Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

page: 30
14
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by kthxbai
 


As to what you wrote about me and the label you so boldly placed on me, I will respond.

Placing a sexual activity onto a person whom you do not know, is a means to attack the person and not the message. This is a typical response from the homosexual agenda as a means to silence or anger the opponent by use of literary weaponery. It is a "strawman" fallacy to help strengthen a weak and inadiquate stance. This type of attack has been so overly used that at this point, it can not be taken seriously. However, this should be a concern to all, as the use of this type of "hate" talk only shows glairingly the intollerence and ingnorance of the one using it.

The use of the term "Bigot" is a psychological buzz word used by the "agenda" to also be used as a weapon against opposing views. It is meant to place one in an inferior position, while artifically creating a sort of victimhood onto the agenda. As I have said in a previous post, I have not used such tactics on you or anyone else, do not do so to others. It weakens your position and shows the rest of us your lack of interest in a civilized discussion.


You can NOT claim it is a "choice" without accepting that YOU, yourself could also make that choice. You are claiming it's a choice, therefore you must have the capability. It's basic logic whether you like it or not.

Now you can either accept that you have those homosexual tendencies or you can refine your decision of claiming it's a choice. You can't have it both ways... unless of course you are bisexual, but that only reinforces that you do have those feelings now doesn't it?




posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Theimp
reply to post by kthxbai
 


So gays have absolutely no choice but to not only engage in marriage but also marry another gay? As a straight man, if someone gave me a few million dollars, I'd probably marry a gay dude. I aint sayin I'm gold digger but...

Jokes aside, I've known people both gay and straight during my life that have both turned in the opposite direction. The person you were responding to is correct. You can't change your race or sex, but you most definitely can, be it for money or whim, change your orientation.
edit on 29-3-2013 by Theimp because: (no reason given)


I don't think I could do it, even for a million dollars, but if you can, enjoy the money dude


Kinsey scale....



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 


In the example I provided, I do not see anywhere the writer stating he engaged in bisexual behavior. To say that, "he's lying to himself." is inadiquate. Maybe he is, but it doesn't appear so because you say it is.

Ah yes, Alfred Kinsey...not exactly the most reliable researcher you could have used. His work was methodical, however, his conclusions were unethical and erroneus. Even some within the homosexual community rejects his results, as some of his conclusions (even by todays standards) were extream. Not to mention the use of minors in his research to "support his own personal views." I will not get much furthor into that as it is graphic.

That being said, the topic of this thread is: Marriage is not a constitutional right.
(Apologizes in advance)
My short answer... no it is not. Not hetero, not homo, neither. Marriage is a social contract. So being a social contract how does marriage benefit society? The most obvious is the producing of offspring. Creating more future tax payers, workers, soliders. I do not oppose civil unions, as the purpose of civil unions have been made very clear. No one on either side of the issue wants to examine that legal mechanism. My issue is the redefinition of marriage itself. Let's be honest, it's not about equality, it's about benefits. I understand that, but don't change marriage to promote a social/sexual agenda.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Theimp
 


I sure would try and get it up for a million bucks



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Siberbat
 



Originally posted by Siberbat
Marriage is a social contract.


When speaking of equal protection under the law, marriage is a LEGAL contract. We are talking about LEGAL rights here, not social preferences.



So being a social contract how does marriage benefit society? The most obvious is the producing of offspring.


To make this argument, you must support a litmus test of fertility for every marital union. I cannot have children. You would deny me my marriage of 20 years? Would you deny older people the right to marry, simply because they are no longer able to produce offspring? Besides, gay people can and do have children. Your argument is totally illogical and downright false. And if producing offspring is the only reason to marry, then who will adopt the babies in need of loving homes? Many infertile couples adopt. You would deny them that opportunity? I don't think you've thought your argument through...

I would love answers to my questions above, but I doubt I'll get them. There is no answer...


Let's be honest, it's not about equality, it's about benefits.


It's about equal treatment under the LAW, including benefits. That's equality.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Marriage is inherently a right by virtue of it not being prohibited Constitutionally, and the 10th amendment throws everything not prohibited by the US Constitution to States rights. This is where the battle tends to be. Cultural Marxists then go to work trying to change what people believe is acceptable. This is known as Cultural Marxism. (aka Political correctness)

www.academia.org...



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Federal law provides over 1000 benefits and rights to married people. This is a federal issue. States who disallow SOME of their citizens from obtaining these federal benefits through marriage are discriminating against those citizens.

Source

Political correctness is irrelevant, as is religion and whether or not homosexuality is a choice. None of that matters. It's all one form of straw man or another. The 14th amendment says that states cannot make laws that deny equal protection under the law.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


aka
delusion...
Cultural Marxism



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
This entire issue reminds me of how interracial marriage was debated and viewed when I was young you can honestly take many of the arguments against it and substitute the word gay with colored. It is like déjà vu. It seems like 98% of the arguments against it always fall back to a religious standpoint which to me means 98% of the arguments mean absolutely nothing to me. I would prefer if the government didn’t get involved however I see it the same as when the federal government had to step in on the racial issue. Back then the states had to be forced to do the right thing which I think we will see a repeat of that. Those who are against it are going to have a hard battle to keep people from being able to marry because like I said only about 2% of their arguments are worth listening to. This will wind up being settled in court and whatever happens it isn’t going to affect me in the slightest. I do think the Gay community will win this because from everything I see this is discrimination no matter how you look at it.

I get tired of the argument of how people say being gay is a choice because I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be ridiculed or discriminated against when I hear people make statements like that I just think the people saying it are idiots.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by kthxbai
 


In the example I provided, I do not see anywhere the writer stating he engaged in bisexual behavior. To say that, "he's lying to himself." is inadiquate. Maybe he is, but it doesn't appear so because you say it is.

Ah yes, Alfred Kinsey...not exactly the most reliable researcher you could have used. His work was methodical, however, his conclusions were unethical and erroneus. Even some within the homosexual community rejects his results, as some of his conclusions (even by todays standards) were extream. Not to mention the use of minors in his research to "support his own personal views." I will not get much furthor into that as it is graphic.

That being said, the topic of this thread is: Marriage is not a constitutional right.
(Apologizes in advance)
My short answer... no it is not. Not hetero, not homo, neither. Marriage is a social contract. So being a social contract how does marriage benefit society? The most obvious is the producing of offspring. Creating more future tax payers, workers, soliders. I do not oppose civil unions, as the purpose of civil unions have been made very clear. No one on either side of the issue wants to examine that legal mechanism. My issue is the redefinition of marriage itself. Let's be honest, it's not about equality, it's about benefits. I understand that, but don't change marriage to promote a social/sexual agenda.




Good try, but that doesn't cut it.

As to the topic of the thread, if marriage requires a license and reaps some benefit for those who get married, then it is, indeed a constitutional right. It is not determined by religion in any way, shape or form. Our country is NOT a theocracy.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,



You see, because the Holy Family is a biblical teaching, and was exemplified by Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. A more recent theory is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and lived after the crucifixion. So there ya go. I rather suspect that you want it to reference gay marriage now, as some others in high profile keep wanting to make the bible appear to support their agenda and arguments. Let it be between you and your God.


There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus married anyone. Pop fiction does not prove anything. As for marriage, be it gay or straight, you miss my point. By what right does the government determine who can marry or not? Let us say that the Supreme Court says that state governments can outlaw gay marriage. Okay, then could they outlaw people marrying someone who has an age difference of 20 years? It is a bigger concept then you are seeing. In law it becomes precedent and it can come back to bite you. You might think that this case will be limited to gay marriage; but, it never works that way. 50 years ago it was incomprehensible that abortion would be legalized and so prevalent. The original argument was that abortions should be allowed in the case of rape or incest; but, lets face it, it is used as birth control. It is a slippery slope.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 





By what right does the government determine who can marry or not?


Well, I guess the same right they have to give us permission to drive a car. I personally think the govt has gone way too far telling us what to do. It is no secret that I have objected strongly to the Nanny State and Big Govt. I prefer the govt get out of our personal lives and our financial being as well. Did you read my post where I said that marriage was an inherent right by virtue of the Constitution not forbidding it? Some states did have some early laws on interracial marriage, and specifically in Virginia it was overturned in court. Do you have a problem with that? Does everything have to be decided federally?

We have given Big Govt the right to control many many aspects of our lives, and even force us to purchase health insurance or be fined, I mean taxed if we don't and the IRS can come after us. Some of the same people who advocate for civil rights as gay marriage have no problem with the govt forcing us to buy stuff. But then that's the Progressive agenda. I guess it's like that Forrest Gump movie....no telling what is in the center of those chocolates and you just have to bite into it to find out.





Let us say that the Supreme Court says that state governments can outlaw gay marriage.


You mean, oh horrors the Supreme Court might make some ruling you don't like....given the propensity of the Supreme Court to cavort with Progressive agendas lately....

You must have some selective reading syndrome or you are still stuck thinking that Timothy was talking about government outlawing gay marriage when he was talking about the Papacy pushing the celibate life. Anyway, I already posted that cases usually work their way up from lower courts till it gets to the Supreme Court. A precedent can be set long before it ever gets to the Supremes. So did you get my point about the Virginia case?

Or just think if the Progressives had their way, like OWS in wanting a direct Democracy where the Majority rules even if the majority are nuts. But we still have a representative Republic, at least last time I checked.

Or we could just run things like they do in OWS protests and yell out mic check and have everybody repeat things like some bizarre robot world.

Justice Roberts proved that the Supreme Court can do stupid things too. I guess we don't live in a perfect world, and there will never be a Utopia, no matter how much the Socialists want it.




There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus married anyone


There is no evidence that Timothy was talking about gay marriage either, nevertheless you still believe it. However, I think there is more evidence to support my claim than there is yours.




According to Harvard scholar Karen King, a tiny papyrus fragment, smaller than a business card, ignites the controversy about whether or not Jesus had a spouse. In the newly publicized fourth century fragment, Jesus supposedly refers to, “my wife.”¹ Just below that phrase, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”²



The notion that Mary Magdalene was special to Jesus is taken primarily from the Gospel of Mary. This Gnostic gospel is not part of the New Testament, and was written by an unknown author in the last half of the second century, or about one hundred fifty years after Jesus’ death. No eyewitnesses, including Mary, would have been alive at the time it was written (about 150 A.D.). Such a late date means the Gospel of Mary could not have been written by an eyewitness of Jesus, and no one knows who wrote it.

y-jesus.com...



The question the discovery raises, King told me, is, “Why is it that only the literature that said he was celibate survived? And all of the texts that showed he had an intimate relationship with Magdalene or is married didn’t survive? Is that 100 percent happenstance? Or is it because of the fact that celibacy becomes the ideal for Christianity?”


www.smithsonianmag.com...
edit on 30-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Not that I'm against gay marriage rights or anything, at all.. But I really don't get it, why do they raise so much hell about being accepted/it being legalized to become married? It just seems like marriage has always been a practice for a man and woman and stems from whatever their particular religion may be.. Sure, I understand why gays would want to become married, but I don't get why such hell has been raised over it is all.. Why do they care so much when it's foundation was based off of being between a male/woman and such?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
Not that I'm against gay marriage rights or anything, at all.. But I really don't get it, why do they raise so much hell about being accepted/it being legalized to become married? It just seems like marriage has always been a practice for a man and woman and stems from whatever their particular religion may be.. Sure, I understand why gays would want to become married, but I don't get why such hell has been raised over it is all.. Why do they care so much when it's foundation was based off of being between a male/woman and such?


Honestly, I have a much harder time understanding why some straight people raise so much hell about gay marriage. It has zero affect on their personal lives. Gays aren't fighting to change religion, they ARE fighting to be treated with equality under the law, i.e., being able to apply for and receive marriage licenses from the state. Atheists can get a marriage license, because the license has nothing to do with religion.

Gays have been kept "in the closet" and hidden for so many years. Their sexual orientation has had no legitimacy in our society. They hurt no one, because it's all about consenting adults. They want legitimacy in the society that they are a part of. They don't need to be worshipped and adored, but they DO want to be treated with equality and respect, as any other law-abiding citizen in this society.

Everyone thinks that all gay people are promiscuous sexual predators who go all day long having anonymous sex with strangers. Sure, there are promiscuous gays out there, but you never hear about all the gays out there who aren't. They quietly live out their lives with the same partner -- but they're boring, so you never heard about those gays in the media. Well, we're starting to hear about them now, and it appears to be driving some straight people crazy, for some reason.

When gays get equal treatment within our legal system, the "hell they are raising" will die down. But don't expect them to go back into the dark shadows, pretending not to exist. They have nothing to be ashamed of.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 



Originally posted by TheIceQueen
It just seems like marriage has always been a practice for a man and woman and stems from whatever their particular religion may be..


1. It's important to realize that it's not just religious people who want to get married. My husband and I are atheist. Our desire to be involved in a marriage clearly has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a legal institution here in the US. SOME people have religious feelings about it, but it's certainly not necessary or even desired by some.

2. There are religious gay people. Many people (straight and gay) believe that marriage is about joining with the person you love and making a public statement and pronouncement to society of that love. Just because SOME believe marriage is between a man and a woman, each couple actually defines their own marriage. Some marry for religious reasons - some to have children and build a family. Some marry for love. Some for convenience, some for money. There are MANY definitions to marriage. It all depends on the couple. Each defines marriage for themselves.



Sure, I understand why gays would want to become married, but I don't get why such hell has been raised over it is all..


If they want to get married and are being discriminated against, you don't understand why some are raising hell? If your neighbor was legally permitted to do something that YOU wanted to do, but for some arbitrary reason, you weren't legally allowed, wouldn't that bother you? Might you not "raise hell"?

Not all gay people care about marriage, either. But those who do want it for themselves should be able to have it, just like the rest of us.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Mating predates recorded history, marriage is a social construct defining the joining of two or more individuals in the eyes of the society that they live in.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SamaraTen
 


They may not have been hung, or forced to sit in the back of the bus, but they have been beaten, murdered, raped, humiliated, denied the privilege of serving their country, and persecuted for the way they are. Just because a gay person may not look any different than a straight person of the same biology does not mean that they have not been treated differently.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


Exactly, to bad that it seems no one is listening.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SamaraTen

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Now we are talking about creation here..


Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion . . . (Gen. 1:26-28)


I don't see where the big cheese mentions, Be fruitful and become homosexuals so you's can wipe yourselves out and we have to start again.


.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.


Again, where does it say leave your Father & Mother and become a homosexual?
Perhaps they've never read the story about Sodom and Gomorrah. They have only heard about it through someone else.
If we 'give in and accept it'...we might as well be in the bedroom with them. Sorry, but i'm going with God on this one. He says it's wrong......I SAY IT'S WRONG! But at the end of the day...it's their CHOICE. God respects their choices, but there WILL BE consequences. It WILL BE the final nail in the world's coffin.


...but no consequences for judging outside of your jurisdiction?
The post appears under the US POLITICAL MADNESS banner, but obviously has been inserted here by stealth...

Transparent attempt at religious bigotry...

Complete fail...

A99



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Some States did repeal their bans on interracial marriage, but not all did. It took a Supreme Court decision in 1967.


Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored." The Supreme Court's unanimous decision held this prohibition was unconstitutional, overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies as well as songs. In the 2010s, it again became relevant in the context of the debate about same-sex marriage in the United States.


wiki

Many people of the time thought interracial marriage was against God too. SCOTUS acted then in it's most important function, disallowing a State or the Federal government to discriminate against citizens, I hope it does the same now.

The Federal government as well State governments legally recognizing only one type of marriage is absolutely nothing short of discrimination.





top topics
 
14
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join