Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

Surtr · May 30, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Again true. But what the founders wanted, idividual rights, was still evident. The reason that slavery existed for them and not "negroes" is because many at the time did not think that "negroes" were fully human.

A lot of people today seem to have a problem seeing gays as fully human, too. Not sure why.

Agreed. Hopefully it will stop one day though. There are lots of things which take time to accomplish.

I don't see it happening in my life time. Too many vested interests, and a need for resources in quantities we can't produce on our own. It's only going to get worse as the population grows.

This is only true if you think that is why they produce medications. I don't happen to think that is why though.

I believe it's a huge part of it. 20 years ago, pharmaceutical companies were legally forbidden from advertising directly to the general public. Now you can't look at a tv screen without some ad telling you that if you feel sad, or unproductive, cram this **** down your throat, and it'll make everything all better. At best, the individual can ween themselves off it, and learn to cope with the damages the medication caused to their brain and body. Worse case scenarios, the person either can't cope, and commits suicide, or even worse, you get another VA Tech.

Knew you would use this. It is also why I said "legally".

Touché

This kind of reasoning could be applied to anything and everything.

Probably, that's how politics work. they don't give a damn about 'you the individual', they only care about the 'you that has something for them'.

Lightning · May 31, 2012

kal'stang said:
no, you applied your reasoning to what i said....falsely i might add.

You're the one that brought up that this country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs (again, debateable). Funny how when you bring it up first its relevent but when i point out why that it is irrelevent you back track and say its irrelevent.

Ok, if you agree with me then what was your whole point to "right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" bit all about? Or were you just trying to wax poetic?

Privacy and sanctity of ones home was already protected via the 4th amendment (and a combination of others but for now this is good enough to refute you). And abortion was protected via the 14th amendment. Not the 9th. And even then it wasn't abortion that was directly protected...but the womans privacy. So sorry but you fail in this attempt. You really need to study up on the history and reason for the 9th amendment. Here is a good starting place for ya...

findlaw.com ~ ninth amendment - unenumerated rights

if you truely believe this then all of the bill of rights amendments is nothing more than government interference and gives them more power. Do you actually believe this?

And yes, i have shown you which scotus cases state that marriage is a fundemental right. And i have shown you how the constitution applies to it because of that. I'm starting to think that you really need to read up on just how our government works.

Show me where scotus cannot rule on what is and isn't a right.

***sigh*** :bs :thumbdown

You are a complete waste of time. You have no understanding of debate, politics, government and certainly not our Constitution. Go to school first than come back.
I sincerely fear for your outcome in life. I bid you good day sir. eace :ws: :flame:

And for the record, no you haven't. If you're referring to Loving v. Virginia, you're wrong. You're trying to apply a limited precedent made in order to eliminate racial barriers for marriage, and apply it to sexual preferences. Completely irrelevant and unruled by the SC. So....WRONG AGAIN!

roguenuke · May 31, 2012

Lightning said:
***sigh*** :bs :thumbdown

You are a complete waste of time. You have no understanding of debate, politics, government and certainly not our Constitution. Go to school first than come back.
I sincerely fear for your outcome in life. I bid you good day sir. eace :ws: :flame:

And for the record, no you haven't. If you're referring to Loving v. Virginia, you're wrong. You're trying to apply a limited precedent made in order to eliminate racial barriers for marriage, and apply it to sexual preferences. Completely irrelevant and unruled by the SC. So....WRONG AGAIN!

We'll see.

Currently same sex marriage bans are bans for people to enter into the legal marriage contract based solely on their sex. Those need to be eliminated because there is no state interest being met in such bans.

Lightning · May 31, 2012

roguenuke said:
We'll see.

Currently same sex marriage bans are bans for people to enter into the legal marriage contract based solely on their sex. Those need to be eliminated because there is no state interest being met in such bans.

We'll see?? Aren't you the one who said that there was such a precedent that sanctified marriage?? So this means that you rogue nuke has finally seen the truth and accepted the fact that marriage is not a fundamentally protected right?? Well, at least that's one more educated American...better than nothing.

Oh... and your logic, just like kal'stangs, is flawed. And y'all wonder why the LGBT attorneys have not been successful in walking all over our Constitution and giving the federal government the power to mandate the legalization of LGBT marriages. Oh wait I know, because they make the same arguments you guys are making.

Kal'Stang · May 31, 2012

Lightning said:
***sigh***

You are a complete waste of time. You have no understanding of debate, politics, government and certainly not our Constitution. Go to school first than come back.
I sincerely fear for your outcome in life. I bid you good day sir.

:lamo this coming from the person that thinks that abortion is protected via the 9th. Along with privacy. And also has no obvious knowledge of the history of the 9th and 10th Amendments. (in case you didn't know they were both added for the same basic reasoning) I even gave you a link which showed what the 9th Amendment is about....which you apparently ignored.

Lightning said:
And for the record, no you haven't. If you're referring to Loving v. Virginia, you're wrong. You're trying to apply a limited precedent made in order to eliminate racial barriers for marriage, and apply it to sexual preferences. Completely irrelevant and unruled by the SC. So....WRONG AGAIN!

Actually I provided 2 cases (including loving v. virginia) in which the SCOTUS judges said that marriage is a fundemental right. Not one. And whether it was talking about racial barriers or not is irrelevent. Fact is the judges said that marriage was a fundemental right. You cannot apply a right only when you feel like it should be a right. You can only restrict a right when that right interfere's with someone else's right.

Also a precedent is a precedent. There is no such thing as a "limited precedent". It is either there or it is not.

roguenuke · May 31, 2012

Lightning said:
We'll see?? Aren't you the one who said that there was such a precedent that sanctified marriage?? So this means that you rogue nuke has finally seen the truth and accepted the fact that marriage is not a fundamentally protected right?? Well, at least that's one more educated American...better than nothing.

Oh... and your logic, just like kal'stangs, is flawed. And y'all wonder why the LGBT attorneys have not been successful in walking all over our Constitution and giving the federal government the power to mandate the legalization of LGBT marriages. Oh wait I know, because they make the same arguments you guys are making.

Wrong. I was humoring you. I know that eventually we will see legal same sex marriage across this country and it will very likely be due to a SC ruling. Another court just today ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional.

Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional - Yahoo! News

In the last few years, numerous judges have ruled that not allowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional, for both the state and federal governments. Because it is unconstitutional for a government under our Constitution to deny people the right to enter into the legal contract of marriage on the basis of their sex.

Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?