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

page: 28
28
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Okay, Annee. I asked you to define birthright because I don't see your sexuality being a birthright nor your gender nor your eye color nor your haircolor. They are just attributes of an individual.

I perceive the guaranteed, Constitutional rights as your "birthright", or, as I said before, someone allocating to you a herd of goats, hence why I asked you to define it.

As for your replies, I don't mind them being short. My issue was that there are times when words have been put into my proverbial mouth that I never "said", creating a back and forth as I attempted to clarify my meaning. Our little exchanges (and I am guilty again) have derailed Jaxon's thread.

I am now officially leaving the thread. I am not going to read a response because I know myself. I will post a response to that, then you will and so on.

So can we not, as mature humans, leave it as we have had some disagreements of opinion, but that we both accept that the other is a decent sort and appreciate the mental exercise that may help us stave off senility in the far off future?




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

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..


Never said it wasn't scorand but marriage has ALWAYS come about due to the neccessity of that one unique attribute of that one type of relationship between opposite sex. Who cares what happend and where, in the United States this is what marriage has always been and was designed for.

I have already proven it has nothing to do with equal rights and any judge that says it is will now have to prove John Bingham didn't mean what he said in his explanation of the 14th when he wrote it. It simply has nothing to do with what marriage is for PERIOD!

The things you like about marriage you can get through a lawyer or power of attorney but you can't be part of a marriage with two of the same sex! It is as crazy as saying 2+2 =3 it just doesn't work as a correct answer. Sure it is an answer BUT IT ISN"T the CORRECT ONE for that math question! The question what is marriage it is that which is between one man and one woman and always has been in this culture and for very good reasons that benefit the entire nation.

No one denies gays anything. You wanna get married you can

You wanna be a boy scout you can as long as yo uare a boy
you wanna get a room for two? ya can as long as you are no more than two. You wanna be a girl scout Ya can as long as you are a girl.

You wanna be in the womans doubles in tennis? Ya can as long as your good in tennis and as long as you both are woman!

Ya wanna get married, YA CAN as long as you are marrying the opposite sex she is of age and not your sister. I mean you people can't grasp a simple exclusion that defines what marriage is, then what is to stop ALL exclusionary clauses using the same logic for everything?

Sorry that isn't what the 14th amendment is about and I have posted that too. get over it. Gays wanting same sex marriage is NOT marriage.

you want to invent something that brings forth the resources typcal marriage does so Government will sanction incentives and perks FINE do it but leave marriage alone it isn't about same sex anything AND it isn't FOR everyone and it isn't SUPPOSED TO BE!



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   


Sooooooooooo, I guess that means that since no one was ever convicted for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, they were never really murdered viciously...- Jaxon Roberts,


That isn't what I said Jaxon Roberts, obviously a vicious crime was committed as you claim a crime was committed when someone hit you in the head with a bottle but unless you got a suspect and that suspect by the way is innocent till you PROVE he did it, he is free to go.

You haven't got s suspect you haven't proven was guilty of the crime much less a motive to commit one so what is so hard about understanding this?

Same with DB cooper,, obviously money was stolen but who it was can be anyones guess

You can make allegations all you like but untill you have got a suspect and have proven him guilty you got nothing as to the REASON he did it and THAT is what we were talking about wasn't ?

So who is making the straw man here ?

You got hit in the head with a bottle that you believe someone threw at you on purpose. You sAY they said "die faggot" can you prove that, and can you prove HE said it? and now comes the hard part, just who IS he? see what I mean. All you got is a police report that something happened. You can,t extrapolate from that anything more than that. How you can use that to support your argument you are oppressed because you're gay Is pure fantasy.


This is a prime example of your 'debate', and I use the term loosely, style. Ad hominems, straw men and twisting of words... Smoke and mirrors... ATS isn't a pulpit, and no one is here to listen to a sermon...


Ha ha ha Jaxon Roberts you realize everyone of those examples and how you arrived at them is called a straw man. When you used that first crie with Nicole Kidman you said it as your understanding of my argument and then answered it as if I agreed when I never made any such argument a crime wasn't committed but was simply asking what the provocation for this alleged hate crime was or am I to think it was for no reason. You insisted it was because you are gay. Now That is "hearsay" got it?

I never said if you don't convict someone a crime didn't happen YOU DID!

and you question that as i it was MY mistake and MY bad debate.

You just gave an opinion of your own debate Jaxon roberts and your own strawman I just knocked them down



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


You are evidently making some assumptions that are inaccurate, and bear correction.

1) I have never insulted you to any degree. I disagree with you.
2) I am not responsible for any insults you may have perceived from any other poster.
3) I am not gay.



Originally posted by Stylez
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.


Emphasis added.

This is incorrect, and is the basis of the equal protection argument. A gay couple that would be married given the opportunity can build an estate over their lives together... a business, say, or just a home. And that creates an estate. And when one of them dies, under current (unconstitutional) law, a court can indeed arbitrarily confiscate that estate from the surviving partner and grant it to a blood relative of the deceased, with no legal consideration of the surviving partner.

This is one of the most significant arguments the gay community brings to the table on this issue. This situation denies the gay partnership equal protection under due process of the law.

Another point. You keep bringing reproduction into the argument. There is no stipulation in any state's marriage laws that I have ever seen - and I acknowledge I have not seen them all - that requires reproduction in a marriage. My wife and I have chosen to not reproduce, yet our marriage is as valid as anybody's. Reproduction is not an issue.

As far as siblings being married, laws against incest are based on the very real and valid biological danger of two closely related people reproducing (should they choose to do so). It is just not a good idea, biologically, with no need to bring morality into it. In fact, I suspect the moral angle on this has evolved from the biological.

Additionally, and less relevantly, siblings do not normally require the legal protection of marriage, as inheritance frequently goes to blood siblings by default in any case.

Finally, you keep bringing up all the immoral things gay people do, according to your moral compass. You certainly have the right to your opinion on this, but it has no relevance to the question at hand.

Plenty of heterosexual people also want the age of consent lowered, so they can diddle the child of their choice. That is another issue, and is not relevant to the question of two consenting adults being married.

Plenty of heterosexual people abuse marriage - to gain citizenship, for example.

I see you making the same general argument I see in other places these days... it seems you are saying that because some gay people are pedophiles or promiscuous or perform obscene acts in public, then all gay people subscribe to those behaviors and should be barred from the legal institution of marriage, which ignores the reality of the many many gay people who are equally repulsed by all of these activities.

If you replace "gay" with "male" in the above, maybe it will make sense... because some men commit rape, or physically abuse women, all men are suspect, which ignores the many many men who are equally repulsed by all of these activities.

Sadly, this actually is the case many times, but it is not a valid conclusion, either for gay people or men.

All of your arguments, as near as I understand them, boil down to morality, based on religion. That is fine, and I will argue just as hard for your right to hold those opinions and live by that morality. But these religion-based moral arguments have no place in secular US law, if for no other reason than other religions have no objection to gay people being married, and preference of one religion over another in law is definitely a no-go in the US.

Important note, since it seems to be a touchy subject. I am making no attack on your religion. I am saying extreme caution must be used when using any religous arguments to influence secular laws in this country.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Whats it to you or anyone else who marries whom?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Nice sidestep, but your words are your words, which I quoted. If it's not what you meant to say, then it is not my fault you cannot articulate yourself better.

As to the 'kink' issue. While it has absolutely no place in this debate, I would say to you that the day you can find 'Amputee Porn' and 'Midget Porn' in the Gay section of the Adult Video Store, the day that I can go to Mardi Gras or Fantasy Fest and not see women wearing nothing but body paint, the day that I can go into a heterosexual strip club and not see two girls doing each other with a strap-on, you can come complain about how dirty my house is. Until then, I suggest you focus on cleaning your own first.

Now onto this nonsense about the age of consent. It's been posted earlier, but apparently we need a refresher:


Colorado 15
Connecticut 15
Hawaii 14
Idaho 14
Mississippi 16 - [2]
South Carolina 14/16
Virginia 15

[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.
Source.
So once a 12 yr old has been 'deflowered', it's game on! Nice, very nice...


As to South Carolina, it's in it's Constitution:

SC CONSTITUTION SECTION 33. Age of consent. -- No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years. (1999 Act No. 3, Section 1, eff February 16, 1999)
Source.
Yes, that's 1999, not some old addition in the Victorian Age... None of these states are exactly heavily gay populated, to say the least. In fact, all but two are 'red' states. So again, come see me when your house is clean...

Are you out of smoke and mirrors, yet?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
You are evidently making some assumptions that are inaccurate, and bear correction.
1) I have never insulted you to any degree. I disagree with you.


Did I say, that was YOU that insulted me?



2) I am not responsible for any insults you may have perceived from any other poster.


What gave you the idea I thought such a thing as that?



I am not gay.


I didn't ask and it's really none of my business what you are .




This is incorrect, and is the basis of the equal protection argument. A gay couple that would be married given the opportunity can build an estate over their lives together... a business, say, or just a home. And that creates an estate. And when one of them dies, under current (unconstitutional) law, a court can indeed arbitrarily confiscate that estate from the surviving partner and grant it to a blood relative of the deceased, with no legal consideration of the surviving partner.

This is one of the most significant arguments the gay community brings to the table on this issue. This situation denies the gay partnership equal protection under due process of the law.



Of the necessary agents and assigns limited liability co's have, sub-chapter S, corporations and general partnerships utilize or things like property, key man insurance, fiduciary agents such as accountants and / or corp. lawyers create documents called "Power Of Attorney" if one of the board members dies, he may have a living will, created assigning anyone of his choosing to be it's custodial executor. Because Marriage had so many "blood relatives" due to again its unique ability to create same, it was decided that such insurance riders and powers of attorney be included as a standard attachment.

Gays attempting to back door blood relative status in something like an oxymoron like same sex marriage is again, attempting to steal "Blood Relative" status while such coupling for all intents and purposes, yields no such thing. So they have no business in it moreover, gays may want to take a cue from the same ideas for making this kind of relationship what it is borrowing the same concepts and ideas it took from the "Corporation and General partnership Businesses did.




Another point. You keep bringing reproduction into the argument. There is no stipulation in any state's marriage laws that I have ever seen - and I acknowledge I have not seen them all - that requires reproduction in a marriage. My wife and I have chosen to not reproduce, yet our marriage is as valid as anybody's. Reproduction is not an issue.


Thought someone would say this at sometime. No it isn’t mandatory to MAKE people that get married have children. That would be illegal, and no the best the Government can do is make marriage in such a way where it doesn't benefit those who don't have children. One click posted the perfect example of that using tax withholding. So no, it isn't a requirement but it assumes people have common sense. You saying it isn't about family because it doesn't make it ones legal obligation to make babies makes for a good straw man but eeeh No cigar. It has no bearing on this issue




As far as siblings being married, laws against incest are based on the very real and valid biological danger of two closely related people reproducing (should they choose to do so). It is just not a good idea, biologically, with no need to bring morality into it. In fact, I suspect the moral angle on this has evolved from the biological.

Additionally, and less relevantly, siblings do not normally require the legal protection of marriage, as inheritance frequently goes to blood siblings by default in any case.

Finally, you keep bringing up all the immoral things gay people do, according to your moral compass. You certainly have the right to your opinion on this, but it has no relevance to the question at hand. Or as you put it " Reproduction is not an issue." you got that right, it is usually much more often than not, a "given"

Plenty of heterosexual people also want the age of consent lowered, so they can diddle the child of their choice. That is another issue, and is not relevant to the question of two consenting adults being married.




First, I think anyone straight or gay is whacked for doing that. Having said that, I will submit that most of the time, I see anyone wanting to disparage Christians, they reach for the most extreme personality given as the example of Christians in general and most of us know that is the exception to the rule. Most Christians and I know thousands, but of those I know all my life, they actually TRY not to cuss, I have had many Christian room mates and they didn't do drugs, they gave to charities they put themselves among peers where a standard of behavior contrary to that they are trying to live up to, gets corrected quite harsh by those other members. They are ALL Hypocrites and I have never met a man that wasn't about something. I used to say My Church was full of hypocrites, and there is always room for more so you're welcome to come join us too.


What I am saying is, when it comes to gays, no matter what state, no matter what parade they wish to display their pride, what you see IS the rule and conservative modest self respecting gays who don't behave as if sex is the center of their freaking world, is the exception to that rule. The Gay lifestyle has stated, its reasons for wanting in on marriage so bad is because of the political inroads it will give them in their agenda to claim "suspect status" or a special class distinction needing protection. Now THAT is covered under the 14th amendment.


You actually believe them to be so worthy of tolerance? Wouldn't it be better if they quit talking about tolerating them and becoming the sort of people no one HAS to "tolerate?


You see me say things like this and the first thing you do is tell me I'm a bigot and a hater. When Gays sued the Christian online dating service "E-Harmony" inundating them with law suites, forcing those Christians to incorporate homosexuals on a Christian dating service. You got to know how that looks. You got to ask yourself who is treading ON WHO?


When GAYS didn't like the result of the prop 8 debacles and started sending envelope with white powder in them to all the Mormons who quietly said NO, You got to know, things like tolerance come after self preservation. When gays who have always dressed like they were either a member of the Rocky Horror picture show or on their way to a leather bar, we grit our teeth and just kept the kids form going into town that day. But now, NOW it is typical to see them urinating on each other, and forget the costumes, as they don't wear clothes at all at most of these functions. Compare websites, of your average Christian and your average gay site. Just try that. Tell me, is that what you want to think about whenever you hear the word "gay"? You see rather than do the right thing and rise to a level of personal excellence, gays don't want to give up a thing. They are the extreme of the extremist and you name it, sexual partners? Gays by the hundreds and sometimes thousands and that IS a general statistic and have posted it earlier. Sexually transmitted disease? Gays in this country by a LONG SHOT. Gays want to do the same thing to marriage; they did to that online dati8ng service. Ill tell you something else too.


I am retired now, but I was a national guest speaker for many years, speaking to gay audiences all over the United states and Canada where they invited me at a very handsome sum of money to hear what I had to say about the industry they were in and how they could rise above the very appropriate stereotype they have created and are making worse. I have never left one of those engagements where I didn't get a standing ovation.


Ask yourself, what other members of society do you know that will deliberately test a business's tolerance by deliberately using over the top public displays of affection in front of that business cash register and if they are asked to take it to a room, they invariably call the person a bigot never once considering they may be deserving of it.


I hope I never am so repugnant I have to insist others tolerate me and be so damned unreasonable to not act like most self respecting Americans, they have to use the legal system in backwards Machiavellian machinations to use laws against those people that same set of laws were designed to protect. To force people to like them, rather than be likeable, to call us bigots and haters when they go out of their way and in your face to garner just such sentiment. Why? Because it proves their point they need special victim’s class protections? I have never seen a straight guy trying to hook up with anyone in a public restroom, but I have seen lots of gays do that. The response to yell bigot is such a conditioned one, you know it HAD to be scripted. I know thousands of gays that would tell you, I am the last person on earth that would hate them.


That was before they all started wanting to force us to embrace their sexuality and infuse it into our marriages are public schools etc. I wish their actually was more to say about them that was, well, something more noble to be proud of in a gay parade, then just kinky sex and profanity. I don't like to use the things they do to portray them that way, I offer an out usually giving them a way to save face because I know if it were me and I knew what I was about, most of them being involved in such activity. Even if it were the fringe of gays? How is it they, are the image of gays and not someone else?


I don't just show their is something to fear with gays having access to children, I PROVED IT. What we all feared they would do, they did in fact, do, worse, and the responsibility to teach kids about diversity and tolerance, turned into a discussion on the finer points of fisting and whether to swallow or not and it was being taught in this manner all across the country and you got to ask yourself?? What In GODS NAME are they THINKING!


Do you know what they did after they had been recorded and lost in court, they got fired. They cost the taxpayers millions using the ACLU to sue to (get this) get their job back!


No remorse, not one clue that maybe, just maybe, they should bear responsibility for their ACTIONS. Gays have an image problem and a public relations nightmare for anyone to try and fix, because gays would rather we all keep adjusting to them, tolerating them, accepting them and if we don’t! Watch out! They go ballistic.


No I am sure many of you think I am all wrong about this stuff, and I could prove it but even that is a delicate ordeal with gays because everything they do is so filled with objectionable language and imagery, I got a TC tag trying and even blocked out the bad stuff. Morality is as important as the respect it gets, the trust it gets, the credit it is offered, the responsibility it is given and the credibility it has for those who appreciate and respect moral issues.



Plenty of heterosexual people abuse marriage - to gain citizenship, for example.


Yeah and some people use fake ID's to get into bars but that doesn't mean we should get rid of IDs


All of your arguments, as near as I understand them, boil down to morality, based on religion. That is fine, and I will argue just as hard for your right to hold those opinions and live by that morality. But these religion-based moral arguments have no place in secular US law, if for no other reason than other religions have no objection to gay people being married, and preference of one religion over another in law is definitely a no-go in the US.


Important note, since it seems to be a touchy subject. I am making no attack on your religion. I am saying extreme caution must be used when using any religious arguments to influence secular laws in this country.



No, I haven't been shoveling scripture and religion here, I had to respond to the attacks on my religion and that’s where it got started. I rarely use the bible in any posts and you can ask many of the Christians here, I don't just side with them because they are Christian either. I have brought the 14th amendment in this before you did and I see you have misunderstood the property protections and well pretty much all of it.



So again, I give you the exhaustive interpretation to the 14th amendment quotes from the author included






It's interesting to point that Congress did indeed define the privileges and immunities of citizens under “A bill to declare and protect all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States,” aka, Civil Rights Bill of 1866, and it said nothing about any of the first Eight Amendments:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.


That provision, gentlemen will remember, was a limitation imposed upon the State of Missouri in the very words of the Constitution itself, to wit: that its constitution never should be so construed, and never should be so enforced as to deprive any citizen of the United States of the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States within the limits of that State. The fourteenth article of the amendments of the Constitution secures this power to the Congress of the United States.


The gentleman will pardon me. The amendment is exactly in the language of the Constitution; that is to say, it secures to the citizens of each of the States all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. It is not to transfer the laws of one State to another State at all. It is to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States. If the State laws do not interfere, those immunities follow under the Constitution.

Due Process



Like you, many before you didn't quite understand Bimghams famous 14th amendment.




The incorporation of the Fifth’s due process clause had little effect on the States because it was merely seen as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property outside the sanction of law and did not act to oust the States from continuing to administer justice as they had always under their own Constitution and laws. Because due process deals only with the administration of justice, limits its application.

Bingham never made it a secret that the words due process of law were the words of the 39th Chapter of the Magna Charta. In the following speech he clearly links due process of the law with Chapter 39 of the Magna Charta:

[The] Magna Charta of England, to which he referred, and the Magna Charta of the United States of America, as written in your Constitution in words so plain "that the wayfaring man cannot err therein." The gentleman read from the Magna Charta of England, that "no freeman shall be taken or disseized," &c., "but by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land;" forgetful of the fact that the words "no freeman" were words of limitation, and limited this great charter at the time it was adopted to one half the population of England, and forgetful also that these words of limitation were swept away by the Constitution of the United States, in which it is declared that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." By that great law of ours it is not to be inquired whether a man is "free" by the laws of England; it is only to be inquired is he a man, and therefore free by the law of that creative energy which breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul, endowed with the rights of life and liberty.31Under the Magna Charta we find “legal judgment of his peers or the law of the land,” later extended under 28 Edward III in 1354 to read: “No man, of whatever estate or condition, shall be put out from land or tenement, taken or imprisoned, disinherited, or put to death, without being brought to answer by due process of law.” The words “law of the land” and “due process of law” have long been recognized to be synonymous. It is easy understand the historical genesis behind the words life, liberty and property



Now what is immunity and what is property exactly




The word property is the American term for freehold under the Charta and essentially mean chattels or interests in land. In April of 1872 Bingham pointed out that seizure of property under due process does not require the process of a jury:

Gentlemen will bear in mind that years ago a question arose quite kindred to that now raised here as to the effect and meaning of the term "due process of law" as used in the fifth article of amendments to the Constitution, which was passed upon in the Supreme Court of the United States. I refer to the case of Murray vs. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 18 Howard, 280. In that case land was seized on a Treasury warrant issued to the United States marshal, and sold. The question raised and decided in the case was whether upon a warrant issued by the Treasury land could be seized and sold by the marshal without the intervention of a jury. The validity of the act of Congress authorizing such seizure and sale was sustained by the Supreme Court and stands to-day unchallenged, declaring that the phrase "due process of law" means the law of the land.

In other words, an act of the legislature sanctioning seizure of land without trial is 'due process.' It would had only been unconstitutional if there had been no law in place for the seizure of land without trial by jury.



Enter the Civil Rights era!



Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) and Sen. Jacob Howard (in the Senate) introduced the final form of the Fourteenth Amendment out of committee in May of 1866, both spoke of the language in terms of accomplishing the same goals under their Civil Rights Bill.

For example, Stevens said the affect of the amendment when introducing it to the House on May 8, 1866: “Whatever law punishes a white man for a crime shall punish the black man precisely in the same way and to the same degree. Whatever law protects the white man shall afford “equal” protection to the black man. ... Now different degrees of punishment are inflicted, not on the magnitude of the crime, but according to the color of the skin. Now color disqualifies a man from testifying in courts, or being tried in the same way as white men.”

Bingham declared from the start that it was his intention to codify provisions of the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 under the U.S. Constitution. Bingham specifically singled out this provision of the Civil Rights Bill:

And such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. After reciting the above, Bingham then explains the above will be the basis for his proposed amendment to the Constitution:

I say, with all my heart, that that should be the law of every State, by the voluntary act of every State. The law in every State should be just; it should be no respecter of persons. It is otherwise now, and it has been otherwise for many years in many of the States of the Union. I should remedy that not by an arbitrary assumption of power, but by amending the Constitution of the United States, expressly prohibiting the States from any such abuse of power in the future.35If you ever had wondered what exactly Bingham intended to accomplish with the language he had chosen, well now you know. Let us now consider for a moment what this language Bingham singled out means.



Now this is the part that REALLY gives this the knock out punch for anyone thinking states have to all abide by justice jaxon roberts ruling



Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Senate Judiciary Committee chairperson, described the civil rights bill this way: “This bill neither confers nor abridges the rights of any one, but simply declares that in civil rights there shall be an equality among all classes of citizens, and that all alike shall be subject to the same punishments. Each State, so that it does not abridge the great fundamental rights belonging under the Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. II), to all citizens, may grant or withhold such civil rights as it pleases.



“Whenever Congress attempts to restrict this right of the majority to rule in the State it will attempt usurpation, and whenever the majority of loyal citizens surrenders that right into the hands of the minority it surrenders the cardinal principle of representative government.” --John A. Bingham, Authored the 14th ammendment July 20, 1866


[edit on 13-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts


Nice sidestep, but your words are your words, which I quoted. If it's not what you meant to say, then it is not my fault you cannot articulate yourself better.


Would you like me to put it into context for you Jaxon Roberts?

It won;t take long because you see, I KNOW I didn't articulate it correctly, because I am using a keyboard. I also know you understood the context because it was YOUR narative not mine. You were the one making the supposition for oppression using that attack as proof you are hated because yu are gay, NOT ME but YOU.

So if anyone is side stepping it is you.




As to the 'kink' issue. While it has absolutely no place in this debate, I would say to you that the day you can find 'Amputee Porn' and 'Midget Porn' in the Gay section of the Adult Video Store


Uh huh,,,



, the day that I can go to Mardi Gras or Fantasy Fest and not see women wearing nothing but body paint, the day that I can go into a heterosexual strip club and not see two girls doing each other with a strap-on, you can come complain about how dirty my house is.


Ones legal and indoors in a properly zoned area, the other is a tradition I have never participated in but it is unique in the nation, and another exception to the rule. We can find every nations whacked city every groups whacked extreme but Jaxon Roberst, I never told YOU anything about your house, I was talking about gays and someones charge about religious morality not being an issue. If you are angry the facts I have given about the gay community and take it personal. I suggest you think about that next time you make a thread as if you are straight in a practical (ruse) joke to bash Christians. Oh and if you want to compare those two groups as to which one has less to be embarrased about in parades, I'm game if you are .



Until then, I suggest you focus on cleaning your own first.

Now onto this nonsense about the age of consent. It's been posted earlier, but apparently we need a refresher:


Colorado 15
Connecticut 15
Hawaii 14
Idaho 14
Mississippi 16 - [2]
South Carolina 14/16
Virginia 15

[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.
Source.
So once a 12 yr old has been 'deflowered', it's game on! Nice, very nice...


As to South Carolina, it's in it's Constitution:

SC CONSTITUTION SECTION 33. Age of consent. -- No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years. (1999 Act No. 3, Section 1, eff February 16, 1999)
Source.
Yes, that's 1999, not some old addition in the Victorian Age... None of these states are exactly heavily gay populated, to say the least. In fact, all but two are 'red' states. So again, come see me when your house is clean...

Are you out of smoke and mirrors, yet?


Jaxon Roberts, may I ask you who is defending the ages stay where they are and who is trying to get them lower? Yeah, that was the point. I might also mention you missed the entire point. I bet that is cuz my bad artikulashun agien....

Can you find a heterosexual lobby so strong and so global to lower the age of consent for girls?

I kinda doubt it Jaxon Roberts because usually those little girls have Daddys and those Daddys are usually pretty damned fond of their precious little girls so politically it would be a dumb move.

One of them was so ridiculous it asks the court to lower the age of boys to have "anal sex" as if that is even a sex organ? But then again, they know exactly, what-they-intend-to-do.

If you 'll notice, all those motions I posted show gay organization lobbyist's to lower the age of consent all pertain to BOYS. All boys

Wonder why that is?



[edit on 13-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 



Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Are you out of smoke and mirrors, yet?


Apparently not....



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
 



Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Are you out of smoke and mirrors, yet?


Apparently not....


Gets kinda desperate when one has to resort to quoting himself to make a point. Especially when you are providing me with all the smoke and mirrors. You can always try proving me wrong rather than rhetoric and anecdotes. Ya got anything that actually refutes what I say, because frankly, Jaxon Roberts, coming back using cool words like "your whole post is a strawman!" and Smoke and mirrors" .

What are we supposed to do? Read that and just say "welp" must be true cuz jaxon said so.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Exactly - what consenting adult group are you talking about?

Not lifestyle - - Birth Right.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Annee]


Just what is a consenting adult? In America our social and moral values of the majority sets that age for us just as it defines marriage. The gay community agrees with much of the majority except in the area of their own little lifestyle differences, and wants the majority to change to their morals. My point is why just recognize the gays for their own special rights package when we might as well do away with all our morals and allow ALL to do what they want, when they want and where they want to who they want. You have no problem in not redefining "consenting adults" and other set values, but you want to redefine the value of marriage, just because it just happens not to agree with your own personal little lifestyle.


Birth right?

Let’s say you were born gay, how you practice it is a lifestyle. A pedophile is born that way too, and though I’m not comparing gays to pedophiles, both along with sociopath, psychopaths and any number of birth defects that modify the human behavior ALL could have the same argument that they were born that way and so their lifestyle needs to be accepted by the majority and officially protected under law.

I just happen to disagree....that is all



[edit on 13-9-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

Exactly - what consenting adult group are you talking about?

Not lifestyle - - Birth Right.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Annee]



Birth right?

Let’s say you were born gay, how you practice it is a lifestyle. A pedophile is born that way too.




Yes - legal age of consent is set by law.

There is no consent in pedophile.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Yes - legal age of consent is set by law.

There is no consent in pedophile.



wanna bet?

second line



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Yes - legal age of consent is set by law.

There is no consent in pedophile.


But there are people born with a defect that gives them a pedophile urge that is contrary to what nature intended, and it is contrary to the social and moral values of the majority.

Gays are born with a defect that gives them a homosexual urge that is contrary to what nature intended, and it is contrary to the social and moral values of the majority.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

Yes - legal age of consent is set by law.

There is no consent in pedophile.


But there are people born with a defect that gives them a pedophile urge that is contrary to what nature intended, and it is contrary to the social and moral values of the majority.

Gays are born with a defect that gives them a homosexual urge that is contrary to what nature intended, and it is contrary to the social and moral values of the majority.


I do agree people are "born wired". I do not agree Pedophile is contrary to nature. It is contrary to some Societies - - it is a part of some Societies.

People with Red Hair are born with a defect. We could list genetic differences til doomsday.

Consenting adults.

If you can't speak within the confines of "consenting adults" - then don't speak.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I do agree people are "born wired". I do not agree Pedophile is contrary to nature. It is contrary to some Societies - - it is a part of some Societies.

People with Red Hair are born with a defect. We could list genetic differences til doomsday.

Consenting adults.

If you can't speak within the confines of "consenting adults" - then don't speak.


I would but you have not defined what constitutes a consenting adult, and if you say the law then I would also need to say the law defines what a legal marriage is too. Why agree with one and not the other?


Pedophile have a sexual urge with an age group that cannot procreate just as homosexuals have a sexual urge that cannot procreate either, and because of that I would say both of these are contrary to what nature intended.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

I would but you have not defined what constitutes a consenting adult, and if you say the law then I would also need to say the law defines what a legal marriage is too. Why agree with one and not the other?


Pedophile have a sexual urge with an age group that cannot procreate just as homosexuals have a sexual urge that cannot procreate either, and because of that I would say both of these are contrary to what nature intended.


Procreation and morality are not even in the equation. You can not legislate someone else's morality - - other then "cause no harm". I read someone else's interesting thought that the "apparent" increase of gays is nature itself handling over population.

Back to consenting adults. Laws of: culpability - awareness - maturity - consent - accountability - - - is not even in the same ballpark as - laws against two committed adults wanting to join as one household.

Not going to discuss morality/procreation/age of consent - - - as I find them unnecessary padding to any legitimate argument of consenting adults joining in marriage.

Edited to fix quote brackets

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Annee]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Procreation and morality are not even in the equation. You can not legislate someone else's morality - - other then "cause no harm". I read someone else's interesting thought that the "apparent" increase of gays is nature itself handling over population.


Lol, are you kidding?
The vast majority of our laws are based on social and moral values.

Hmm I thought over population was controlled by the available food sources. My bad....



Back to consenting adults. Laws of: culpability - awareness - maturity - consent - accountability - - - is not even in the same ballpark as - laws against two committed adults wanting to join as one household.


How about 10 consenting adults, or how about consenting adult sidbilings/parents that want to join in marrage?



Not going to discuss morality/procreation/age of consent - - - as I find them unnecessary padding to any legitimate argument of consenting adults joining in marriage.


Well that's the problem here, isn't it? You want to narrow everything down to your one issue that you see as some isolated situation and that is just not the case because all of them are based on the social and moral values of society.



[edit on 13-9-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Lol, are you kidding?
The vast majority of our laws are based on social and moral values.



I am not kidding. Society evolves just like everything else.

Yes - moral would be "cause no harm" as I stated.

There is NO harm in consenting gays marrying.

NO Religion in government - Period!

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

You are trying to legislate me by your beliefs - I'm not interested.

I am not trying to legislate you by my beliefs - which you have no interest in.

EQUAL is EQUAL - - - its that simple.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Well, my apologies, then, regarding the assumptions you were not making. I had gathered them from various bits and pieces of your posts throughout.

As for the 14th amendment and its meaning, we may have to just agree to disagree.

I am not retired (I wish I were!
), and part of my job is to write requirements for software related to aeronautics flight controls. One of the bedrock rules there is to say what is meant. I've worked with many engineers who said "well, I meant such and so". Well then, say that.

To me, the 14th Amend. is clear in what it says. Anything can be twisted and turned in multiple ways to mean something else, even by the author. Now clearly there was no such thing as flight control software when this amendment was written, but still I think it is not too much to ask that what is meant be what is written.

It is similar to attempts to interpret the 2nd as saying it means states may form militias, rather than what it is... a recognition of every individual's right to bear arms if they so choose.

Now, the courts as well as you may disagree with me on that, that's OK. It won't be the first time, and I've become accustomed to it.

As mentioned above, we'll just have to disagree. I see this as denial of equal rights to a portion of the population based on prejudice and religion.

You see it otherwise, and that is OK as well.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join