Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

reply to post by Siberbat


So lying isn't natural? of course it is it is part of the human condition and so is homosexuality, just because it is a smaller percentage it doesn't mean it isn't natural.

reply to post by OpenEars123


And i'm back

I was speaking to the legalization factor here, as in most states voted on it and it was not legalized.
They exercised the right to appeal this process. Again, i'm fine with that.
Forgive me if that was misunderstood.

Way earlier in the thread someone was speaking to the rights to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I was just making the point that that just because the you have the right to pursue your happiness it does not give you the right to automatically have it.

Many people confuse this right as such. Especially in the current nanny country we live in today.

I was also making the point that, anyone who disagrees with this subject is usually attacked for utilizing the same rights to speak, act, live the way they want to.....which doesn't make sense.

If legalized, i would expect them to have the same rights as any other married couple. But its a long road to legalization, and I for one do not intend to keep walking on eggshells because they are a sensitive group. Equality is a double edged sword. We've all been pushed socially to coddle this particular group. I don't know why...I certainly don't agree with that standpoint..there are commercials on TV about it lately...

If they want legalization and equality so damn badly then they need to stop force feeding whats so special about them and start acting like equals.

Were here were queer get used to it... maybe people would if you stop bashing us over the head with it.

People are not going to treat you any different if you stop making the differences so obvious.

reply to post by Instructoralpha


The thing is though that as soon as equality is granted this issue will go away and it won't be pushed in your face etc. etc.

People will just get on with their lives..

reply to post by Truth_Hz


Will they?

I highly doubt it. But i'd love to be proven wrong.

Having read more of the postings, the following can be added:

As we are discussing about marriage, the question has been raised what are the rights and benefits that a marrige brings. A civil union is not equal to a marriage, it never has been nor will be until the question of what legal rights and priviledges being in a marriage brings to the table.

At the heart of the matter are several things that can not be denied or questioned. A homosexual is not attracted to members of the opposite sex, they find no joy in such, and ultimately will not engage in intamite behavior with such, so asking them to wed a member of the opposite sex is simply an insult to them.

with a traditional marriage there are rights and privledges that come with that piece of paper, along with bounds and constrains on individual freedoms that a person no longer enjoys that he or she did when they were not bound.

Marriage is a social/private contract, as accepted in the eyes of a law, where 2 people are agreeing to the set terms and conditions of said contract.

And with this entire debate, is the question of equality for all.

Civil Unions are not equal to a marriage, in legal definitions or the eyes of the law, as the legal definition and rights of a marriage have never been fully explored or defined out. So while it may seem that both are, they are not. For as it was shown in court, there are many cases where the couple either were in a civil union or were married and still did not recieve the benefit of such. Much like calling a bull an ox, while he is grateful for the title, he much rather have restored what was taken away.

For example, the DOMA case, at the heart of the matter is a woman, who got married to a woman, and they lived in New York, but as New York does not recognize same sex marriages, she is fighting for equality, as when her partner died, and left her an estate, she has to pay a tax bill, had she been married to a man, the bill would have been 0. This is not right or equal. Why is her marriage not equal to that of traditional marriage? They did not wed in New York, they lived there, paid taxes, did what every one else did in her city, but all cause her spouse was a woman, she has to pay a death tax, while one of her neighbors gets no tax? Is that fair or equal?

Another aspect of this, take Bernie Madoff. They took him to court, he stole billions, but under the laws of the country, they could not compell his wife to testify against him. If Bernie had been a homosexual and had a civil union, then his partner could have been thrown in prison for failing to cooperate with the authorities, with no legal protections at all.

It is those kinds of ideas and protections, those very rights that is what is causing this to be such a firestorm and hot button issue. Not the right to marry, but for nothing more than equality in the eyes of the law. While you may or may not support gay marriage, and would prefer it to be a civil union, it will never be equal until marriage in its nature, the legal aspects with all of the rights and privledges have been defined out, then the terms can be set, as to what is for straight couples and what is for gay couples.

Explanation: Uhmmm?

Ok ...

Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution [wiki]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So ... on that count alone I would have to say that this threads basic premise is a HOAX!

Persoanl Disclosure: :shk: ...

@ You have banned the member who posted this thread, good work , and I now request that this thread be moved to the Hoax! forum ... because ain't nobody got time for religious in the US Political Madness forum (yes I have read all 26+pages of the thread so far :shk: )

@Everybody else ...

On the religious issues brought up in this thread ...

Have All 3 Abrahamic Faiths Conspired to Defraud the Torah? (by OmegaLogos posted on 11-1-2009 @ 10:46 PM) [ATS]

On the issue of Sexuality ...

I am a mature sexual being and I don't consent to any prefix or suffix attached to that ok!

On the issue of consent ...

I consented to being gay for a long time ... and I am a victim of a gang rape!

I now consent to be with my gf and we have been together, despite the odds against, for over a decade now!

Getting back to the religious issues interfering in our lives ... I recently awoke to being a muslim and this is what I have to say about the entire universal set of issues according to what I undestand my faiths to be based on now ...

Do what you want and peace be upon you ok!

Why? ...

Because I believe that is none of my business ... it is between you and Allah and if Allah doesn't want you doing that then Allah will send you a jihad ... a personal struggle with the devil ... to deal with until one repents and then follows the 5 pillars ...

Surrender to The Creator ... [aka physically align with Allah so you have to face him and that requires orienting properly with the universal EM field]

Submit to his will ... [by sincerely praying and communing with him by putting your head on the earth (aka antenna) ... and you don't need any books for that ok]

Obey his will ... [ You're the one who asked Allah for something ... so this is just par for the course ok]

Seek his council and his people and profits/prophets ... [join with those of like mind after continuing to seek Allahs guidence on that issue ok]

Sincerely do the will of Allah, whatever that may be, as Allah is in charge and it would be batcrap deep guano crazy to annoy The Creator ... ... however and thankfully he just wants us to all be in peace and have fun ... or thats what he told me ok when I personally asked him.

And here is why killing anyone is pointless ... The final of the 5 faiths [different to the 5 pillars]

If Allah has sent the Devil to me to temp and test my faiths then I had better get my house in order and align with being peacefull and loving or it is obvious that the devil will be unleashed upon me and my jihad will erupt ... my personal struggle with Allahs Will will put me straight into a hell I cannot fathom where I may have to kill or be killed to survive ... which is a potential illusion ... becacase (and here is the 5th Faith) ...

I strongly believe, regardless of any and all facts, in the day of ressurection as promised by Allah!

Allah Akbah!

And so I hope to see everybody there eventually!

Peace be upon you all!

reply to post by Instructoralpha


There is only one way to find out...

Otherwise it will never go away..

Explanation: On the issue of the 14th ammendment which goes to legal fairness and equality issues regardless of states borders ...

Marriage: same-sex and opposite-sex
Legal and economic benefits of marriage [religioustolerance.org]

About DOMA:
The following material was provided by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. It is used by permission. The list appears to be based on a request by Representative Henry J Hyde, in 1996-SEP. He was chairperson of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and asked the General Accounting Office "to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status." Their response, which runs 75 pages, is available online. 1

The list below was compiled for a couple living in the United States. However, similar provisions exist in many other countries.

In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits.



On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

And ...

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States [wiki]

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply to only male-female couples, from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Personal Disclosure: So marriage is a right reserved to the people respectfull and hence that also must include all mature consenting gays, lesbians, transgender and queer citizens etc....

And under the 14th the Federal laws must be upheld the same everywhere ... or otherwsie those recalcitrant states can secceed from the union.

Therefor DOMA is 100% unconstitutional and therefor this threads underlying false premise has been clearly undone!

I made an alert on this thread!

reply to post by boymonkey74


Boymonkey, you ignored my point. I understand your stance as you do mine. My issue is the redefining of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. I believe their are social benefits as it is a social contract. Marriage is not just about love, companionship, and legal bondings, those are all part of it. Marriage is about producing children and raising a family. The importance of what a male and female can give a child can not be understated. A clear understanding as to who "daddy" as a man and father is, and how a boy can grow into the man he needs to be. A clear rolemodel of masculinity. The same goes for the wife as "mom/mum". To be a clear rolemodel as to how a girl developes as a woman. It is when we get into the unisex roles that men and women do not form an appriciation for each other. Therefore, the gender gap increases. Boy's become less confident in themselves, and women begin to dominate their men. Neither is appropriate. It is these appriciations which helps the sexes come together and draw on each others strengths, thus strengthening society in general. I just don't see that type of developement with homosexual marriages.

Before you say it, no not all marriages are perfect and several fail, but I believe this is also due to the unisexing of the genders as well, lack of understanding on both parts, and selfishness. Another issue in itself.

So, that's where I stand and it's my opinion of course.

reply to post by Siberbat




Just listen to this fella raised by two Lesbians...

reply to post by kthxbai


Just my opinion.

I believe it's an illness, a maladjustment.

I believe that science will soon discover what causes it and then a cure will be just around the corner.

I can't agree that a condition which causes men to engage frequently in anal intercourse is 'natural', healthy or desirable.

A cure will become available; and frankly it deserves to be cured.

SCOTUS would not have ruled the way they did on Roe vs Wade had they known that abortion would morph into what it is today. Married couples aborting babies because it is not the gender they wanted, late term abortions, etc. This will be no different, it is just one step in the wrong direction that will have horrendous unintended consequences. Church's are already being sued in states that allow same sex marriage. Community church's pay peoples electricity bill,rent,food,gas, etc when they need it. A lawsuit can destroy a church whether they win or lose. Your community will lose if this becomes law on a federal level. Will the gay community help the people in need like the church does? No, they won't. There will be a void created in communities across the nation. The day gay marriage becomes a federal law is a day that will go down in infamy.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Explanation: Well said! [st*rred!]

However, since you bring up the issue of medical cures, go big pharma , I feel that the real medical and financial issues are then being seriously overlooked!

And as this thread is about US political madness ... here is what those two issues are and how they seem to be entwined deeper down the rabbithole ...

Scientists, working on curing Death, before curing Taxes, are dooming us all to be Taxed FOREVER!!! (by OmegaLogos posted on 24-10-2011 @ 01:28 AM) [ATS]

Personal Disclosure: There ^^^ is the real Doom Porn ok!

Because for all the LBTQ brigade that exist, and it is a minority, the worlds population is still increasing and so there is no basis for any cuase for concern about a growing population!

If you are married and or have kids it seems obvious to me that your post suggest that you would intervene in some genetic medical cure fasion to fix what you have predetermined to be hazardous ... and that raises a whole host of other issues .

Even though I st*rred your well written post I did sense a whole lot of unrequired fear and I recommend that you can do without that kind of stuff ok.

reply to post by jimmiec

Originally posted by jimmiec
SCOTUS would not have ruled the way they did on Roe vs Wade had they known that abortion would morph into what it is today.

Can you back up this statement? Or is it just your opinion?

Church's are already being sued in states that allow same sex marriage.

Can you provide a link to an actual church being sued? Thanks. Besides, there's nothing that can prevent someone from bringing a lawsuit. It's a freedom we have in this country. I could sue a church for any number of reasons. Discriminating against gay people isn't going to protect all churches from lawsuits.

My position is that none of this religious stuff matters. We aren't talking about religion. This is about the LAW. Marriage is a legal contract. Equal treatment under the law.

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by kthxbai

 

Just my opinion.

I believe it's an illness, a maladjustment.

I believe that science will soon discover what causes it and then a cure will be just around the corner.

I can't agree that a condition which causes men to engage frequently in anal intercourse is 'natural', healthy or desirable.

A cure will become available; and frankly it deserves to be cured.

Let me know when they find a cure for bigotry.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Yes, I will be waiting in the wings as well for a cure for that.

I'm pretty sure obsessing over another group of peoples' lives because they do not match your own and hating them for wanting the same things as you is some kind of mental disorder in and of itself (for the poster up above, not you kay XD ) .

By the way, being homosexual hasn't been depicted of a mental illness since before 1973. Guess what? Many research studies and learning more have gone into that and thus it has been found that it is perfectly mentally healthy. What behaviors you engage in however bring many things into question.

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Even though I st*rred your well written post I did sense a whole lot of unrequired fear

No, I'm not afraid of homosexuals; that's really quite old now.

But thanks for starring me.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by kthxbai

 

Just my opinion.

I believe it's an illness, a maladjustment.

I believe that science will soon discover what causes it and then a cure will be just around the corner.

I can't agree that a condition which causes men to engage frequently in anal intercourse is 'natural', healthy or desirable.

A cure will become available; and frankly it deserves to be cured.

Let me know when they find a cure for bigotry.

It has got to be the high point of hubris here to call someone a bigot that finds no meaning in anal intercourse.

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.

For the umpteenth time, I'll answer this argument.

1)Polygamy: I believe, so long as all parties are consenting adults, that it should be legal. And if polygamists made a move to try and get it legalized, I would support it.

2)Brothers and Sisters: While widely considered socially repugnant, it IS legal to marry a sibling in some states, such as Rhode Island. Think about that. YOU CAN MARRY YOUR SISTER, but not your homosexual partner.

3)Marrying children: that old word comes up again: consent. Nothing more needs to be said.

4)Animals: a)I find it highly unusual that this is brought up as a counter argument so often. If so many of you are so into your pets...I have to wonder....b)See the answer to #3.

CONSENT. Its kind of a big deal.

In the end, I believe that any CONSENTING adults should be able to get married, and to get the federal benefits that come with that.

Now, I'm sure that people will keep trying to think up more and more extreme comparisons and events as an attempt to make their point, but if you stop and think for a second, you'll realize that having to use the most extreme examples, i.e. bestiality, pedophilia, incest, etc, to try and make your point is enough to DISPROVE that very point.

You all continue to shrug of examples such as race which support the pro-marriage argument, and turn around and use BESTIALITY as your comparison to homosexuality. Think about that for a minute. You compare consensual LOVE between two people to a predatory and fetishistic act.

The love between two people DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. So why does it scare you so much?

reply to post by AQuestion


hmmm regarding Timothy:men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from certain foods. The first thing which springs to my mind is Agenda 21 telling everyone not to eat beef because cows fart methane gas and contribute to global warming. As far as men who forbid marriage; I suppose that could be taken to mean making rules against various types of marriage, however, in the context, people have always been allowed to eat meat in Biblical times, so I would say it is far more likely that forbidding traditional foods would be regarded as radical, and the same with marriage. What kinds of marriage were traditional in those days? In your interpretation, legislation regarding interracial marriage would have been an indicator of end times. What I hear you suggesting is a liberal interpretation of biblical passages rather than a contextual one. Even if Timothy were to time travel, same sex marriage would be not considered traditional. For that matter, in Biblical times, Kings were allowed many wives and concubines. Some cultures still allow that. For instance, the Quran says it is allowed as long as the man gives each wife an equal attention. In the USA we see it as an arrogant misogynistic machismo, as we have just come out of the romantic period of Elizabethan and Victorian times.
In Agenda 21, the Elites are pushing the abstaining from eating beef, and the proponents suggest that beef eating is some kind of thing that only wealthy nations do and therefore the wealthy nations ought to stop it so that there is more equity among nations. In other words, they are pushing a Marxist philosophy that if Uganda is too poor for meat, then the USA cannot have any either, that is they are pushing class warfare which is what Marxists do. Agenda 21 is being pushed by elites all over the globe. For instance there is a Sustainable Development program in Bolivia. This will not just be state legislation, it is implemented from top down, from the elites in the UN.
Then if one considers context in world domination of which I am sure the Bible means regarding end times, it would make more sense to consider the Marxist view of the bourgeois family, in other words, the UN model will eliminate the bourgeois family as it states in the Communist Manifesto, and the children will be raised by the State. In Glenn Beck's book, people are moved around by the authorities against their will like chess pieces on a board. Traditional marriage is no longer applied to society. That is what I see in all this. But of course some people will see themselves as the exclusive victims.