It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by charles1952
Didn't we just go through this on the subject of the baker? His life has been affected.
You arrive at that conclusion by first admitting it is not a right given in the Constitution...
Since you use car buying later in your post, is driving a right or a privilege?
A contract can only be entered into when both parties are willing. The problem homosexuals are trying to overcome is that, in many places, the government is not willing.
But the serious answer is that there have been some pieces of evidence indicating that it would be bad for society as a whole, and nothing significantly showing that society would be better, as a whole.
Neither law or logic seems to support the arguments you've made.
My answer is, that it's an irrelevant question. How does it affect, me, Charles, personally and directly? I don't see that it does. But neither does incest, murder, theft, or any thing else you can name with possible exceptions for voting, traffic and tax laws. What difference does it make if it affects me, personally and directly?
My question was: How does gay people marrying affect YOUR life? I'm not asking why the government is against it or why the baker is against it, I was asking how it affects YOU.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was substantially read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873. The Clause has remained virtually dormant since, but in 2010 this clause was the basis for the fifth and deciding vote in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, regarding application of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the states.
"Privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," has always been interpreted to mean the privileges which apply to the citizens of every state. These are found only in the Constitution and Court interpretations. Privileges, in this clause, has been taken to mean Constitutional rights. It no longer has any other particular meaning.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No, it wouldn't. The Supreme Court has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is Constitutional. Again, the reference to the Constitution.
So you would support discrimination if "the government" decided it was OK? Am I reading this right? If the government is not willing to enter into a contract with ... black people, that would be OK with you?
Regnerus, and others. As opposed to the 59 studies discarded for flaws such as non-random samples.
What pieces evidence?
Married couples aren't better for their children when they provide stability and two role models of different sexes? (Throughout, we're talking about generalizations, not specific instances.)
What does straight marriage do that makes society better?
Since when is "making society better" a qualification for getting married?
You mean they can't? Then why give them extra benefits if they add nothing?
Why must gay people meet this standard when no one else is required to?
ALL marriages? Don't be silly. Are ALL gay marriages faithful, non-abusive, or whatever? That's not a test anybody has or will propose.
If you can show that all marriages must pass a litmus test of making society better as a whole, then you might have an argument here, but there is no such thing, explicit or implied.
I'm curious, does my opinion decide the matter? Or, does it merely provide an opportunity for personal attacks?
Again, What reason would YOU give for treating people differently because of whom they love?
Originally posted by charles1952
My question was: How does gay people marrying affect YOUR life? I'm not asking why the government is against it or why the baker is against it, I was asking how it affects YOU.
My answer is, that it's an irrelevant question. How does it affect, me, Charles, personally and directly? I don't see that it does. But neither does incest, murder, theft, or any thing else you can name with possible exceptions for voting, traffic and tax laws. What difference does it make if it affects me, personally and directly?
How does it affect, me, Charles, personally and directly? I don't see that it does.
I have two problems with this. One, gay marriage, or whatever relationship, is not going to be outlawed. There might be a state or two with anti-sodomy statutes, but I don't know of them. It's just a question of not getting recognized by the government for all the benefits received by different sex marriages. (My head just started to spin because of a thought that just crossed my mind. How do we deal with two transvestites? Above my pay grade.)
So, why should it be outlawed?
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973
As I pointed out, the Regnerus study is probably the best designed and executed studies available on the effects of parents of children when they reach 18. Is it perfect? No. But it is the best we've got. As such it is evidence, but not proof, that children of gay parents end up differently from children of straight parents. Lacking any contrary evidence of equal scientific rigor, and I've never seen any, it is not irrational to assert that gay marriage, on the whole, does not provide outcomes similar to straight marriage. That can be seen as an indirect harm to society
"Malevolent intent and actions?" I'm not quite clear what that means in the real world. We have laws against animal abuse, incest, using drugs, not wearing a seat belt, and on and on against things that have no malevolent intent and actions.
So, why should it be outlawed? I have two problems with this. One, gay marriage, or whatever relationship, is not going to be outlawed. There might be a state or two with anti-sodomy statutes, but I don't know of them. It's just a question of not getting recognized by the government for all the benefits received by different sex marriages. (My head just started to spin because of a thought that just crossed my mind. How do we deal with two transvestites? Above my pay grade.)
But, secondly, nobody is planning on doing anything at all (nationally, right now) about gay marriage. It won't be outlawed, it won't be anything. The cry going around is lets change it, let's do it differently. Doesn't that put some burden on those wanting change? Why should society change? I'm sure it would make some people happy, but how is society better off if we do change?
That's the question I haven't seen an answer to. I don't think it's an unreasonable one. Even two-faced politicians try to show the benefit when they introduce any bill. While they are not insignificant reasons, the only things I've seen so far is "It's fair," and "It will ease the emotional suffering of about 1% of the population."
Originally posted by charles1952
I'm curious, does my opinion decide the matter? Or, does it merely provide an opportunity for personal attacks?
Originally posted by charles1952
It also changes marriage to mean "A relationship focused entirely on the two people involved with no other expectation than they'll really like each other for a while."
I may be contributing to this thread going off track. How can I help fix that?