- Joined
- Jul 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,135
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Posted by Columbusite;
"To use that comparison is no better than saying homosexuals can marry heterosexuals."
They can, but choose not to; and the ability to choose is a critical factor in establishing a discriminatory claim.
"In which case you could argue that we have interracial only marriages since blacks could marry whites and it is applied equally."
Homosexuals (Blacks) can Marry homosexuals (Blacks);
Homosexuals (Blacks) can Marry Heterosexuals (Whites);
Homosexuals(Blacks) can Marry Bisexuals (Hispanics);
Homosexuals can Marry Transsexuals (Asians);
Heterosexuals (Whites) can Marry Bisexuals (Hispanics);
Heterosexuals (Whites) can Marry Transsexuals (Asians);
Heterosexuals (Whites) can Marry Heterosexuals (Whites);
Etc;
Etc;
"You have yet to show why it's the governments business to meddle in who marries who.."
Heh, you make it sound like a choice...like anyone should be able to marry anyone they choose....
In short, it's is the government's business to side with opposite-sex 'marriage because that's where money is.
Remember what I said a while back...maybe it was on the "gay 'marriage" thread: The best way to sell gay 'marriage is *not* by crying oh-poor-me civil rights, it's by speaking $$$$ with an "it's for the family" accent.
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-property/
From http://family.findlaw.com/family/newcontent/content/aba/flaw/chp3.html
"The moment a man and woman marry, their relationship acquires a legal status. The United States Supreme Court, when discussing marriage in a 1888 case, said: "The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities."
The rights and obligations of married persons are not the same as single persons. Married persons may have rights to their partner's property and future income; they may be responsible for each other's debts; and they are subject to different tax rates than single persons. State and federal laws determine the scope of the married person's new rights and duties."
Basically, like everything ells, it all comes down to money and property.
You would like to say that the Government has no place "meddling" in who can marry who now....but what about when gay 'marriage is legalized...without an appropriate law, no one has to let you be listed as a spouse regarding hospitole visitation, medical decisions on your spouse's behalf, insurance, legal guardianship, etc....say you and your spouse permanently separate....who gets full or duel legal and/or physical custody of the kids?...who gets visitation?...what if your spouse dies?...does your spouse's pension or S.S.I. go to his parent?...his dog?...if you are not specifically listed on the deed, who gets the house?....where will you live?
Likewise, the bottom line of polotics is money. Congressman are not so willing to change the definition of marriage when they know that, in so doing, they will alienate a good portion of their paycheck (campain contributers).
Regardless of "humanitarian intrests" or "violations of human rights", the United States does NOT go to war unless there is a vested financial intrest (oil). Likewise, regardless of 'civil rights violations', the Congress does not make, amend or repeel legislation unless there is a vested financial intrest.
The government listens to money, not voters.
Gay 'marriage will never become legal where there is no financial intrest.
Where there is a financial intrest, NO ONE will be able to stop gay 'marriage from becoming legal.
"We live in a free country and yet you're dictating the person I can marry based on my/their genitals. You've got to be joking."
Not me, "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It is physically impossible to become "one flash" with a member of the same gender.
Saying that such is equal to opposite-sex 'marriage is a lie, as evidenced by the fact that a SSM partners are physically and physiologically incapable of functioning as Husband and Wife.
"Either the Constitution applies to all citizens or it doesn't."
Of-coarse it applies to everyone, that's why you must show a history of oppression so as to prove discrimination....just like everyone ells would have to do.
"You just wouldn't be able to indoctrinate your children with religion."
There goes the First amendment.
"Of course actually implementing such a thing would be pretty much impossible."
Not in a police state....
"Ideally, parents would allow their children the freedom to make up their own minds, but that's in a prefect world."
Have you ever been a kid? Did your parent's controle you like a zombie(heh, dispite their best efforts)?
I was a Wiccan dispute my parent's disapproval ant attempts to controle and influence me.
"Isn't it the Catholic church that says purgatory was gone, or was that limbo, or both?"
Huh....hmmmm.....I think that they use purgatory and/or "limbo" (no such place) in their spiritual black-mail and emotional manipulation.
I'm not to sure....it may only depend on what mood the priest is in....and if his quire-boy turned him in.....
"Now, do you believe no one is going to hell? Everyone is going to heaven? Even Hitler?"
Everyone who God knew in the beginning will be with him in the end. No one leaves the Earth until they have finished what they came to do. Then there is the Judgment, where we experience all of our actions, every single consequence and the "rain drop" effect.
There are humans who are not God's children, they were created for Satan's use...to deceive...evangelical Christians think that anyone who does not subscribe to their view is such a person...truth is, their pastor could be one. God never knew these humans who are not children of God, so they are disposed of in the Judgment. Was Hitler one of them?...well, the pre-Woden Hitler, probably not...the post-Woden Hitler....could be. These are the people who get flung into hell. I could expand on it, with supporting scripture, if you would like.
"Umm, SSM couples can in fact have children of their own."
Women do not produce sperm, nor can a man bear a child.
**That is a core observation which is constantly ignored.**
"I have a friend who knows a gay man who copulated with a female to have children..."
See?...the man could not produce children with his male partner. He had to go to a woman. That child came from a *one man and one woman* union.
Proves my point.
"...Yeah. Also, couples can just have a surrogate mother or a mother have a sperm donor..."
Where as a healthy man and a healthy woman can reproduce on their own, 2 healthy men or 2 healthy women must ALWAYS go outside their relationship to have children.
A lesbian couple may be able to carry children, but since they must go outside their relationship in order to acquire sperm (because women do not produce sperm), that lesbian couple can not produce children of their own.
A gay couple may be able to produce sperm, but because they must go outside their relationship in order to aquifer an egg or carry the child (because a man does not produce eggs nor can a man carry a child), the gay couple can not produce children of their own.
Where did the 2 men get the egg? That's right, a woman.
Proves my point.
"There's really not and I wouldn't be surprised if someone else found that loophole I did. Unless I really was the 1st in which case: yay me!"
The 14th. says "equal protection", do you concede my "slippery-slope" then?
Doing so by no means concedes the issue. sissy-boy agrees with it, and I don't think any rational person could say that he has conceded this issue.
"Even when a gay person is walking down the street they are still "being "gay. They aren't just gay when they are in the bedroom. It is a part of an identity and more than the choice to act on it and pursue a relationship with the same sex."
I see the point your making here, and I agree with homosexuality being an intergal part of one's identity. However, I could also imagine bisexuals who wished to marry a man and a woman. Certainly bisexuality is just as much a part of their identity as homosexuality is to others.
Though this may be a flimsy way to argue 'civil Rights, one might say that legalized opposite and same-sex 'marriages, but not polygamy, discriminates against bisexuals. After all, why is it the governments business to meddle in who marries who.
"I really don't see why you'd be scared of polygamy becoming legal or incest. Both are not common and both are looked down upon and I don't see that changing. Where change might occur I'd see more acceptance toward polygamy than for incest which I just don't see changing, but not on a large scale. People already practice polygamy, bigamy, and incest in this country. I don't see it's being legal making it any more enticing. "
Such things are no better then what is found in the animal kingdom. As made example of in Rome: when moral corruption is abound, civil unrest, power abuse, and enemies who smell weakness will bring about the violent end of that people.
When a society permits an abomination to exist, the abomination grows from the minority it was, when made legal, into a staple practice.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6f1fe0a-5615-11da-b04f-00000e25118c.html
"To use that comparison is no better than saying homosexuals can marry heterosexuals."
They can, but choose not to; and the ability to choose is a critical factor in establishing a discriminatory claim.
"In which case you could argue that we have interracial only marriages since blacks could marry whites and it is applied equally."
Homosexuals (Blacks) can Marry homosexuals (Blacks);
Homosexuals (Blacks) can Marry Heterosexuals (Whites);
Homosexuals(Blacks) can Marry Bisexuals (Hispanics);
Homosexuals can Marry Transsexuals (Asians);
Heterosexuals (Whites) can Marry Bisexuals (Hispanics);
Heterosexuals (Whites) can Marry Transsexuals (Asians);
Heterosexuals (Whites) can Marry Heterosexuals (Whites);
Etc;
Etc;
"You have yet to show why it's the governments business to meddle in who marries who.."
Heh, you make it sound like a choice...like anyone should be able to marry anyone they choose....
In short, it's is the government's business to side with opposite-sex 'marriage because that's where money is.
Remember what I said a while back...maybe it was on the "gay 'marriage" thread: The best way to sell gay 'marriage is *not* by crying oh-poor-me civil rights, it's by speaking $$$$ with an "it's for the family" accent.
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-property/
From http://family.findlaw.com/family/newcontent/content/aba/flaw/chp3.html
"The moment a man and woman marry, their relationship acquires a legal status. The United States Supreme Court, when discussing marriage in a 1888 case, said: "The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities."
The rights and obligations of married persons are not the same as single persons. Married persons may have rights to their partner's property and future income; they may be responsible for each other's debts; and they are subject to different tax rates than single persons. State and federal laws determine the scope of the married person's new rights and duties."
Basically, like everything ells, it all comes down to money and property.
You would like to say that the Government has no place "meddling" in who can marry who now....but what about when gay 'marriage is legalized...without an appropriate law, no one has to let you be listed as a spouse regarding hospitole visitation, medical decisions on your spouse's behalf, insurance, legal guardianship, etc....say you and your spouse permanently separate....who gets full or duel legal and/or physical custody of the kids?...who gets visitation?...what if your spouse dies?...does your spouse's pension or S.S.I. go to his parent?...his dog?...if you are not specifically listed on the deed, who gets the house?....where will you live?
Likewise, the bottom line of polotics is money. Congressman are not so willing to change the definition of marriage when they know that, in so doing, they will alienate a good portion of their paycheck (campain contributers).
Regardless of "humanitarian intrests" or "violations of human rights", the United States does NOT go to war unless there is a vested financial intrest (oil). Likewise, regardless of 'civil rights violations', the Congress does not make, amend or repeel legislation unless there is a vested financial intrest.
The government listens to money, not voters.
Gay 'marriage will never become legal where there is no financial intrest.
Where there is a financial intrest, NO ONE will be able to stop gay 'marriage from becoming legal.
"We live in a free country and yet you're dictating the person I can marry based on my/their genitals. You've got to be joking."
Not me, "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It is physically impossible to become "one flash" with a member of the same gender.
Saying that such is equal to opposite-sex 'marriage is a lie, as evidenced by the fact that a SSM partners are physically and physiologically incapable of functioning as Husband and Wife.
"Either the Constitution applies to all citizens or it doesn't."
Of-coarse it applies to everyone, that's why you must show a history of oppression so as to prove discrimination....just like everyone ells would have to do.
"You just wouldn't be able to indoctrinate your children with religion."
There goes the First amendment.
"Of course actually implementing such a thing would be pretty much impossible."
Not in a police state....
"Ideally, parents would allow their children the freedom to make up their own minds, but that's in a prefect world."
Have you ever been a kid? Did your parent's controle you like a zombie(heh, dispite their best efforts)?
I was a Wiccan dispute my parent's disapproval ant attempts to controle and influence me.
"Isn't it the Catholic church that says purgatory was gone, or was that limbo, or both?"
Huh....hmmmm.....I think that they use purgatory and/or "limbo" (no such place) in their spiritual black-mail and emotional manipulation.
I'm not to sure....it may only depend on what mood the priest is in....and if his quire-boy turned him in.....
"Now, do you believe no one is going to hell? Everyone is going to heaven? Even Hitler?"
Everyone who God knew in the beginning will be with him in the end. No one leaves the Earth until they have finished what they came to do. Then there is the Judgment, where we experience all of our actions, every single consequence and the "rain drop" effect.
There are humans who are not God's children, they were created for Satan's use...to deceive...evangelical Christians think that anyone who does not subscribe to their view is such a person...truth is, their pastor could be one. God never knew these humans who are not children of God, so they are disposed of in the Judgment. Was Hitler one of them?...well, the pre-Woden Hitler, probably not...the post-Woden Hitler....could be. These are the people who get flung into hell. I could expand on it, with supporting scripture, if you would like.
"Umm, SSM couples can in fact have children of their own."
Women do not produce sperm, nor can a man bear a child.
**That is a core observation which is constantly ignored.**
"I have a friend who knows a gay man who copulated with a female to have children..."
See?...the man could not produce children with his male partner. He had to go to a woman. That child came from a *one man and one woman* union.
Proves my point.
"...Yeah. Also, couples can just have a surrogate mother or a mother have a sperm donor..."
Where as a healthy man and a healthy woman can reproduce on their own, 2 healthy men or 2 healthy women must ALWAYS go outside their relationship to have children.
A lesbian couple may be able to carry children, but since they must go outside their relationship in order to acquire sperm (because women do not produce sperm), that lesbian couple can not produce children of their own.
A gay couple may be able to produce sperm, but because they must go outside their relationship in order to aquifer an egg or carry the child (because a man does not produce eggs nor can a man carry a child), the gay couple can not produce children of their own.
Where did the 2 men get the egg? That's right, a woman.
Proves my point.
"There's really not and I wouldn't be surprised if someone else found that loophole I did. Unless I really was the 1st in which case: yay me!"
The 14th. says "equal protection", do you concede my "slippery-slope" then?
Doing so by no means concedes the issue. sissy-boy agrees with it, and I don't think any rational person could say that he has conceded this issue.
"Even when a gay person is walking down the street they are still "being "gay. They aren't just gay when they are in the bedroom. It is a part of an identity and more than the choice to act on it and pursue a relationship with the same sex."
I see the point your making here, and I agree with homosexuality being an intergal part of one's identity. However, I could also imagine bisexuals who wished to marry a man and a woman. Certainly bisexuality is just as much a part of their identity as homosexuality is to others.
Though this may be a flimsy way to argue 'civil Rights, one might say that legalized opposite and same-sex 'marriages, but not polygamy, discriminates against bisexuals. After all, why is it the governments business to meddle in who marries who.
"I really don't see why you'd be scared of polygamy becoming legal or incest. Both are not common and both are looked down upon and I don't see that changing. Where change might occur I'd see more acceptance toward polygamy than for incest which I just don't see changing, but not on a large scale. People already practice polygamy, bigamy, and incest in this country. I don't see it's being legal making it any more enticing. "
Such things are no better then what is found in the animal kingdom. As made example of in Rome: when moral corruption is abound, civil unrest, power abuse, and enemies who smell weakness will bring about the violent end of that people.
When a society permits an abomination to exist, the abomination grows from the minority it was, when made legal, into a staple practice.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6f1fe0a-5615-11da-b04f-00000e25118c.html
