SSM, You're Either for Equal Rights or You're Not [W:1013]

[Trip]

Marriage is one the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our identity and very liberties. It is a recognition that we, as individuals, have the right to commit ourselves to another person so intimately, that this commitment is made lasting through sickness, health, for better and worse times, till our final and ultimate deaths. Do you stand opposed to this? Do you think this is something that ought to be taken away from people? In your ideal world, if you went the county clerk's office to get married, do you believe the clerk should be able to judge the quality of your relationship and issue licenses based off of his/her opinion of you?

I mean, assuming you are married right now, do you think you would have passed the government's judgement?

Strange, I thought that if one entirely committed themselves to another person, without their involvement, it was known as stalking.


The government does not own marriage, and neither do the states, and as such neither has the original authority to alter marriage.

People are entitled to freedom of association, but not entitled to who they want to associate with, and having society recognize that as the equivalent of other associations.

 

[brothern]

Strange, I thought that if one entirely committed themselves to another person, without their involvement, it was known as stalking. The government does not own marriage, and neither do the states, and as such neither has the original authority to alter marriage. People are entitled to freedom of association, but not entitled to who they want to associate with, and having society recognize that as the equivalent of other associations.

Unfortunately, this is probably why you are going to lose this debate within the next five years. You are so intent on excluding gay people and making them feel hated and unwelcome in society, that you miss the larger picture and even betray your small government ideals as a conservative. No, the government doesn't "own" marriage. Government recognizes secular marriages for legal and social purposes. This fight is about the legal recognition of same-sex couples, and if you don't come to terms with this, you are going to lose every last person who you even have a chance of persuading.

Secondly. People are not entitled who they want to associate with? If that were true, does the government have the power to decide who and who cannot associate with each other? Do you want to have the government to have this power? I can't remember the last time that anyone who believed in liberty sought to grant the government the privilege to decide who and who cannot associate. Certainly there were those that tried to limit the freedom to associate; I can think of racists who tried to prevent white-black interaction. Trip, do you believe those racists were on firm Constitutional ground to limit the freedom of association?

 

[Verthaine]

Race doesnt have anything to do with the de facto status of marriage.

You are quite correct. Like I stated as an opinion in post #401,it has every thing to do with "who gets to f*** who" and who gets to control that.

Prohibiting interracial marriage was applied afterwards to marriage, by society, just as slavery was created by society imposing the transition from indentured servitude into perpetual servitude.

Like I said, it's my opinion that it's all about "control".
Anything else is just a bulls*** excuse to cover that up.
But like I said,that's just my opinion.
I'm still allowed to have those,aren't I?

The biological fact of human reproduction is not altered by race, but it is altered by the fact that same sex unions do not produce offspring.

I'm not arguing that.
I clearly wrote in post # 401
"Gays have been practically "married" to one another since the beginning,gay men have no problem getting a woman pregnant,gay women have no problem getting pregnant by a man,and gay people can and do raise perfectly healthy well adjusted children,and they've been doing it since the beginning."
This thread isn't about "procreation" it's about self same marriage.
May point out that a heterosexual men and women don't actually have to be "married' to one another to procreate.

So are you trying to claim that the denial of same sex marriage makes gays the most denied case of civil rights in this country's history, entirely replacing blacks?

I'm not making any claims.All I did was state my opinions.Whether you like them or not, to be perfectly honest with you, I really couldn't care less.
Read post # 401.Everything I needed to say is contained in that post.
However you choose to spin that is what is going on in your own mind, I have no control over that.

 

[Master PO]

Secondly. People are not entitled who they want to associate with? If that were true, does the government have the power to decide who and who cannot associate with each other? Do you want to have the government to have this power? I can't remember the last time that anyone who believed in liberty sought to grant the government the privilege to decide who and who cannot associate. Certainly there were those that tried to limit the freedom to associate; I can think of racists who tried to prevent white-black interaction. Trip, do you believe those racists were on firm Constitutional ground to limit the freedom of association?

sorry people are entitled to association with who they want to, even the court states that, the government does not have rights to association it has powers only, its in the first amendment, right to association.

 

[Trip]

You are quite correct. Like I stated as an opinion in post #401,it has every thing to do with "who gets to f*** who" and who gets to control that.


Like I said, it's my opinion that it's all about "control".
Anything else is just a bulls*** excuse to cover that up.
But like I said,that's just my opinion.
I'm still allowed to have those,aren't I?

I'm pretty certain that this is not about "who gets to f***" whom, as people have pretty much been doing whatever without government intrusion for a long while.

And while this is very likely about "control", it is subject to question exactly who is controlling whom. The consistent approach from the Leftists supporting gay marriage is to dictate the terms of society, and more narrowly the terms of marriage, long having denigrated marriage, and asserted state control over individuals and their education <indoctrination>, and denying families their free choice.

It is no surprise given this control and dictate by the Progressive left, that the argument promoting gay marriage, has involved denial of state referendums against gay marriage, court and legislature dictate of same sex marriage, intent to corrupt the "Full Faith and Credit" clause to impose gay marriage on those states not recognizing gay marriage, and corruption of even the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, which never involved people fabricating their own terms, to then claim denial of equal protection under those fabricated terms.

Yes, there is quite a lot of control going on, but not at all the control you're making false claim to.

This thread isn't about "procreation" it's about self same marriage.
May point out that a heterosexual men and women don't actually have to be "married' to one another to procreate.

If it were actually about "self same marriage", then you wouldn't be wanting to dictate the terms of society to forcibly introduce another definition of marriage that is not the same at all.

There is nothing involved in the recognition of marriage that compels men and women to procreate, and that is only your own reversal of biological fact, reversing cause and effect, so as to then deny the very reason for societies the world over throughout mankind's history to recognize man-woman unions as marriage - nothing but a flaw of logic, and not a logical argument at all stemming from what I've indicated.

Marriage is recognized, and the union of marriage promoted by societies throughout mankind's history, precisely because society benefits from that union being durable and enduring so as to promote a stable environment for the upbringing of healthy, productive proto-citizens.

Gay unions simply are not, and cannot be, the equivalent of heterosexual unions, by this very fact, but this false equivalence is being forced into society by fabrication of a false definition of marriage, and then claiming "civil rights!" by that fabricated definition and distorted terms.

I'm not making any claims.All I did was state my opinions.Whether you like them or not, to be perfectly honest with you, I really couldn't care less.
Read post # 401.Everything I needed to say is contained in that post.
However you choose to spin that is what is going on in your own mind, I have no control over that.

We all make claims, but direct and implicit in what we say. Implicit in your the claim about gay marriage, is that somehow gays have been denied marriage and equal rights throughout this country's history, both of which are patently false, and even verging on the ridiculous. Gays are in no way similar in standing to blacks in the 60s, and have had every right afforded other citizens in the Constitution, and under the same terms.

I obviously do recognize the fact that there have been instances of prejudice and discrimination against gays, but nowhere have these been institutionalized by government, at least not in modern times.

Simple fact: "rights" themselves are specifically recognized <not provided thereby> in the U.S. Constitution to protect individuals from the denial of those rights by government itself.

It is a corruption of those rights, and their purpose, that put government in the position to police rights, and use "rights" as some sort of "demand license" against other fellow private citizens, demanding free private citizens recognize and capitulate to those "rights", when this is actually impinging on the rights of those private citizens themselves.

As example, sure, it is an optimal ideal that every private business have wheelchair ramps, but it is not government's legitimate authority to compel those ramps upon every private business and organization - this is government engaging in Social Engineering by its corrupt and self-awarded authority to police rights, which came about from the 14th Amendment - and the desire that blacks should be recognized as having the right to vote, and freedom of association afforded every individual.

What we have done, in our profound ignorance as a once-free people, is under the auspices of "rights", actually created the environment where government can deny and impinge on those real rights in the name of corrupt rights, and under a false authority deliberately prohibited to government under the Constitution.

And this too will be the legacy of "gay marriage" being forced on the people and society as a whole - not the recognition of rights, but the corruption of rights overall, along with the denial of a free society, facilitating the obscenity of Social Engineering, and the further expansion of government tyrannous dictate. By these same terms, ObamaCare was forced upon free Americans under the corrupt fabrication of a "right to health care", fundamentally changing the terms of the Constitution between citizen and government, with government taking de facto ownership of citizen's bodies, and making us slaves unto government. Yet, despite the Court ruling, these issues are by no means resolved, and beyond doubt are unacceptable.

Yes, it is about "control" but not at all the control you're claiming, with real control and dictate of the terms of society - Social Engineering - actually being the goal of gay marriage proponents.

That is not just my own opinion, but rather the facts of the Constitution and this country ... "whether you like them or not."

 

[calamity]

Some people simply refuse to accept that same sex couples have Rights like Heterosexual ones. Actively participating to deny those folks their rights by voting against SSM, for example, based on nothing but prejudice afainst gays, is bigoted.

Pretty much clear cut. You don't have to be for gay marriage. But, if you are against it, you're a bigot.

 

[Trip]

Some people simply refuse to accept that same sex couples have Rights like Heterosexual ones. Actively participating to deny those folks their rights by voting against SSM, for example, based on nothing but prejudice afainst gays, is bigoted.

Pretty much clear cut. You don't have to be for gay marriage. But, if you are against it, you're a bigot.

It has nothing to do with bigotry, but does have to do with discrimination, which was not originally a negative word.

I would be among the first to jump on the wagon to promote "civil unions" for gays, but the fact is that is not what gays want. They want to alter society, force a false equivalence, distort the constitution, abuse government authority, and promote social engineering dictate by big government on society as a whole, denying and subverting others freedoms.

I am not on-board with the idea that gay unions are the same thing as heterosexual unions, nor the distortion of what constitutes marriage, while entirely disregarding for the entire reason marriage was recognized societies the world over in the first place.

"Discrimination" is a positive thing, when it comes to recognizing that it is a false equivalence to indicate that gay unions are the same as heterosexual marriage, and in recognizing that while gay persons have the same rights as other individuals, that the same rights necessitates the same terms being applied, and not fabricating entirely different terms to only then claim denial of rights. Marriage is available to gays under precisely the same terms as other individuals.

What you and others really mean by "equal rights", is actually "equal outcome", and nowhere is it the business of rights, or the Constitution, to provide equal outcome, and dictate the terms of society.

Some person's failure to discriminate fact from falsehood, does not constitute other person's bigotry.

What's "pretty much clear cut" is that gay supporters are militant in their demand that they can dictate and control the terms of society, and then want to be appreciated afterwards, none of which is reasonable.

 

[Trip]

1.) wrong they called it a right 14 times, you lose
2.) true but in the couple states supreme courts it made it to they ruling siad SSM couldnt be banned based on equality/discrimination this is still being deceived on possible and will be in the future

3.) again you are simply wrong

SCOTUS has stated marriage is a right 14 times, you lose

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Strange, but those 14 case are recognition of the definition of marriage - between a man and a woman - and not involving any sort of affirmation by the Court that choosing any partner, while redefining what constitutes marriage, as being a fundamental right.

Only gradually, over the course of those decisions, did the court consider the government's dictate of the terms of those choices to be inappropriate, indicating the need examine government's interest in recognizing marriage's importance to society, but even those references have no direct bearing on any right to redefine marriage, and gay marriage itself, and it is a falsehood to claim such.

Even the most current of those cited cases, Lawrence v Texas 2003, addressed sodomy laws, and the Court struck those down. The citation of that case at your reference indicates, “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Conspicuously, this only recognizes the rights of homosexuals to make their own choices in life, just as heterosexuals do, but nowhere indicates that there should be reward for those choices, nor provides any support for the fabrication that is gay marriage.

It would seem that you lose, as the terms of marriage recognized by the court, are not the terms of marriage that you're promoting. The claim that those references provide support for gay marriage, is more-than-a-tad misrepresentative.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Doesn't matter if it is a right or a privilege, no state can make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Actually there you are wrong. It is a privilege to have a driver's license, and the state can revoke that.

 

[AGENT J]

Strange, but those 14 case are recognition of the definition of marriage - between a man and a woman - and not involving any sort of affirmation by the Court that choosing any partner, while redefining what constitutes marriage, as being a fundamental right.

Only gradually, over the course of those decisions, did the court consider the government's dictate of the terms of those choices to be inappropriate, indicating the need examine government's interest in recognizing marriage's importance to society, but even those references have no direct bearing on any right to redefine marriage, and gay marriage itself, and it is a falsehood to claim such.

Even the most current of those cited cases, Lawrence v Texas 2003, addressed sodomy laws, and the Court struck those down. The citation of that case at your reference indicates, “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Conspicuously, this only recognizes the rights of homosexuals to make their own choices in life, just as heterosexuals do, but nowhere indicates that there should be reward for those choices, nor provides any support for the fabrication that is gay marriage.

It would seem that you lose, as the terms of marriage recognized by the court, are not the terms of marriage that you're promoting. The claim that those references provide support for gay marriage, is more-than-a-tad misrepresentative.

did i ever say those SCOTUS cases were talking about somethign else other than man and woman? nope why do you try to makes stuff up?
fact remaiins marriage is a right, nice try at trying to make up a false argument, you lost you said:

Strange, it seems SCOTUS has not ruled that marriage is a right, nor has it made same sex marriage applicable throughout the United States.

In fact you're completely mistaken about SCOTUS even once indicating such a thing.

you even doubled down. Like i said SCOTUS disagrees with you and you are wrong.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Actually there you are wrong. It is a privilege to have a driver's license, and the state can revoke that.

If marriage isn't a right, and isn't a privilege, what do you think a legal civil marriage is?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

If marriage isn't a right, and isn't a privilege, what do you think a legal civil marriage is?

When did I say it wasn't a privilege?

 

[calamity]

It has nothing to do with bigotry, but does have to do with discrimination, which was not originally a negative word.

I would be among the first to jump on the wagon to promote "civil unions" for gays, but the fact is that is not what gays want. They want to alter society, force a false equivalence, distort the constitution, abuse government authority, and promote social engineering dictate by big government on society as a whole, denying and subverting others freedoms.

I am not on-board with the idea that gay unions are the same thing as heterosexual unions, nor the distortion of what constitutes marriage, while entirely disregarding for the entire reason marriage was recognized societies the world over in the first place.

"Discrimination" is a positive thing, when it comes to recognizing that it is a false equivalence to indicate that gay unions are the same as heterosexual marriage, and in recognizing that while gay persons have the same rights as other individuals, that the same rights necessitates the same terms being applied, and not fabricating entirely different terms to only then claim denial of rights. Marriage is available to gays under precisely the same terms as other individuals.

What you and others really mean by "equal rights", is actually "equal outcome", and nowhere is it the business of rights, or the Constitution, to provide equal outcome, and dictate the terms of society.

Some person's failure to discriminate fact from falsehood, does not constitute other person's bigotry.

What's "pretty much clear cut" is that gay supporters are militant in their demand that they can dictate and control the terms of society, and then want to be appreciated afterwards, none of which is reasonable.

How does gays wishing to marry "force a false equivalence, distort the constitution, abuse government authority, and promote social engineering dictate by big government on society as a whole, denying and subverting others freedoms"?

 

[wolfsgirl]

When did I say it wasn't a privilege?

Sorry, I misread your post. ( More coffee is in order)

So since you think marriage is a privilege, and the constitution says that no state can make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Then no state can make laws preventing same sex couples from having the privilege of a legal civil marriage since they allow marriage to opposite sex couples, UNLESS they can show compelling state interest in doing so. So far no one has been able to show how banning SSM furthers the state interest in allowing marriage.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Sorry, I misread your post. ( More coffee is in order)

So since you think marriage is a privilege, and the constitution says that no state can make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Then no state can make laws preventing same sex couples from having the privilege of a legal civil marriage since they allow marriage to opposite sex couples, UNLESS they can show compelling state interest in doing so. So far no one has been able to show how banning SSM furthers the state interest in allowing marriage.

The 14th ammendment doesn't apply here. We are talking about a preference.

 

[AGENT J]

The 14th ammendment doesn't apply here. We are talking about a preference.

according to who?
state supreme courts have disagreed with you. When the issues has made it this far SSCs have ruled that banning SSM is in violation of the equal protection clause of a state constitution.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

according to who?
state supreme courts have disagreed with you. When the issues has made it this far SSCs have ruled that banning SSM is in violation of the equal protection clause of a state constitution.

That's fine, didn't know we were talking about individual states.

 

[AGENT J]

That's fine, didn't know we were talking about individual states.

well since its never been ruled on yet at SCOTUS level so there no toher way to talk about it really

what matters is when pushed to SSC level banning same sex has been ruled a violation of equal protection clause of a state constitution at least in two courts maybe more. i think its Iowa and Connecticut?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

well since its never been ruled on yet at SCOTUS level so there no toher way to talk about it really

what matters is when pushed to SSC level banning same sex has been ruled a violation of equal protection clause of a state constitution at least in two courts maybe more. i think its Iowa and Connecticut?

Liberal states. That is hardly an overall sweep of truth or reality for the whole nation.

 

[AGENT J]

Liberal states. That is hardly an overall sweep of truth or reality for the whole nation.

i have no idea what you are even saying or trying to imply, did anybody say these rullings make it it a sweep of the nation? can you point that out?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

i have no idea what you are even saying or trying to imply, did anybody say these rullings make it it a sweep of the nation? can you point that out?

Did you say you did. I was making a statement.

 

[AGENT J]

Did you say you did. I was making a statement.

how does your statement relate to anything being discussed? whats it impact?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

oh just a meaningless random statement that has no bearing on anything, ok

Do you ever say anything productive? Or do you just like to troll around and throw out the words "liar" "dishonest" "meaningless" and "kid?"

 

[AGENT J]

Do you ever say anything productive? Or do you just like to troll around and throw out the words "liar" "dishonest" "meaningless" and "kid?"

yes im always productive, more productive than a random post that has no meaning or bearing.
nobody is trolling you, dont like questions make better posts.
and yes when those words are accurate i use them :shrug:

now if you will please explain how does your statement relate to anything being discussed? whats it impact?

 

[wolfsgirl]

The 14th ammendment doesn't apply here. We are talking about a preference.

Gender is a preference?

Again this is about discriminating based on gender. A man can marry a woman, but a woman can not marry a woman.
Kinda like how a black person could marry a black, but a white couldn't marry a black person.