For or Against Gay Marriage

Really, you want to marry your sister? No, that is not legal. In fact, any act of incest is illegal, unlike with homosexuality. Simply because incest is illegal, doesn't mean same-sex marriage should not be legalized nationally. Your argument isn't against gay marriage, it is against incest, and it is against re-defining of marriage. Marriage has been re-defined many times before. That doesn't mean before it was re-defined, in the various ways, that it had any relation to incest, regardless of what the law said in terms of marriage or anything else. The same is true with homosexuality and same-sex marriage.



No, not only in my mind, but by the rules of logic. It's called a slippery slope fallacy, or a red herring, and these are diversionary tactics. Clearly you are not interested in having a debate based on logic, not from anything I have seen so far, anyway.
 
We are referring to denial of recognition. Marriage rights for same-sex couples exist in Massachusetts. How is the federal government justified denying the benefits of a same-sex couple's marriage from MA if it recognizes an opposite sex couple's marriage from MA. That is inconstitutional based on 14th amendment protections.

DOMA is unconstitutional.
 
I know a number of S/S couples who have been together that long. Washington, and Baltimore have very vibrant GLBT Communities.

The ceremony can be a religious service, but for all intents and purposes it is a secular event, for inheritance, taxes, child portability, life and death decisions, etal.

And you are using your faith to Gay Bash, only.
 
I thought you said you were leaving this forum never to return? What happened?

If by "normal" you mean that I must be an intollerant bigot, no thanks, I'll pass. I respect all people, not just those who's agenda I happen to agree with. There was a guy in your little book that taught something like that...what was his name..Jerry...no...Josus..nope...Jeebus...no...oh well, you remember the guy; tall, lot's of hair, hung around with all those guys who smelled like fish and constantly talked to hookers? Or didn't you get to the second part of your book yet?

I would rather stay far far away from you and the ever-shrinking minority of people who would call you "normal".
 
Yeah, I wanted to know where to send my check to. I would have paid for a mass liberal exodus. Hell, I pay because they're here; I might as well get something for my money. :)
 
There most definately is such a thing known as a gay pedophile. They are dangerous predators of young children. John Wayne Gacy, renowned liberal Demoncrap, was exactly a homosexual pedophile. Denial of the truth and facts does not move the truth one inch. It seems to me that liberalism is getting more evil by the hour. And the hour grows short. Why is it that so many people embrace things that God has described as an abomination unto him?
 
Same-sex marriages are not illegal. If I say that I am married to my husband, I will not be arrested. If you say that you are married to your sister, you will be arrested.
 
I admitted nothing. I actually made it clear that I have no idea. We played a what if game and I made some guesses. I also made it clear that regardless of what I think of their decision I don't view it as a justification for trumping the rights of all women.
 
It's not meaningless. It is a REAL phenomenon. Here's a definition from Auburn University's website:

Judicial activism
The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own considered estimates of the vital neeRAB of contemporary society when the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and/or the various state governments seem to them to be failing to meet these neeRAB. On such a view, judges should not hesitate to go beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws given to them by others in order to assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society. "

Two quick examples: Florida 2000 election and NJ 2002 Senatorial election. In both instances, state SCs practiced judicial activism and actually attempted to rewrite election law. In the first example, the USSC shut them down, but in the second, they were succesful in getting an illegal candidate elected, Frank Lautenburg.

Liberals never cease to amaze me. You want a compassionate government yet you fight tooth and nail to keep the most compassionate organizations, Churches, out of the equation. What a bunch of hypocrites. The Federal government has no business meddling in social affairs and it wouldn't be if it hadn't been for past judicial activism. (We've come full circle).


But it does, both financially and principly.


I thought the marriage penalty was still in effect. Did I miss something?


I posted this on another forum. If you check the links as well as the snipets, it certainly shows a high risk lifestyle.
But, you're right. Even if it is a high risk lifestyle, why is that my concern? It wouldn't be if it wasn't for the fact that $10 Billion's of taxpayer money is going to treat AIRAB/HIV and the largest infected segment is gays. Just as our government seems to think it's their job to try to stop smokers, it should be consistent and advocate against another unhealthy lifestyle, homosexuality.
You see, it is liberals like you that got Uncle Sam involved in social issues in the first place. Now that they are, they should be used fairly. I'm hoping that, in this instance, liberals will be hoisted on their own petard. Maybe then both Conservatives AND Liberals will see the folly in ever getting Uncle Sam involved in the first place. ...but I doubt it.


Again, you're not only asking for my acceptacne of gay marriage, you're asking for my financial support for a lifestyle that I fundamentally disagree with. I choose not to participate and will use my voice to encourage other not to as well.
Should gays agree that only non-fiscally impacted rights would be granted via a civil union, then I'd consider voting in favor of it. But, right now, my principles and my pocketbook say NO. Feel free to convince me otherwise, though. That's why we're all here.
 
1. African Americans are a minority.......Gays are a class determined by choice.

2. Marriage between a man and a woman is the norm.Marriage between 2 men, 2 women, a man and 2 women, a man and his sister is not......

3. This country was established under religeous principles whether you like it or not......


4. The sexual acts that gays engage in are thought to be perverse by most Americans.........
 
Um... I'm struggling to try and maintain my part in this conversation [debate], yet I have no idea what's going on between the two of you...
 
This I do not agree with. I cannot see how the court could rule in favor of DOMA based on 14th Amendment protections. As far as the law goes, the marriage license from couple A from state 1 is the same as the license from couple B from the same state. How could it be constitutional to refuse to recognize the marriage license from couple A, yet recognize the marriage license from couple B from the same state?

That is unconstitutional.
 
Since when are civil rights for all people, an agenda ? Remember those troops you claim to love, fighting in Iraq ? Some are from the GLBT Community. So get off of your phony riding horse, Plankowner ! LOL, LOL
:xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken:
 
Tabula Rasa?


If my Latin is correct, that means that I was born heterosexual, than no. But I never said that I was, and if I did, please point it out to me so that I can correct myself.

In fact, I am trying to defend the point that you can't be born with a specific sexual orientation. What I was trying to say was that I chose to be heterosexual. Not that I was born that way.
 
I may be an RCer, but I also realize that we are a land of laws, not of men.
 
Back
Top