Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Actually, it is very much on topic and not ignorant. If we allow and promote homosexual marriage, then shouldn't we also allow and promote polygamy, polyandry, brothers and sisters getting married, pedophiliacs marrying children, and adults marrying animals?

If not, why not?

Because if you can't answer the "why not" question then the stance is inadiquate. However, if you can, then the same logic could be used against homosexuals redefining marrage.

Only takes one word to answer it:

CONSENT

Originally posted by CJCrawley
I believe homosexuality to be an illness, in that it is a kind of maladjustment.

Not sure of the cause....genetic, chromosomal, familial, psychological, take your pick, it's not important.

But I think the sensible view is to recognise that it is an illness, because obviously people, and animals in general, are not designed to mate with same-sex members.

And just because a lot of people have this illness (for which, presently at any rate, there exists no cure) doesn't mean we have to pretend otherwise and kowtow to their demands.

If a schizophrenic wants to marry a camel because God told him it's the only way of saving humanity from Martian invasion, do we let him do that?

Or do we try to suppress this urge by way of chemotherapy and rehabilitation?

After all, there's no cure for schizophrenia yet either.

It really doesn't matter what YOU believe it is as you are not an authority on the matter or any other matter.

No, he doesn't get to marry the camel because the camel is an animal and cannot give consent. Consent is the key.

Now, if, by chance, that camel begins to speak or to write and eloquently gives his consent to marry said person and is able to satisfy officials that it is, indeed the camel giving consent and that he is an intelligent being, we could then address it. Until then, the camel is an animal and it isn't able to give legal consent for anything.

With that being said, we DO have a cure for your condition. It's called education. It is open to you if you choose to accept it

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Plural marriages WERE legal at one time. However, since the followers of Mormonism practiced it and the "powers that be" didn't like that group, they outlawed it as an attempt to strike out against that group. It had nothing to do with plurality of marriage, it was part of a religious war ... that was lost anyway.

If people want a plural marriage and all participants consent to it and are adults, I say go for it.

Originally posted by Instructoralpha
I do love it whenever somebody quotes Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....

Yes you do have the right to Pursue Happiness.....you do not have the Right to AUTOMATICALLY BE MADE HAPPY.

You can pursue happiness until you are blue in the face, no one will stop you.

Will you ever find it? Do you have the right to find it? Should Happiness be bestowed upon everyone by the government?

Or is it more reasonable to say you can pursue it as much as you like. Your chances of finding it are equal to that of everyone else.

There's the rub!! With homosexual marriage illegal, they do NOT have an equal right of finding it as everyone else. You just defeated your own argument.

reply to post by Truth_Hz


But I do have the same rights as them.

I'm not homophobic...but thank you for the much expected mudslinging. I see now that if I don't agree with you then there's something definitely wrong with me.

Its the sense of entitlement here that bothers me... this has been voted on...and in most states gay marriage was not legalized. They don't like it, and immediately appeal, as is their right to do so. Through the appeal process it may be voted on again, or shot down.

Again they have every right to continue this process...but no right to guaranteed success.
And certainly no right to mud sling and demonize those who don't share in their particular point of view.

They feel they are entitled to such benefits as all other married people, fine.

They have the rights to live the way they choose, say what they will about their alleged inequity, and pursue any goal they set in which to change this.

But god forbid someone has an opposing view...we must be terrible people for having opinions of our own, values of our own, and choosing the horrible life we wish to live.

Because this is what is rammed down our throats for daring to exercise our own rights to think, act and say what we will.

I'm tired of walking on eggshells for every overly sensitive group in america, We are becoming a nation of whining children.

Originally posted by Instructoralpha
reply to post by Truth_Hz

 

Oh because they WANT it...well, i want 1 million dollars tax free in small unmarked bills dumped in my living room...I have the right to want it, the right to pursue getting it, i have the right to speak freely about it, ....but I have no actual right to have it just because i WANT it. I'm no more entitled to it than they are. And until things change through the system we have (however faulty at times) thats the way it is.

They can pursue this endeavor as much as they will, that is their right.
And I would never stand in their way to exercise those rights.
But no one has the right to be given success.

There exist legal ways for you to GET it too, you just haven't found them yet or aren't willing to put in the work. They don't have that same opportunity.

... and THAT's the way it is.

reply to post by kthxbai


Your Cat mittens are strong
I agree with all your last few posts I just do not understand why others can not see this is only about equality...I feel their own personal bigotry is clouding their judgement.
Oh and CJcrawley you are nothing more than a bigot.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by kthxbai

 

Your Cat mittens are strong

I agree with all your last few posts I just do not understand why others can not see this is only about equality...I feel their own personal bigotry is clouding their judgement.
Oh and CJcrawley you are nothing more than a bigot.

They're made of kevlar!

I have to wear them to conceal my deadly claw weapons!

reply to post by kthxbai


Also this would be a none issue If people were not bigots, this should have passed years ago but Religious idiots who live in the past fight it.
Much more important stuff going on in the world as TheImp says but it is the Bigots who make this an issue when it should be no issue at all.

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
reply to post by Siberbat

 

No again, it does not matter, Civil unions do not afford the rights that people who are married benefit from. It is as simple as that.

It is purely about equality not the institution of marriage. Why should someone who is married be treated differently from someone who is in a Civil Partnership because they are not allowed to marry?

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, they do not agree with you.

Definition of CIVIL UNION
: the legal status that ensures to same-sex couples specified rights and responsibilities of married couples

The agenda IS about redefining the current status of marrage.
Source

reply to post by Siberbat



The definition of a Civil Union and what actually happens in practice are two very different things and actually differ from state to state..

This whole thing is about equality, nothing more, nothing less..

reply to post by Siberbat


A simple search in google tells you a civil union does not have the same rights as a marriage that is all they want.

reply to post by Instructoralpha


No, You have more rights, this is the issue.

In the UK civil partnerships are afforded the same rights as in marriage. In the US it is completely different.

Rights that you have that Civil Partnerships don't:

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

This is just a handful (there are 1400 in total)

This is what it is about, this is the issue and by denying gay couples these rights you are immediately making these people out to be second class citizens who aren't worthy of equality.

From what i'm reading:

Those who don't agree with same sex marriage are Bigots

Religious = Idiot

same sex marriage is above due process

Homosexuals do not have they right to pursue changes in the laws, although the laws have been voted on by the public, and were appealed by those same homosexuals?

Wow, just wow. And i'm supposed to be the "intolerant" one?

Don't bother replying....done with this thread

Originally posted by Instructoralpha
reply to post by Truth_Hz

 

But I do have the same rights as them.

I'm not homophobic...but thank you for the much expected mudslinging. I see now that if I don't agree with you then there's something definitely wrong with me.

Its the sense of entitlement here that bothers me... this has been voted on...and in most states gay marriage was not legalized. They don't like it, and immediately appeal, as is their right to do so. Through the appeal process it may be voted on again, or shot down.

Again they have every right to continue this process...but no right to guaranteed success.
And certainly no right to mud sling and demonize those who don't share in their particular point of view.

They feel they are entitled to such benefits as all other married people, fine.

They have the rights to live the way they choose, say what they will about their alleged inequity, and pursue any goal they set in which to change this.

But god forbid someone has an opposing view...we must be terrible people for having opinions of our own, values of our own, and choosing the horrible life we wish to live.

Because this is what is rammed down our throats for daring to exercise our own rights to think, act and say what we will.

I'm tired of walking on eggshells for every overly sensitive group in america, We are becoming a nation of whining children.

If you're not homophobic, you must be homo 'friendly'?

If so, why are you on this thread banging your gums about a group of people that simply would like equality?

It doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Instructoralpha
From what i'm reading:

Those who don't agree with same sex marriage are Bigots

Religious = Idiot

same sex marriage is above due process

Homosexuals do not have they right to pursue changes in the laws, although the laws have been voted on by the public, and were appealed by those same homosexuals?

Wow, just wow. And i'm supposed to be the "intolerant" one?

Don't bother replying....done with this thread

If you were any deeper in the closet, you'd be in Narnia. Cya

reply to post by kthxbai

What does interracal marriages have to do with this discussion? That indeed was a civil rights issue. This, however, is not. A group of people wish to invoke special privledges based on lifestyle and behavioral choices to redefine the institution of marrage.

Now, a person can not change their race, age, or XX chromosomes to XY chromosomes, but homosexuals can change to heterosexuals and visa versa. Why? Because it is a lifestyle, a behavior. If that person changes their lifestyle at a certain point in there life, are they still a homosexual? Maybe they may have thoughts, but that's about it. To say that a behavior is equal to a civil right, is a slap in the face to black, latinos, asians, native americans, and women.

To say that homosexual marriage is the same as interracial marriage is a catagorical fallacy. your compairing, "blue is speeder than wensday." It is illogical and the argument is inadiquate.

Using psychological buzz terms such as "bigot" and so forth is not a compelling means to for discussion. Those terms are overused in the media and popular "trendy" circles to derail meaningful discussion and attempt to discredit a point of view. I have not used such words on you, show the same respect and refrain from using them on others.

reply to post by Siberbat


Can you become gay? really? No gay people do not choose to be gay they are just gay just like you are straight. Do some research please...

reply to post by boymonkey74

Off topic response:
If a behavior is said to be natural to a person and this is why homosexuality should be accepted, is it not also natural that people lie and so they too should be accepted? Children don't need to be taught how to lie; it appears to be natural to them. Should we then say that because the behavior of lying is natural to people there should be special privileges for them, and accept their behavior in society because that's just the way they're born and that is their truth-orientation?

I will agree to disagree on this topic.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Several reasons why this is not allowed, unlike gay marriage, the issue of plural marriage has been discussed and thought about, then ultimately was banned and went through the courts, up to the Supreme court of the USA, in Reynolds V. USA, in 1878, There the courts looked at and determined that such was not supported by, nor would receive the protection of the constitution of the USA, and ultimately that you could not hide behind religious duty or be afforded its protection. The second more important reason is that in all 50 states there are laws that prohibit and forbid bigamy. So if you were to want to get it where plural marriage was allowable, you would have to go through and get the criminal law struck down first and foremost, then see to the Supreme court of the USA.