Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

Marriage is about a lot more than love and I think I have made a better case of that than gays have proving it is anything. Being beautiful and sincere does not a marriage make.

Neither does procreation.

After getting dinged for proving the 14th amendment isn't about equal rights for all and having no idea why, seeing that I have been more insulted on a personal level by all of you, makes me want to ask you what makes you say something like that?

As far as I'm concerned, your lecture doesn't proof anything. To me, these are your personal beliefs and I disagree with them. Is disagreement insulting to you? Well then, I guess I'm insulting you.
Anyway, it's clear we agree to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, relationships ARE about love, and commitment. It's hard work, but it can be rewarding.

Even after so many posts no one has pointed out why one small group with a different lifestyle should be recognized officially by the government and not all the other different lifestyle groups.

Even our gay friends in this thread disagree with many of these other lifestyle groups too and express the same reasons why they disagree with other lifestyles just as what was use against their own lifestyle 30 plus years ago, but today though they are still a very small portion of the population like all these other lifestyle groups, but they feel their lifestyle is in a different category and deserves recognition and acceptance by all. If anyone says “no, no, no” you personally don’t need to agree with the gay lifestyle just the government, I would need to remind you all that official acceptance of their lifestyle by our government is also forced acceptance by law for everyone.

When you throw in the whole marriage thing you all still need to remember that 90% of the population is religious and it just so happens that the majority sees the gay lifestyle as a lifestyle that is against their religious beliefs, add in marriage as a huge part of those beliefs I would need to ask is it too hard to understand why most of America doesn’t want the gay lifestyle officially, under law, to be recognized and accepted by our government? For those of you who say that the majority of America needs to change their views you are basically saying they need to change their fundamental beliefs in their religion. Add in the non-religious views, by once again the vast majority, that these different lifestyles are not of the norm and you want everyone to change their fundamental social and moral views as well. Remember though that the idea that a ten year old should not be married to a 50 year old is also a fundamental social and moral view, but the funny part is that the gays want everyone to change their views on just one particular lifestyle, theirs, since the gays seem to see many of the other lifestyles as abnormal, just as the majority does, except their own.



[edit on 12-9-2009 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Even after so many posts no one has pointed out why one small group with a different lifestyle should be recognized officially by the government and not all the other different lifestyle groups.

Even our gay friends in this thread disagree with many of these other lifestyle groups too and express the same reasons why they disagree with other lifestyles just as what was use against their own lifestyle 30 plus years ago . . .

Exactly - what consenting adult group are you talking about?

Not lifestyle - - Birth Right.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Annee]

Originally posted by DarknessFollows

Neither does procreation.

No, procreation is what happens when married people of the opposite sex have sex and one, the female, gets pregnant and has child. Agree? Thanks.

As far as I'm concerned, your lecture doesn't proof anything. To me, these are your personal beliefs and I disagree with them. Is disagreement insulting to you?

No, am I you, for disagreeing?

Well then, I guess I'm insulting you.

Not a chance

Anyway, it's clear we agree to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, relationships ARE about love, and commitment. It's hard work, but it can be rewarding.

Yes, I agree, with this caveat, those kind of relationships that bear children require much more committment and more sacrifice. So to keep these kind of relationships from falling apart, a construct was created to assist in helping them stay together as best as a society which depends on the best upbrininging of these children they can offer them as we all know the costs we all pay for kids from broken homes, children of divorce etc.

Divorce is another legal construct originally making it harder for couples to split apart offering such services as counceling through family court and many times having to decide property rights, child custody etc. Basically Marriage was a neccessary solution which was created around opposite sex relationships because they were so messy and much more complicated then say two gay lovers ever get when it comes to times they get bad and one wants to break off from the other.

So to make couples take it more seriously and to make a public committment they would the ceremony for marriage was that construct having nothing to do with love for that is what they are entering into the contract of marriage. Love isn't about marriage between one man and one woman. But marriage is about one man and one womans love for each other and that type of relationships complexities.

For gays to argue why they should be kept out of the marriage construct merely because they have sex with someone of same gender, then I would submit why does marriage have to be a sexual relationship at all? If people are all equal and given all the same rights to everything everyone else has, why not let best freinds get married? Certainly they could use the bennies it offers isn't that what equal means? I mean what is so damn special about heterosexuals getting married? Why not ALLOW brothers and sisters under the equal protections argument using the same logic gays have been.

Don't THEY deserve marriage too? Eventually everyone knows anyone couold have it and doesn't even mean the same thing nor does it even protect the same type of relationship unique to all those others. Once you allow couples who do not qualify for marriage by the very reason marriage was and always has been traditionally governed and Research on family structure suggests a variety of mechanisms, or processes, through which marriage may reduce the need for costly social programs. family fragmentation costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion each and every year, or more than $1 trillion each decade.


Public debate on marriage in this country has focused on the “social costs” of increases in divorce and unmarried childbearing. Research suggests that the social costs are indeed extensive. When parents part, or fail to marry, their children seem to suffer from increased risks of poverty, mental illness, infant mortality, physical illness, juvenile delinquency and adult criminality, sexual abuse and other forms of family violence, economic hardship, substance abuse, and educational failure, such as increased risk of dropping out of school.

The traditional relationship with all of its responsibility especially where sex and offspring are concerned, have become a pathetic joke and we see the resulting effects as the media capitalizes on the seriousness people take with them on Television shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich.

We are at a critical crossroads in our society and when you watch the people on these television shows that are with children, it is no wonder America is in such a mess. Work has begun to fix many of the problems their are with marriage and the LAST thing it needs is an expanded access to relationships like those same sex couples have. Many of the statistics taken from marriage will then have to be given some kind of marker to know which are the gay ones and which are the real ones.

I say "real" because it will be those that bear children that anyone really is concerned about. Sorry Gay people but their isn't much you can bring to that table when it comes to this and is really why you have no business in it in the first place.



[edit on 12-9-2009 by Stylez]

Religion is a choice.

Gay is a birth right.

If you choose to be religious - that is your personal responsibility - and better not - will not infringe on my life.

ALL citizens shall have Equal Rights by Law.

NO Religion in Government. None - Zilch - Zero. I will NOT be governed by some mystical guy in the sky.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Every civilization that has embraced homosexuality has been destroyed. I fear that we are next. We may decide right or wrong based on our flawed human wisdom, but there is a higher moral standard laid down by the hand of God. I sure wouldn't want to flaunt my disregard of that standard.

[citation needed]

You know, I really hope that the lawmakers notice this on their own and fairly soon. The people of the states are way too lazy to go for this. It's definitely the giant enemy crab's weak spot, and we should hit it for massive damage.

Originally posted by Annee


Those who bring "other" equations into the discussion - - do so - - because they have no legitimate argument for realistic debate of equal rights by law.

Annee, you obvioulsy think you know a lot about the 14th amendment but you and skeptic whatrever his name is are completely out of your element when you are discussing marriage as a right for all under the 14the amendment. You have no clue how wrong you are and its getting where I whince whenever you talk like this and are totally oblivious to the author of the 14th's intent. So Ill quote:

“No State should deny to any such person any of the rights which it guaranties to all men.” —John A. Bingham, March 31, 1871

Do you know who that is?

That is the author of the 14th amendment, lets see what he says the 14th says shall we. I'd pay close attention anne because between this and what you think you know about the expansion powers, I will demolish with the truth. This is a very little know fact about the 14th amendment many lawyers and judges are not aware of but they are finding out fast and it will snap many of the wrongs started in this country right back to where they were supposed to be.

You friend, the one you thanked said this is not a moral issue it is a law issue. When it comes to the 14th amendment NOTHING could be further from the truth and I believe I have found the thread killer on this argument and to the delight of many Christians out there who have been groping for an answer to the 14th amendment. This is the very thorn in the atheist's and gay's side that will have them bristling in anger.

I wonder how many justices on the court actually understand what guarantees the words speak of - and perhaps more importantly for the liberty of the people who cherish self-government - its limits?

One needs to focus on what “laws” are being singled out for equal protection, else, any court can assume for itself without consent of the governed to be the final arbitrator of public morality under the ruse of interpreting constitutional provisions far beyond established boundaries between legislative and judicial branches. As it stands now, there is nothing to stop a future court from declaring there is no “compelling state interest for equal protection purposes” in banning such marriages as polygamy, incestuous, or even marriage between people and fury animals.

How can the court now say you cannot discriminate between same sexes singularly, but it is OK to discriminate between multiple members of the same sex (wives in polygamy), or perhaps those who may be closely related (incestuous)?

The author of the equal protection clause, John A. Bingham of Ohio, said a half dozen times before and after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment that it “takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.” He further pointed out the language does not read no State may deny the equal protection “of its laws, but of the laws.” He is of course referring to the laws of due process (law of the land), i.e., the administration of justice.

Three years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Bingham declares what laws deserves equal protection: “[N]o State should deny to any such person any of the rights which it guaranties to all men.” What laws do States guarantee to all men post Fourteenth Amendment? The laws of due process in the administration of justice, of course.

Why would any State Supreme Court wish to interpret such an import from the Fourteenth Amendment in such an extreme way as to abridge a reserve right of their State to regulate public morality?


Mr. Bingham said: "there was no more of a “vital obligation” of all State legislatures than to “protect morality through law.” "

A couple, who is denied a marriage license by law on account of their same-sex cannot claim denial of the equal protection of the laws because they do not stand to be imprisoned, hanged, or at risk to have their estate arbitrarily confiscated before some court of law.

My state has BANNED same sex marriage and that is the way it is going to stay regardless of what Jaxon Roberts believes he knows about the law.

My state is ready for it and will use this tort to rip it out from coast to coast. Most states and federal judges are having to be reminded of this fact and that many of them have made rulings in an egregious error not interpreting the 14th according to its authors explicit instructions.

In the state of Mass. Same sex marriage is still illegal and they know it but they allow it nevertheless. We will be forcing states and City like Boston MASS. they are not above the laws either.

Oh and by the way, your friend skeptic also said I was saying gays wanting to lower age of consent laws was some kind of scare tactic and that Gays wanting to change the laws all over to have public sex in public restrooms is a joke for anyone to believe that.

Well,, BELIEVE IT:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f3cba6f5b51.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/134ad55f4bee.jpg[/atsimg]



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ff52948c9bb.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ff52948c9bb.jpg[/atsimg]

Just a scare tactic eh?

Yeah, Be afraid, be VERY afraid.








[edit on 12-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Annee

Gay is a birth right.

According to many gays saying it is genetic a mutation of evolution, that wouldn't make it a birth right but a birth defect.

NO Religion in Government. None - Zilch - Zero. I will NOT be governed by some mystical guy in the sky.

No, but you will by believers of that mystical guy in the sky who are in politics.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Even after so many posts no one has pointed out why one small group with a different lifestyle should be recognized officially by the government and not all the other different lifestyle groups.

Even our gay friends in this thread disagree with many of these other lifestyle groups too and express the same reasons why they disagree with other lifestyles just as what was use against their own lifestyle 30 plus years ago . . .

Exactly - what consenting adult group are you talking about?

Not lifestyle - - Birth Right.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Annee]

Annee, I think it would help if you defined "birth right".

By my definition being female is not a "birthright", neither is heterosexuality. I think homosexuality is a preference you are born with but to call any sexuality a "birth right", by the traditional definition, implies a "gift" or inheritance, so I think that is where the confusion lies.

Also before the thread debilitates into a "no god" versus "pro god" encampment, perhaps the two of you could agree to leave religion out of it completely?

You tearing down religion feels to a religious person like Stylez tearing down gays. Religious persons feel an emotional attachment and it is intrinsic to their being in the same way that gays feel about their lovers.

If the thread is about the legalities of gay marriage why is no one talking about it from the civil/Constitutional perspective?

Why is it:

Blah blah blah, homosexuals are perverts.

Blah blah blah, the christian god is suck

???

The difference between "Christians" and how they view their faith is as wide as that of human sexuality. Therefore to generalize about homosexuals, pagans, Christians, etc is plainly wrong.

I bowed out of this topic when it hit polygamy lest my own feelings infringe or hurt someone else, because, after all, its a flippin' message board.

Maybe, just maybe, those of you still discussing this topic could create a new thread on plain old homosexuality and leave this to a discussion of the Constitution and the legal ramifications? All I see is that people are going to get hurt feelings.

Perhaps, Stylez just means to say he does not want it to become legal and keep the definition "man-woman" and can argue it in regards to the rights being awarded for the possibility of procreation,

then

Jaxon can argue that gays can adopt and so on...

Without anyone being called a pervert, without anyone's religion becoming disparaged, etc.

If I were Jaxon (I'm not speaking for him) my feelings would be hurt. I'm sure no one wants to hurt each other.

Yes?

Okay, back to Alex Jones...

Originally posted by A Fortiori

By my definition being female is not a "birthright", neither is heterosexuality. I think homosexuality is a preference you are born with but to call any sexuality a "birth right", by the traditional definition, implies a "gift" or inheritance, so I think that is where the confusion lies.

Also before the thread debilitates into a "no god" versus "pro god" encampment, perhaps the two of you could agree to leave religion out of it completely?

First off - I am not tearing down religion. And I believe it was you who made some comment about me not believing in God. Which is purely your assumption. Literally you insulted me. Which is why I listed exactly what church I am a member of.

NO - I am NOT Christian by CHOICE.

However - - religion is a personal choice and personal responsibility of the believer and his/her fellow believers - - - Not to INFRINGE on non-believers or believers of something different. Even though I do believe in a Creator - - - that belief has NO Business being a part of the Law of the Land - - which must be unbiased and 100% fair to EVERY citizen - - - guaranteeing Full Equal Rights.

You don't consider your gender a birthright? How sad.

I have nothing from any intelligent criteria - - to address someone who still considers being gay a choice. Maybe choice prior to physical birth - - but fully a birth right in physcial birth.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
If the thread is about the legalities of gay marriage why is no one talking about it from the civil/Constitutional perspective?

Why is it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I were Jaxon (I'm not speaking for him) my feelings would be hurt. I'm sure no one wants to hurt each other.

Jaxon Roberts, should be the last person to get upset when he creates entire threads as "Just a joke" that are for the explicit reason for making fun of Religious right wingers and I havn't insulted him in a personal attack that I know of, NOR have I called him any names. He has called me more than a few directly about me and too me .

No offense was even considerd much less taken.

He has ridiculed my debate as lousy and I would be honored in a formal debate with him if he likes. That way we can see just how great he is. The offer has been made.

Okay, back to Alex Jones...

Wait for meeee!



[edit on 12-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Annee
Even though I do believe in a Creator - - - that belief has NO Business being a part of the Law of the Land - - which must be unbiased and 100% fair to EVERY citizen - - - guaranteeing Full Equal Rights.

You don't consider your gender a birthright? How sad.

That creator you say has no business being a part of the law is said to endow us with certain unalienable rights, among them are, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So wrong again anne, for if it were anything lower than God, MAN could take them from us and is why these are said to be "self evident".

Take a look at just about any preamble of any states constitution and read what they all say at the beginining.

Guess which "creator" it is referring to.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by A Fortiori

By my definition being female is not a "birthright", neither is heterosexuality. I think homosexuality is a preference you are born with but to call any sexuality a "birth right", by the traditional definition, implies a "gift" or inheritance, so I think that is where the confusion lies.

Also before the thread debilitates into a "no god" versus "pro god" encampment, perhaps the two of you could agree to leave religion out of it completely?

First off - I am not tearing down religion. And I believe it was you who made some comment about me not believing in God. Which is purely your assumption. Literally you insulted me. Which is why I listed exactly what church I am a member of.

No, I did not assume you didn't believe in God. Go back and read again. That was a different poster.

NO - I am NOT Christian by CHOICE.

Did I ask? No, I read this a few posts up.

However - - religion is a personal choice and personal responsibility of the believer and his/her fellow believers - - - Not to INFRINGE on non-believers or believers of something different.

Did I suggest anything to the contrary? That is absolutely true and vice versa. The free exercise of any religion is also protected.

Even though I do believe in a Creator - - - that belief has NO Business being a part of the Law of the Land - - which must be unbiased and 100% fair to EVERY citizen - - - guaranteeing Full Equal Rights.

Annee, please go back and read my posts. I've never suggested the contrary. I've stated which way I voted in my own state.

You don't consider your gender a birthright? How sad.

*shrugs*

I could be a man in the next life. Maybe even a horse. It wouldn't make it a birthright, just what I am at the moment.

I have nothing from any intelligent criteria - - to address someone who still considers being gay a choice. Maybe choice prior to physical birth - - but fully a birth right in physcial birth.

Who are you talking to? Because you posted to me, and yet you are either talking to someone else or putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a choice. I said a preference you are born with. I didn't "choose" heterosexuality. It's what I am. My former roommates didn't choose homosexuality, they even tried very hard to choose heterosexuality. Ultimately, they are homosexual and that is something that just "is" about them.

I asked you to define "birth right" because in the historical meaning what we are born with is our "starter package" and if we receive something on top of that like, oh, say a kingdom, or a herd of goats that's a birthright.

I was suggesting that the whole topic of what happened in Vermont and it's implications from a legal and Constitutional point of view is interesting in and of itself without all of the "team" stuff.

I am very interested in Jaxon's supposition that it could mean legality in all of the states. I would love to hear from a Constitutional lawyer.

We already know there are those of us who feel that homosexuality is not a perversion and some that do feel that way. We already know that many of you feel it is all the fault of religion that they do not have equal rights, and some that feel that it is the fault of homosexuals that religions people's are losing rights.

Got the memo. Hearing it again just leads to people being bruised and feelings being hurt when perhaps we could discuss the law and the Constitution, leaving no one hurt?

Maybe?

Hypocrisy: I can say/insult gays - - but don't you dare "touch" my religion.

Yeah - OK!

reply to post by A Fortiori


If I misunderstood - then I misunderstood.

I'm not so sure I did. Because it keeps happening.

There seem to be mixed signals - - I however will be more diligent.

Originally posted by Annee
Hypocrisy: I can say/insult gays - - but don't you dare "touch" my religion.

Yeah - OK!

Annee, do you give anything more than a cursory glance at what people are writing? I said that it would be nice if people ceased to insult gays and religion as it is unproductive, and quite frankly, off topic. I've engaged in this, too, and pulled back because it was turning ugly and I choose not to hurt anyone's feelings. Not only is it not nice, but it makes everyone shut down.

Instead of reading and absorbing and then mulling it over, it turns into reading so you can point-counter-point the other poster. That's too bad, is all.

The thread is supposed to be about the state of Vermont's decision and how it affects all fifty states. What could have been a really cool thread has gone on and on into an ad hominem debate rather than a Constitutional debate.

That was my only point.

Oh and to ask you to define "birthright".

PS: I'm not trying to insult you or anyone. It's just you are not going to change Stylez view on homosexuality and he's not going to change yours, but maybe if the emotions were removed there could be some good back and forth about the thread topic.

Frankly I think the whole polygamy thing would be a good debate topic in SD's "pub". It was an interesting back and forth that I appreciated. Its just I feel we all overran Jaxon's intentions with this thread and the legal implications are of great importance to him and I'd like to get back to that.

Of course, I was only suggesting and people can do what they want, but I really would like to know more about the implications of the Vermont decision.

reply to post by Annee


And I did have fun posting with you and hope we can do it again...

Just on an Alex Jones thread.

That creator you say has no business being a part of the law is said to endow us with certain unalienable rights, among them are, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

god guiding our laws is different from the seperation of church and state. look at what jesus had to say about religion.. and as far as unailienable rights it seems to be the main aganda of the right wing religous that gays should be denied what what most others get.. as in the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.. and lets not forget that marriage ( in its many forms)was around a lot longer than christianity..

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by Annee
Hypocrisy: I can say/insult gays - - but don't you dare "touch" my religion.

Yeah - OK!

Annee, do you give anything more than a cursory glance at what people are writing? I said that it would be nice if people ceased to insult gays and religion as it is unproductive, and quite frankly, off topic. I've engaged in this, too, and pulled back because it was turning ugly and I choose not to hurt anyone's feelings. Not only is it not nice, but it makes everyone shut down.

If you notice my posts are very short and to the point. By Choice.

I never blah blah blah and word pad my opinion or point of view.

There really should be no question on my meaning.

It truly amazes me that you attempt to complicate "birth right".

--------------------------------------------

Let me point this out very clearly. Religion is the #1 obstacle to deny gays equal rights. For you to try to declare it "off limits" in gay discussion is ridiculous.

Originally posted by scorand


That creator you say has no business being a part of the law is said to endow us with certain unalienable rights, among them are, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

god guiding our laws is different from the seperation of church and state. look at what jesus had to say about religion.. and as far as unailienable rights it seems to be the main aganda of the right wing religous that gays should be denied what what most others get.. as in the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.. and lets not forget that marriage ( in its many forms)was around a lot longer than christianity..

That is your personal belief and interpretation of. (don't argue personal - its still your thought interpretation no matter where it comes from).

I do not care what someone scribes Jesus as saying. Jesus who?

Simple logic - does not require anything beyond itself. Equal is Equal.

Elephants have a very complex social structure - - and they can't read.

But thank you - - I do believe you are stating you support Equal Rights in Marriage for Gays.