is love and marriage to children, I would wait on the whole consummation of marriage thing. Prison may or may not be your bag.
And we are at least somewhat in agreement on the whole taxes thing... I agree, lets pay less taxes to this overbearing government, limit its size...yeah man...kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...
You are correct, the right to marry for gays is clearly spelled out in the constitution.:roll:
I am against judges making law from the bench no matter if they are right or wrong, that is where we differ.
The Nazi's were efficient too.
Judges are not supposed to make law from the bench and that is exactly what they are doing here.
You can't pass a law against a right that is clearly written out in the constitution, gay marriage does not rise to that level.
Everybody within US jurisdiction is Constitutionally protected under the 14th... so I would suppose same sex couples are protected under the 14th just about as much as two 12 year olds wanting to marry, especially if groups of 12 year olds and their advocates had been pushing this silliness as long as homosexuals have been pushing theirs.
So that would mean anybody that is not married could sue who, the Federal government, if they are not married? Would that not be an undeniable denial of one's civil rights?
Hey, if we are gonna be so preposterously idiotically silly as to who can be married from your ideological viewpoint, why not just bring on the kids... try to keep up, your side is the one that is taking things to the point of ludicrously absurd, don't blame me.
You see, it is we who are the ones arguing for sanity in such cases.
So that would mean anybody that is not married could sue who, the Federal government, if they are not married? Would that not be an undeniable denial of one's civil rights?
Everybody within US jurisdiction is Constitutionally protected under the 14th... so I would suppose same sex couples are protected under the 14th just about as much as two 12 year olds wanting to marry, especially if groups of 12 year olds and their advocates had been pushing this silliness as long as homosexuals have been pushing theirs.
Gaugingcatenate said:Finally? I have discussed previously what marriage is for and one of the main reasons is for protecting children that are, yes, created through the act of procreation that can only, besides in-vitro or cloning, be accomplished by opposite sex couplings. Marriage does not specifically require procreation, just the general likelihood of the ability to procreate.
Gaugingcatenate said:No to your first question, In a free society I do not think it is possible, plausibly optimal but probably not possible...but if a SS couple have them one takes ones chances and gets what one gets in custody battles... one cannot complain and besides, no sympathy, not my/our problem.
I would certainly not allow for SS adoption. Toleration is one thing, condoning, acceptance or promotion is simply out of the question.
Lursa said:And then are the children of gay couples less worthy of protection? They exist, thru natural reproduction, thru surrogacy, thru IV, thru adoption....do they not deserve the protection that marriage affords straight families?
Because gay couples do desire families just as much as straight couples...and have them. Legalizing SSM wont change that...it will only provide more protections for families, kids. Gays arent going to stop having families......
Oh its been said plenty of times from our side...If the majority of the people don't want it as a part of our culture, we have no need to allow it. That is more than legal, it is the will of the people, we being the ultimate sovereigns here.
Just when are you referencing that I brought up pedophiles... not that it isn't a "valid" argument? Just because its useful, applicable and effective... and you don't like it does not make an argument against it. But you can cry about it and tears might get you sympathy from some quarters.
Gaugingcatenate said:We the people don't have to have that standard... we can just pass an amendment should we so choose.
..............Yes you do. You cant just create a law for NO REASON.
If you have a reason, what is it? I'd love to see a law based on 'we just dont like it, it makes us feel icky because we cant keep our minds out of their bedrooms.'
I mean...they're not having sex on the sidewalks, are they?
I love it! Please give us a reason! Otherwise you claim a majority of your other Americans are just preparing for a big temper tantrum, "I dont have to have a reason, I just dont like it!" :lamo
Gaugingcatenate said:No, not when it comes to fundamental changes in our culture we don't. You can, you do, because its been structured to go the wrong way here, the way you would like it to go. We do not have to stand for that as a culture. If its wrong and we do not want it, no court tricks are gonna make it happen
Please explain how it is 'wrong' and how their culture is any different. (It's not different....their lifestyles are exactly the same: PTA, dinner as a family, vacations, going to work, taking kids to soccer, piano lessons, dance class, gardening, taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn, community service, going to church, paying their bills, paying taxes, etc.)
Any chance you could tell us how they will change our culture when their lives are exactly the same?
Well, we have to get your attention somehow, since logic doesn't really attract liberals and those so rabid for what they want they can see little else, yano?
Nobody here, despite the alleged invalidity of our side's arguments, has been able to prove your side's point... kinda makes a thinking person wonder. How about you?
Yup, always glad to make a public service announcement so that those who might feel this, or a similar penchant, are fully warned...that being for any and all sexual preferences, so do not get that hang dog look and make like it was just aimed just at you or your particular preference [ which I don't know and don't care about].Oh, you're right! You didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia. You simply tried to insinuate that I might like little kids. Nice. Glad we got that cleared up.
Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. We are all denied things every day. That is NOT tyranny. How simplistic.
I know the Constitution, and its concepts, far better than others, it seems apparent. Why don't you inform me of where in the Constitution that the minority rules. Why don't you explain to us, if this is so, why there are all sorts of examples of majority rules within the Constitution itself... say for example, the majorities needed for amendments, and...oh, but you are right because the President is elected by a minority of electoral college votes...oh wait, no, that would be the majority, too... dang, maybe you can help me find a place in the Constitution where the minority wins... but I think you merely will find they, we, have rights in place so they, we, cannot be silenced and may, through those rights, potentially rise to the point of being the majority... which rules.
Your turn.
Hmmm... don't know for sure, but I bet if you started listing the states that haven't done any of that, the list would look a heck of a lot longer, eh? Yes, you folks here, and in real life, have not yet been able to sufficiently convince the rest of us of your side's "logic and facts"... btw, was that supposed to be a joke? I think you flatter yourself if you think you and your side are in possession of those two.Well nobody here has been able to prove to your satisfaction. It seems pretty obvious that no anonymous discussion on an internet message board is going to change your mind since you have shown that even when logic and facts have been presented you just deny.
However those who support Marriage Equality have proven the validity of their arguments time and tijme again, the validity of the oppositions arguments have been rejected, time and time again.
They've been rejected in State courts in:
California**
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Iowa
Connecticut
Vermont
New Mexico
They've been rejected in Federal courts in:
California**
Utah
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Virginia
Texas
Ohio
Michigan
The arguments against SSCM are also shown to be beginning to be rejected by "We the people" as the last 4 votes in the issue during General Elections has shown (with Marriage Equality supporters winning all 4 votes) which validates the trend data shown by such organizations as Gallup and Pew. Out, as a society, attitude of today is not the same as it was just a decade ago when States were getting Civil Marriage and Civil Unions banned.
** Yes California is listed twice as the arguments were rejected by State courts and the California Supreme Court and by Federal District court and the Federal 9th Circuit Court.
>>>>
Oh, I think many of us can find absurdities in American History, sure. You believe all our history is just clean, pristine, without fault do you? How do you account for Plessy being overturned by Brown then, eh? You think the court is always right [ how can you even think to reconcile that with PvB just mentioned], that SC justices are infallible, everything they say and do cannot be questioned on its logic and pragmatism?And yet that is how it has been since 1967.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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 discrimination. 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."
But I guess if you find American history to be absurd...
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?