NationStates Jolt Archive

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?

Marriage is a contract that puts limitations on your rights anyway.

I don't know. It's says we have right to pursue happiness. So, I guess that means gay people aren't people since we don't seem to think that applies to them? :mad:
You're from Milwaukee. That is to cool.

Since when is the constituition a perfect moral compass that Americans should base all their choices on?

Since when is the constituition a perfect moral compass that Americans should base all their choices on?
It's the law....so you better base your choices on it or you're going to jail.

Originally by posted by SuperGroovedom
Since when is the constituition a perfect moral compass that Americans should base all their choices on?

That doesn't even make any sense. Gay people can't get married if it's illegal.

Marriage is a contract that puts limitations on your rights anyway.
ok....but that's not what I was asking.

It's the law....so you better base your choices on it or you're going to jail.

Laws that are wrong should be broken. Like the speedlimit.

I don't know. It's says we have right to pursue happiness. So, I guess that means gay people aren't people since we don't seem to think that applies to them? :mad:
You're from Milwaukee. That is to cool.
Where in Wisconsin are you?

Laws that are wrong should be broken. Like the speedlimit.
Ok...I'm coming over to your house to kill you, because I believe laws against honor killings are wrong. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by EmoBuddy
Where in Wisconsin are you?

Close to Madison. So are you for gay marriage or against it?

I don't know. It's says we have right to pursue happiness.
No it doesn't.

Ok...I'm coming over to your house to kill you, because I believe laws against honor killings are wrong. :rolleyes:

So the law is infallible and should never change?

Who's Constitution?

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?
There! No, there! Wait, it's . . . no, that's just the Second Amendment :D.

My sentiments exactly, though. Get the gov't out of marriage!

So the law is infallible and should never change?
This thread isn't about changing the law, people talk about marriage as being a right. According to the law, it isn't.

its a constitutional right to live a good happy life, the way you want to live it. if marraige is something you need to live a happy life, the government shouldnt be alowed to prevent it, no matter who or what you're marrying.

The Constitution doesnt say anything about marriage, nor should it. Pres. Bush is known to have pushed for an amendment to ban homosexual marriage, and that is worse than demanding them. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is over granting marriages to all couples, homosexual or heterosexual. If marriage is a "religious sanction", then fine. I can respect if some faiths won't grant homosexual marriages, that's up to those churches, but if they won't grant marriages, then the government should. I'm not talking about Civil Unions, I'm talking about actual marriages like the ones conducted in San Fransisco. The Constitution plays a role in all of this because it advocates equal rights for all citizens. So by denying homosexual marriages, that is going against the Constitution. I say that we respect it if some churches won't grant them, but I also say that they should be legalized, and if not granted by the churches, then they should be granted by the government.

This thread isn't about changing the law, people talk about marriage as being a right. According to the law, it isn't.

So what is your suggestion about how to proceed with the whole marriage thing?

its a constitutional right to live a good happy life, the way you want to live it. if marraige is something you need to live a happy life, the government shouldnt be alowed to prevent it, no matter who or what you're marrying.
No it isn't. The Constitution says nothing about goodness and happiness. Stop pulling history out of your ass.

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?

Nowhere. The problem of course is that you're asking the wrong question. What we currently have in the US is a case of one group (heterosexuals)having the protection of marriage law and another group (homosexuals) that does not. Such a case does violate the Constitution, specifically...

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Taken From: The Constitution of the United States of America (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html)

Now if you want to get rid of marriage as a state-administered institution I'm down with that. :D

So what is your suggestion about how to proceed with the whole marriage thing?
My suggestion is to keep on topic with the thread. As it stands, I don't see the Constitution guaranteeing marriage to anyone, gay or straight.

Ok...I'm coming over to your house to kill you, because I believe laws against honor killings are wrong. :rolleyes:

Murder laws are good, Speed limit laws are wrong.

The law is the law, but if the law is wrong it should be broken. IE, turn left of red laws. Its 2 AM at night at a clear intersection and your left turn light is red, no traffic in any direction. Is it actually wrong to just make the goddamned turn? No its not. Should you? YES.

Is that advocating breaking the law? Yes. Is that advocating breaking a stupid f-ing law? Yes.

I dont really think the right question is being asked. Instead of "Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry?" the question should be:

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Murder laws are good, Speed limit laws are wrong.

The law is the law, but if the law is wrong it should be broken. IE, turn left of red laws. Its 2 AM at night at a clear intersection and your left turn light is red, no traffic in any direction. Is it actually wrong to just make the goddamned turn? No its not. Should you? YES.

Is that advocating breaking the law? Yes. Is that advocating breaking a stupid f-ing law? Yes.
So you have the right to determine which laws we should follow and which laws we shouldn't? Good cases can be made for murder, just as good cases can be made for breaking speed limits.

I dont really think the right question is being asked. Instead of "Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry?" the question should be:

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry?
1) You're changing existing law, so the burden is on you to justify it
2) No one should be allowed to marry anyway

My suggestion is to keep on topic with the thread. As it stands, I don't see the Constitution guaranteeing marriage to anyone, gay or straight.

So whats the point of the thread? Marriage is not a right, so...

It's half an idea. It doesn't go anywhere..

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?
In the US Bill of Rights, the right to a marriage is protected by the 9th Amendment. The 9th basically says that a person's rights are not limited to those named in the constitution, and it was later determined (I'm not sure by which case, but i know it's protected) that marriage is protected by the 9th.

its a constitutional right to live a good happy life, the way you want to live it. if marriage is something you need to live a happy life, the government shouldn’t be allowed to prevent it, no matter who or what you're marrying.

Its a constitutional right to the pursuit of a happy life. Not to a happy life.

Beyond that, hey it will only make me happy if I get to piss in public and walk around nude? I guess I should be able to do that ensure my happy life? No? Didn't think so.

PS, learn how to spell.
Marriage
shouldn’t
allowed

Marriage originated in the Bible. The Bible is the text of Christianity. Christianity prohibits homosexuality. Homosexual "marriage"? Good one!

So whats the point of the thread? Marriage is not a right, so...

It's half an idea. It doesn't go anywhere..
The original poster was trying to get people to justify gay marriage Constitutionally, some people have tried to do that. Beyond that, I don't think the thread has much point.

There! No, there! Wait, it's . . . no, that's just the Second Amendment :D.

My sentiments exactly, though. Get the gov't out of marriage!
Yes, that way this whole argument regarding gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue.

In the US Bill of Rights, the right to a marriage is protected by the 9th Amendment. The 9th basically says that a person's rights are not limited to those named in the constitution, and it was later determined (I'm not sure by which case, but i know it's protected) that marriage is protected by the 9th.
Marriage, for just about the majority of human history, has been a traditionally religious institution, correct?

That means the right to a marriage is unconstitutional according the the 1st.

Well, I know up here (Canada) they're basically taking issue that not allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

So discrimination is unconstitutional...

its a constitutional right to live a good happy life, the way you want to live it. if marraige is something you need to live a happy life, the government shouldnt be alowed to prevent it, no matter who or what you're marrying.
The government is not preventing anyone from getting married - just from getting the benefits of marriage under the government.

Marriage originated in the Bible.
No, it didn't. Believe it or not, PEOPLE GOT MARRIED in places where there WAS NO CHRISTIANITY. Asia, the Americas...lots of places didn't have the faintest clue what Christainity was until Europeons came along, but that didn't stop them from marrying. Please stop falsifiying history to make your religion look good.

Well, I know up here (Canada) they're basically taking issue that not allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

So discrimination is unconstitutional...
Sexual orientation is not a protected trait. Look at the military.

...
Now if you want to get rid of marraige as a state-administered institution I'm down with that. :D

I think therein lies the solution. Just make it so everyone has to file their taxes seperately; eliminate all references to marriage and children in the tax code and rewrite all the laws. Course that would require a lot of work.

The Liberals don't want to do all that work any more than the conservatives. Difference is, liberals think they can take the easy way out and hijack traditional marriages.

So you have the right to determine which laws we should follow and which laws we shouldn't? Good cases can be made for murder, just as good cases can be made for breaking speed limits.

Use that little part of your brain called rationality. You know, that little part that allows you to distinguish between killing people and doing 120mph on an empty freeway. See that part of your brain realizes that trying to bring murder into a discussion about breaking idiotic laws is even more idiotic than the idiotic laws.

Marriage originated in the Bible. The Bible is the text of Christianity. Christianity prohibits homosexuality. Homosexual "marriage"? Good one!
Yes, because no other culture in the world got married before they were introduced to chrsitianity. :roll:

Ok...I'm coming over to your house to kill you, because I believe laws against honor killings are wrong. :rolleyes:
S.P.A.M. brought to you by teh cameron clan
-spaming since 1986

but anyway i think that they should be able to get married i dont see why not and dont give me all the constition and religious bull plop this is a matter of people being denied their "rights" because of others fears and twisted old age belifes come on people this isnt the "old days" get with the program things are changing (including other things than gay marrage u know) and all ur doing is slowing the rest of us down. so go move to another country where people are more oppressed because i dont want backward thinking people living in MY country (i say my county not as in it belongs to me or u all obey me...which u should)

(wow i am impressed most of my posts are just spam...)

Yes, because no other culture in the world got married before they were introduced to chrsitianity. :roll:
But has or has NOT marriage been, for most of human history, a traditionally religious (not necessarily Christian) institution?

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?

it never said anything about a right to marriage....though the 10 ammandmant says citezins have more rights than the bill of rights says....other than that it says states control marriage licenses and what not

Use that little part of your brain called rationality. You know, that little part that allows you to distinguish between killing people and doing 120mph on an empty freeway. See that part of your brain realizes that trying to bring murder into a discussion about breaking idiotic laws is even more idiotic than the idiotic laws.
Dahmer killed a lot of people. However, he didn't get the death penalty, rather life in prison. If I murdered him, would I really be so bad? The answer is NO!, because the guy who eventually DID murder him in prison got off. So there goes your argument about murder not being relavant to moral relativism. And as for your dumbass "120 mph on an empty freeway" statement, a lady in Arizona was merging onto the interstate. She saw headlights far away, and figured she could make it. They hit her and she died. Turns out, they were going 180 mph, almost 3 times the legal speed limit.

Sexual orientation is not a protected trait. Look at the military.
If I'm not mistaken, it's a protected trait here. There were a bunch of conservatives freaking out a couple years ago over proposals to add sexual orientation to protection in hate laws and the like... This isn't the U.S., nor is it the american military.

1) You're changing existing law, so the burden is on you to justify it
2) No one should be allowed to marry anyway


Wait, how is it changing the law to allow homosexual marriages? as previously stated, there is nothing in the Constitution saying anything about marriage what so ever, so at this point there are no laws either way. Marriage is a union of love, and thats all it should be. I say we abandon all of the economic benifits associated with it, and make it a union on love and love alone. If two people love each other, they should have the right to express that love to the world through a union of marriage. The First Amendment enforces the "right to expression", and marriage is an expression of love, so in my opinion, the law currently supports it. The problem is that people are bringing religion into the picture and saying that "marriage is a religious union, and doesnt apply to homosexuals" well, at one point minorities werent allowed to vote, and that changed for the better in my opinion, because all citizens were granted the same rights. So in my opinion, everyone should have a right to marriage, because everyone also has a right to love.

Dahmer killed a lot of people. However, he didn't get the death penalty, rather life in prison. If I murdered him, would I really be so bad? The answer is NO!, because the guy who eventually DID murder him in prison got off. So there goes your argument about murder not being relavant to moral relativism. And as for your dumbass "120 mph on an empty freeway" statement, a lady in Arizona was merging onto the interstate. She saw headlights far away, and figured she could make it. They hit her and she died. Turns out, they were going 180 mph, almost 3 times the legal speed limit.

What the holey hell is your point? That all laws should be followed without question? I may just be being dense but what is your angle?

Amendment IX

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

There. Have fun.

If I'm not mistaken, it's a protected trait here. There were a bunch of conservatives freaking out a couple years ago over proposals to add sexual orientation to protection in hate laws and the like... This isn't the U.S., nor is it the american military.
That's nice. But when you talk about the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, you don't care what they do in Canada. Thanks for the irrelevant post.

What the holey hell is your point? That all laws should be followed without question? I may just be being dense but what is your angle?
All laws should be followed. You should work to get laws changed that you don't agree with. You shouldn't arbitrarily decide that order is beneath you.

Beyond what's already been said, I still don't understand as to why people are fighting marriage for homosexuals. Would someone please enlighten me to their logic (or lack there of). :confused:

But has or has NOT marriage been, for most of human history, a traditionally religious (not necessarily Christian) institution?
Not really.

Hell, Buddhist monks only preform marriage ceremonies because they get requests for preforming the ceremony.

It wasn't until late in the middle ages that the christian churches got in on preforming marriages. At first it was fashionable to have a priest attend, then later preside over weddings and eventually it became automatic.

Wait, how is it changing the law to allow homosexual marriages? as previously stated, there is nothing in the Constitution saying anything about marriage what so ever, so at this point there are no laws either way. Marriage is a union of love, and thats all it should be. I say we abandon all of the economic benifits associated with it, and make it a union on love and love alone. If two people love each other, they should have the right to express that love to the world through a union of marriage. The First Amendment enforces the "right to expression", and marriage is an expression of love, so in my opinion, the law currently supports it. The problem is that people are bringing religion into the picture and saying that "marriage is a religious union, and doesnt apply to homosexuals" well, at one point minorities werent allowed to vote, and that changed for the better in my opinion, because all citizens were granted the same rights. So in my opinion, everyone should have a right to marriage, because everyone also has a right to love.
Allowing homosexuals to marry would be granting them a privledge they do not currently have. Thus, you are changing something. However, I agree with you that marriage should be based solely on love, and would support extending that to homosexuals and removing the financial incentives from heterosexual marriage as well.

Beyond what's already been said, I still don't understand as to why people are fighting marriage for homosexuals. Would someone please enlighten me to their logic (or lack there of). :confused:
For me personally, I don't believe that anyone should have the marriage we have now. Everyone should be allowed to be "married" in a church, but with no rights or privledges granted by the state.

That's nice. But when you talk about the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, you don't care what they do in Canada. Thanks for the irrelevant post.
I wasn't talking about the american constitution and if your society actually gave a damn about human rights (obviously it doesn't, what with not signing either the rights of women and the rights of the child things) then sexual orientation would be protected from discrimination.

All laws should be followed. You should work to get laws changed that you don't agree with. You shouldn't arbitrarily decide that order is beneath you.

Thanks for that. It's hard to tell if someones being sarcastic/ playing devil's advocate on a forum.

I personally disagree. I'm of the belief that if it doesn't actually affect you, you have no right to tell me to do otherwise regardless of how many people agree with you. But that's off-topic.

Dahmer killed a lot of people. However, he didn't get the death penalty, rather life in prison. If I murdered him, would I really be so bad? The answer is NO!, because the guy who eventually DID murder him in prison got off. So there goes your argument about murder not being relavant to moral relativism.

As I said, murder is a valid law and speed limit laws are not. The vast majority of the time the murder law is meaningful and correct. The vast majority of the time the speed limit law is wrong. Nice noticeable difference there.

And as for your dumbass "120 mph on an empty freeway" statement, a lady in Arizona was merging onto the interstate. She saw headlights far away, and figured she could make it. They hit her and she died. Turns out, they were going 180 mph, almost 3 times the legal speed limit.

They hit her? Woman *merges* onto a freeway. Right of Way? The car already on the interstate has the right of way. So apparently the woman hit the other car. Amount of lanes on this interstate? Better be at least two lanes seeing as every freeway I know of has two lanes. So a woman who merges onto a two lane freeway manages to get hit by a car doing 180? Fault? The woman.

If it was a one-lane road the dumbass doing 180 should have their license revoked.

Allowing homosexuals to marry would be granting them a privledge they do not currently have. Thus, you are changing something. However, I agree with you that marriage should be based solely on love, and would support extending that to homosexuals and removing the financial incentives from heterosexual marriage as well.

Then you and I have no arguement in that respect. Marriage is an institution of love, and should be set up that way, for everyone. But since that may not be happening for a while, I say equal rights for all.

I wasn't talking about the american constitution and if your society actually gave a damn about human rights (obviously it doesn't, what with not signing either the rights of women and the rights of the child things) then sexual orientation would be protected from discrimination.
I KNOW you weren't talking about the Constitution. That's why your post doesn't belong in a thread titled "Since when is marriage a Constitutional right"? Maybe if it said "universal right" or "Canadian right" your post wouldn't be horribly stupid and off-topic. And yet, here we are.

What is the primary purpose of "marriage"? I've always assumed it was to provide a structured & moral environment to give birth to (and raise) children, if they chose to have any. The only way to give natural birth is natural sex, ie male-female.

Then you and I have no arguement in that respect. Marriage is an institution of love, and should be set up that way, for everyone. But since that may not be happening for a while, I say equal rights for all.
For me, it's like this. Let's say homosexual marriages are Glocks and heterosexual marriages are Barrettas. Now, let's say you're against gun ownership. People can own Barrettas, but not Glocks. Do you say, "Well, let's legalize Glocks, because it's unfair" or do you stick to your principles and work to have Barrettas illegalized as well?

They hit her? Woman *merges* onto a freeway. Right of Way? The car already on the interstate has the right of way. So apparently the woman hit the other car. Amount of lanes on this interstate? Better be at least two lanes seeing as every freeway I know of has two lanes. So a woman who merges onto a two lane freeway manages to get hit by a car doing 180? Fault? The woman.

If it was a one-lane road the dumbass doing 180 should have their license revoked.
You really sound like an idiot when you say things like that. Have you ever driven a car before?

Thanks for that. It's hard to tell if someones being sarcastic/ playing devil's advocate on a forum.

I personally disagree. I'm of the belief that if it doesn't actually affect you, you have no right to tell me to do otherwise regardless of how many people agree with you. But that's off-topic.

By "you," I mean others.

I PROPSE A NEW IDEA FOR ALL YOU RELIGIOUS PHREAKS WHEN IT COMES TO MARRIAGE.

We will have Mariage. Marriage minus an R. And you can be gay if you want to get maried.

As I said, murder is a valid law and speed limit laws are not.



They hit her? Woman *merges* onto a freeway. Right of Way? The car already on the interstate has the right of way. So apparently the woman hit the other car. Amount of lanes on this interstate? Better be at least two lanes seeing as every freeway I know of has two lanes. So a woman who merges onto a two lane freeway manages to get hit by a car doing 180? Fault? The woman.

If it was a one-lane road the dumbass doing 180 should have their license revoked.
Um. No. The woman exercised reasonable care while merging; the driver going 180 did not. On a road with a speed limit of 60-70 mph it is legitimate to believe that there isn't a car barreling down at 180 coming at you, so she is not at fault. The driver of the car moving at 180 mph, however, was not exercising reasonable care and violating quite a few laws (try coming to a complete stop quickly at 180 mph. Say you're at a blind intersection. That's what speed limits are for, they are to stop you from killing someone else), and is at fault for the accident.

You really sound like an idiot when you say things like that. Have you ever driven a car before?
Perhaps you could attempt to show what is wrong with what I said? Or perhaps its because you can't so you decide to be a dumbass and make personal attacks instead?

Wait, how is it changing the law to allow homosexual marriages? as previously stated, there is nothing in the Constitution saying anything about marriage what so ever, so at this point there are no laws either way. Marriage is a union of love, and thats all it should be. I say we abandon all of the economic benifits associated with it, and make it a union on love and love alone. If two people love each other, they should have the right to express that love to the world through a union of marriage. The First Amendment enforces the "right to expression", and marriage is an expression of love, so in my opinion, the law currently supports it. The problem is that people are bringing religion into the picture and saying that "marriage is a religious union, and doesnt apply to homosexuals" well, at one point minorities werent allowed to vote, and that changed for the better in my opinion, because all citizens were granted the same rights. So in my opinion, everyone should have a right to marriage, because everyone also has a right to love.

im confused but.. doesn't this make marriage an essential civil right under the law of the consitituion ?

In 1967, the Loving Court recognized marriage as a fundamental right under the Constitution, striking down the state’s antimiscegenation statute: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men... Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Loving V the STate of Virginia defined Marriage as a fundamental right and freedom... it was addressing marriage in terms of interatial unions... And if im not mistaken there has been a history of marriage being being described as a basic human right within the supreme court >.> So.. i belive marraige in fact is a right

To elaborate on my answer before which seems to have been ignored:

The right to marriage is located in the 9th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Confusing language, but at its core it states that people are not limited in their rights only to those granted by the framers in the Constitution. In fact, it states the exact opposite: The country can only restrict rights were it is given leeway in the constitution to do so, and to protect the rights of the majority of the people, all other rights are retained by the people and can not be enfringed by any goverment. The right to marriage (and gay marriage) is located in that right.

I dont' know how stupid a person has to be to drive 180mph in the right lane of a freeway where people are merging in the first place?

If you're going to exceed the speedlimit that much, move to the left so you don't catch people who are going slowly getting on the freeway.

Also, if they were far enough back for her to reasonably guess she had enough time to get in, then they should have had time to get out of the way seeing an incoming car. I know that I've been driving on the highway and about to change lanes when someone who was a couple kilometers behind me suddenly appeared in my blind spot when I went to move over and I managed to get out of the way in time. It's why you check twice before changing lanes...

It's not a constitutional right (I think) but it is a civil right.

Not really.

It wasn't until late in the middle ages that the christian churches got in on preforming marriages. At first it was fashionable to have a priest attend, then later preside over weddings and eventually it became automatic.
For a while, marriage ceremonies were held in the town square or on the steps of the church, after which the congregation went inside for mass. You couldn't get married in the church because marriage was a civil union, not a religious one.

It was never said that it wasn't a right. Look up "marriage". You can't have same sex marriage. No such thing. You can try but it just doesn't work. Literally.

Um. No. The woman exercised reasonable care while merging; the driver going 180 did not. On a road with a speed limit of 60-70 mph it is legitimate to believe that there isn't a car barreling down at 180 coming at you, so she is not at fault. The driver of the car moving at 180 mph, however, was not exercising reasonable care and violating quite a few laws (try coming to a complete stop quickly at 180 mph. Say you're at a blind intersection. That's what speed limits are for, they are to stop you from killing someone else), and is at fault for the accident.

Intersections? On a Freeway? They don't exist. Blind intersection, on a freeway? Doesn't exist. If the accident happened on a FREEWAY the accident is the fault of the merger. If it happened on a one lane per side road my position was already made clear by noting that the dumbass doing the driving should have his/her license revoked.

My position on speed limits is drive what the conditions allow you to drive. That position is the same position as a nice little backwater country known as "Germany" that manages to maintain a accident per mile rate that is effectively the same as the United States. And somehow they manage to pull that off while allowing people like me to drive 140mph in a Volvo station wagon...

Yeah... the way I see it most of you arent too bright. Especially you "speed limit", you are like the biggest idiot ever. I'd debate you on that, but I think you are too stupid to understand. Anyway, Marriage has always been "regulated", I'm 17, can I marry (without parent consent)? NO! Can I marry my cousin? NO! Can I marry my dog? NO! Do I think gays should marry? NO! If you believe it or not marriage in this country has been a religous institution, hence "We are gathered here in the sight of God to join these two in holy blah blah blah...". According to the bible God wouldnt approve of gay marriage. Our whole country is based off christianity, our money says in God we trust, the supreme court opens with a prayer and Bush was sworn in on the same bible as George Washington. I personally dont think we need to turn away from that and thus I dont think that gay marriage should be allowed. Any "rights" you get from marriage can be gotten in any state anyway, its called power or attorney. Anyway... Im done now.

What is the primary purpose of "marriage"? I've always assumed it was to provide a structured & moral environment to give birth to (and raise) children, if they chose to have any. The only way to give natural birth is natural sex, ie male-female.
It's been more of a merger kind of thing. Say my father and your father owned land next to each other, we're roughly the same age, so our fathers get together and deceide that it's better to have two plots of land than one and get us hitched so they work together on the land and their descendants end up with more land.

If anything, now marriage is pair bonding (we have enough people on this planet as it is) and furthermore, gay sex is natural for gay people. Just because it's not natural for a straight person to be having homosexual sex doesnt' mean it's not natural for a homosexual person to be having homosexual sex.

It was never said that it wasn't a right. Look up "marriage". You can't have same sex marriage. No such thing. You can try but it just doesn't work. Literally.
mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
<b> 4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. </b>
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?


Marriage is not a right guaranteed to anyone in the Consitution. However, there are several amendments that come into play here.

Amendment I states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Since so many people like to claim that marriage is a religious issue the government shouldn't recognize it at all. However, they do because it is also a social issue. Interestingly, the people who argue about it being religious are the ones who don't seem to realize that there are already religions that recognize gay marriage. By denying gays equal access to marital rights, the government and those opposed to gay marriage are breaking Amendment I by establishing one religious group over another.

Amendment V reads "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


If I could remember how to do bold on here, I would've bolded the part that says "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." This means that it has to be shown that someone possessing a right or the restriction of a person's rights has to be shown to have a compelling public interest--such as imprisoning criminals and registering sex offenders. Gay marriage poses no compelling public threat--it affects no one but the two parties involved, no matter how histrionic those opposed might be about it.

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

This is perhaps the most important one in this arguement. Basically, just because a right isn't guaranteed in the Constitution, it does not mean that the people do not possess that right. This really speaks for itself so I'm not going to belabour the point. I'll just sum up: People have rights even if they are not expressly stated in the Consitution.

According to Amendment XIV Section 1 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

So again, in short, as with Amendment V, you cannot deprive people of their rights except by due process of law. This Amendment goes even further to state that all people are to have equal protection under laws. Gays do not get equal protection. Reading over this again, I realize that this Amendment is even more important that the ninth as it guarantees all people equality. You cannot tell me that gays are equal under the current laws which deny them equal access to governmental and social institutions.

So, to sum up my previous statements:

While marriage might not be guaranteed under the Constitution, equality under the law is. Gays and lesbians are denied this equality which is in direct violation of the Constitution of the US.

Hopefully this answered your question, but I will be happy to address any other problems you might have.

Perhaps you could attempt to show what is wrong with what I said? Or perhaps its because you can't so you decide to be a dumbass and make personal attacks instead?
I think you would understand if you had ever driven a car before but -

When you are merging, you can only assume that cars are not going 3 times the speed limit. Therefore, when you see a car in your rear which would not crash into you were it going the correct speed or even a bit faster, it is not your fault if it turns out that it was going 180 mph and does crash into you.

I repeat, have you ever driven a car before?

Laws that are wrong should be broken. Like the speedlimit.

No, laws that are wrong should be opposed and changed but followed until they are. Failure to do so will result in the appropriate punishment, fine, abridgement of rights, etc. This is simply part of being an American.

Yeah... the way I see it most of you arent too bright. Especially you "speed limit", you are like the biggest idiot ever. I debate you on that, but I think you are too stupid to understand.

Might want to tell all 80+ million people in Germany that. I'm sure they'll get a nice kick out of it...

This thread isn't about changing the law, people talk about marriage as being a right. According to the law, it isn't.

But equal protection under the law is a right.

Marriage between hetrosexuals is not just the viewpoint of religious zealots, but also of people who wish to continue the human race. I realize that nowadays there are other ways of continuing the human race, and further that individuals do not need to be married to have kids, however that was the original intention of it, to bring up children in a home where you had 2 individuals who ensured they followed their responsibilities so that the children could grow up and have children etc. Today we have divorce, common-law marriage etc. For those who are against this (homosexual 'marriage'), the fault lies in when we ignore any of God's laws cause you will always have some individuals who feel some laws are good some are bad. It is therefore dangerous as individuals to break the laws of God because then you set the precident that if I can break the laws of God, others can too. As humans we break those laws that are convenient for us to break, we keep those that are convenient, hence why we have different viewpoints on many topics including this one.

Those who think that homosexual 'marriage' is okay assuming you disagree with the point of view that there is a God (as noted in the bible) I mean no offense, I am just noting to those who are exasperated that this topic is being discussed in the real world why this is happening.

The poster who pointed out the equal application of marriage laws as guaranteed in the Constitution is what all of the legal arguments for gay marriage are predicated upon. There are those who would argue that women and men who are oriented towards their own gender are not being discriminated against since they could still marry someone of the opposite gender.

This argument fails when one looks at the Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, in which the Supreme Court agreed with 36 state legislatures that denying the right of people of different skin colors to marry across that line unjustly encumbered them and denying them a fundamental right of free association and the right to marry who they would choose without regard to skin color. The arguments attempting to link marriage between two consenting adults of the same gender to paedophilia and bestiality are similar to the ones used prior to Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, except that at that time there was the additional cry that this would lead to gay marriage (something that does seem to be happening, not that that conveys legitimacy upon the subsequent argruments in re paedophilia and bestiality where there can not be informed adult consent between both parties.).

Essentially the court side stepped another issue and that was the full faith and reciprocity clause of the Constitution which demands that states recognize contracts between private parties entered into in other states. Essentially civil marriage is a special contract that also has as a component then involvement, sanction, and enforcement by the state. So, since Massachusetts, which has a more liberal constitution than that of the United States has ruled that marriage between couples of the same gender must be performed (Since to deny them this would be to convey special rights upon straight couples, by giving them rights and privileges not available to those entering into same sex relationships. Please don't give me the canard that gays can get the same rights and benefits through legal contracts and documents because they cannot; and to force someone to engage in acts abhorent to them solely to obtain benefits under the law that another class can obtain without like burden is discriminatory.) So under a strict contructionist interpretation the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that the states must recognize marriages performed in other states. And we all know how much conservatives love strict constructionism in the courts.

So to sum up: The Constitution does not specifically guarantee the right to marriage, but it also does not deny it nor circumscribe it other than to say that if provisions are made for one group of citizens, those laws must apply equitably to all citizens (Equal Protection Clauses and Admendments). Also, since marriage has been recognized as a contract, the Full Faith and Confidence Clause requires states to recognize each others marriages.

To address those poorly informed folk who believe that marriage is a Biblical institution, while the Bible does describe the union of marriage, it is not uniquely Judeo-Christian in nature and exist outside of the confines of Biblical reference. It is a legal and social institution, that is recognized by societies that have no exposure or basis in Judeo-Christian religious tenets. Also, we have recognized as a society that religious law and Biblical description is not the civil law of the land. Indeed, if it were we would have to permit plural marriage, outlaw all divorce with stoning as the penalty for either party violating such strictures, we would likewise have to permit the physical punishment of wives by their husbands and so forth. Just as we have changed the civil definition of marriage before from the Biblical standards and descriptions, so we can as a society do so again. Unless one is willing to accede to all Biblical aspects regarding marriage and deny all non-conforming marital practices, then to claim some special protection against same gender marriage is hypocritical at best. By the way, one of the perhaps most interesting Biblical commandments regarding marriage is that if a man dies leaving his wife a widow, his brother is required to marry her and take her to wife. So how many of you want to perhaps be forced to marry your sister- or brother-in-law should your spouse die?

Yeah... the way I see it most of you arent too bright. Especially you "speed limit", you are like the biggest idiot ever. I'd debate you on that, but I think you are too stupid to understand. Anyway, Marriage has always been "regulated", I'm 17, can I marry (without parent consent)? NO! Can I marry my cousin? NO! Can I marry my dog? NO! Do I think gays should marry? NO! If you believe it or not marriage in this country has been a religous institution, hence "We are gathered here in the sight of God to join these two in holy blah blah blah...". According to the bible God wouldnt approve of gay marriage. Our whole country is based off christianity, our money says in God we trust, the supreme court opens with a prayer and Bush was sworn in on the same bible as George Washington. I personally dont think we need to turn away from that and thus I dont think that gay marriage should be allowed. Any "rights" you get from marriage can be gotten in any state anyway, its called power or attorney. Anyway... Im done now.
Um...you're confusing a religious ceremony of marriage with the legal ceremony of marriage. There is no "we are gathered here in the sight of god" requirement in the legal definition of marriage.

Murder laws are good, Speed limit laws are wrong.

The law is the law, but if the law is wrong it should be broken. IE, turn left of red laws. Its 2 AM at night at a clear intersection and your left turn light is red, no traffic in any direction. Is it actually wrong to just make the goddamned turn? No its not. Should you? YES.

Is that advocating breaking the law? Yes. Is that advocating breaking a stupid f-ing law? Yes.


So basically, you decide what the laws are. So much for our whole system of government.

If I could remember how to do bold on here, I would've bolded the part that says "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." This means that it has to be shown that someone possessing a right or the restriction of a person's rights has to be shown to have a compelling public interest--such as imprisoning criminals and registering sex offenders. Gay marriage poses no compelling public threat--it affects no one but the two parties involved, no matter how histrionic those opposed might be about it.

I think I would disagree with you on that one - marriages are a burden to taxpayers, because there are tax benefits associated with being married. This is a fine example of tax dollars being used to pay for the greater good: raising a new generation of children. Since gay couples are characteristically unable to produce children, why do they deserve a break in taxes?

Marriage originated in the Bible. The Bible is the text of Christianity. Christianity prohibits homosexuality. Homosexual "marriage"? Good one!


Marriage was around a long time before the Bible or Christianity. Further, other religions all have marriage and atheists are allowed to marry already.

So much for the concept of Christian hegemony on marriage.

I think you would understand if you had ever driven a car before but -

When you are merging, you can only assume that cars are not going 3 times the speed limit. Therefore, when you see a car in your rear which would not crash into you were it going the correct speed or even a bit faster, it is not your fault if it turns out that it was going 180 mph and does crash into you.

When you are merging onto a freeway you are not merging into the same lane anyone doing 180mph should be driving in. And if that person is in the slow lane you should get OFF the freeway and onto the shoulder or the dirt if anyone is coming up behind you that quickly. Indeed if the woman was hit while merging she was not checking her blind spots or behind her while merging because if she were doing so she should have easily been able to pull off onto the shoulder without being hit.

I repeat, have you ever driven a car before?

Yes

The government is not preventing anyone from getting married - just from getting the benefits of marriage under the government.


Which is an abridgetment of equal protection under the law.

So basically, you decide what the laws are. So much for our whole system of government.

Cheers, if making a left turn on a red light at 2AM brings down your whole system of government it deserves to fall.

When you are merging onto a freeway you are not merging into the same lane anyone doing 180mph should be driving in. And if that person is in the slow lane you should get OFF the freeway and onto the shoulder or the dirt if anyone is coming up behind you that quickly. Indeed if the woman was hit while merging she was not checking her blind spots or behind her while merging because if she were doing so she should have easily been able to pull off onto the shoulder without being hit.



Yes
You're arguing that the woman was at fault for not exercising common sense, yet the person who was doing 180 mph in a merging lane was not?

Let me rephrase: do you have your driver's license?

The Liberals don't want to do all that work any more than the conservatives. Difference is, liberals think they can take the easy way out and hijack traditional marriages.

A. Stop misusing the word liberal.

B. Define traditional marriage for me--and then let me tell you how marriage has already changed over the years and see if you really want to go back to that.

Which is an abridgetment of equal protection under the law.

Yep. Article 1 of Amendment XIV

Marriage is a contract that puts limitations on your rights anyway.

And congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is supposed to make contracts binding in all states that are written in any state. That means that the Defense of Marriage act is unconstitutional and that if you get married in Massechusets you're married in all 50 states. And the commonwealth.

I think you would understand if you had ever driven a car before but -

When you are merging, you can only assume that cars are not going 3 times the speed limit. Therefore, when you see a car in your rear which would not crash into you were it going the correct speed or even a bit faster, it is not your fault if it turns out that it was going 180 mph and does crash into you.

I repeat, have you ever driven a car before?
But if you're merging, you also have to check your blindspot and mirrors at least twice. There's a reason got that.

And if I've learned anything from driving, it's that you can't assume that everyone else is a responsable and good driver.

But has or has NOT marriage been, for most of human history, a traditionally religious (not necessarily Christian) institution?


Do you not realize that there are already completely secular civil marriages out there? You do know you can go to a judge or a justice of the peace and get married right? It doesn't take a minister of any religion. This isn't changing that, its just giving equal protection to all citizens. What is so bad about equality?

Laws that are wrong should be broken. Like the speedlimit.

Amen. I can't drive... 65.

hehe

And congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is supposed to make contracts binding in all states that are written in any state. That means that the Defense of Marriage act is unconstitutional and that if you get married in Massechusets you're married in all 50 states. And the commonwealth.

Oooo! Nice job showing DOMA to be unconstitutional under the "full faith and credit" clause. :D

A. Stop misusing the word liberal.

B. Define traditional marriage for me--and then let me tell you how marriage has already changed over the years and see if you really want to go back to that.

Damn it, it says in the old testament that I'm supposed to be allowed to have multiple wives and concubines. Not to mention slaves. These damn liberals are stepping all over my constitutional right to practice my religion. They're ruining our Christian heritige.

The Liberals don't want to do all that work any more than the conservatives. Difference is, liberals think they can take the easy way out and hijack traditional marriages.
WAHHHHH!!!! MOMMY!!! The left is using logic instead of religion to justify their actions! WAHHHHHHH!!! Make them stop! Make them use biased, bigoted religious dogma to justify everything they do, like the right!!! BOOOOOHOOOO!!!

My violin's playing for you, comrade.

You're arguing that the woman was at fault for not exercising common sense, yet the person who was doing 180 mph in a merging lane was not?

Are you that much of a dumbass?

As I noted already if the person was doing so in a one-lane road, which would also mean if he was somehow in the slow lane, he should have his license revoked.

It doesn't matter particularly much to me if the person was doing 180 in the slow or fast lane on an empty freeway. If someone is capable of getting hit while merging it is their fault.

Let me rephrase: do you have your driver's license?

Yes

Cheers, if making a left turn on a red light at 2AM brings down your whole system of government it deserves to fall.
I think his point here is that laws should be guidelines rather than absolute rules - which to some extent is true. However, this doesn't really apply to non-trivial situations such as marriage. Do you surrender now Salvondia? Or are you going to start in on college football betting or some other rubbish like that?

Since gay couples are characteristically unable to produce children, why do they deserve a break in taxes?
Surrogacy? Sperm donations? Adoption?

Maybe you shoudl just make sure that tax breaks go to couples after they have kids then.

When you are merging onto a freeway you are not merging into the same lane anyone doing 180mph should be driving in. And if that person is in the slow lane you should get OFF the freeway and onto the shoulder or the dirt if anyone is coming up behind you that quickly. Indeed if the woman was hit while merging she was not checking her blind spots or behind her while merging because if she were doing so she should have easily been able to pull off onto the shoulder without being hit.



Yes

your both right and wrong here.. it depends on how the accident occured.. if she was able to fully merge into the lane and the guy going 180 hit her dead on in the back (rearending her) it is his fault 100%... any time you rear-end someone it is your fault reguardless.. ur suppose to be driving at a speed which allows you ample time to stop or react.. if you dont have time then you were either speeding or tailgating. however, if the accident occured while she was in the middle of merging so that his car struck the side of her car.. it is then her fault because she was not checking her blind spot no matter how fast he was going...

Even on this note however, insurance companies give out percentatges of fault.... so even though it was her fault, the fellow going 180 was clearly breaking the law as well .. she maybe given only 60 - 70% of the fault of the accident and thus liable for less money...

I think I would disagree with you on that one - marriages are a burden to taxpayers, because there are tax benefits associated with being married. This is a fine example of tax dollars being used to pay for the greater good: raising a new generation of children. Since gay couples are characteristically unable to produce children, why do they deserve a break in taxes?
Marriages don't always generate children.

Wait, how is it changing the law to allow homosexual marriages? as previously stated, there is nothing in the Constitution saying anything about marriage what so ever, so at this point there are no laws either way. Marriage is a union of love, and thats all it should be. I say we abandon all of the economic benifits associated with it, and make it a union on love and love alone. If two people love each other, they should have the right to express that love to the world through a union of marriage. The First Amendment enforces the "right to expression", and marriage is an expression of love, so in my opinion, the law currently supports it. The problem is that people are bringing religion into the picture and saying that "marriage is a religious union, and doesnt apply to homosexuals" well, at one point minorities werent allowed to vote, and that changed for the better in my opinion, because all citizens were granted the same rights. So in my opinion, everyone should have a right to marriage, because everyone also has a right to love.


Y'all do realize that the rights associated with marriage are not all about money right? In fact, the majority of them have nothign to do with money. There are issues of next of kin status and joint custody of children that probably far more important than money to most.

Marriages don't always generate children.

Yeah, those infertile couples shouldn't be able to get married either. ;)

your both right and wrong here.. it depends on how the accident occured.. if she was able to fully merge into the lane and the guy going 180 hit her dead on in the back (rearending her) it is his fault 100%... any time you rear-end someone it is your fault reguardless.. ur suppose to be driving at a speed which allows you ample time to stop or react.. if you dont have time then you were either speeding or tailgating. however, if the accident occured while she was in the middle of merging so that his car struck the side of her car.. it is then her fault because she was not checking her blind spot no matter how fast he was going...

Even on this note however, insurance companies give out percentatges of fault.... so even though it was her fault, the fellow going 180 was clearly breaking the law as well .. she maybe given only 60 - 70% of the fault of the accident and thus liable for less money...
We said that she looked, saw the car coming, saw that it was far enough out so that someone going the speedlimit would not have come close to the car by the time that she would merge in, and merged. Its a perfectly rational assumption to believe that someone is following the law...

Are you that much of a dumbass?

As I noted already if the person was doing so in a one-lane road, which would also mean if he was somehow in the slow lane, he should have his license revoked.

It doesn't matter particularly much to me if the person was doing 180 in the slow or fast lane on an empty freeway. If someone is capable of getting hit while merging it is their fault.



Yes
Fine you're right. But next time I'm about to speed across an intersection with a red light and you're out in the middle going the proper direction, don't expect me to stop; you should have enough common sense not to cross when there's a maniac like me around. :rolleyes:

Yes
I'm sure you do.

It was never said that it wasn't a right. Look up "marriage". You can't have same sex marriage. No such thing. You can try but it just doesn't work. Literally.


mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I did look it up.

Its a perfectly rational assumption to believe that someone is following the law...

There's nothing rational about that assumption, at least in relation to speed limits. What is rational to assume is that the person is going no more than thirty miles an hour over the limit. Which of course still hits well below the 180 mark you mentioned earlier. :D

I think his point here is that laws should be guidelines rather than absolute rules - which to some extent is true. However, this doesn't really apply to non-trivial situations such as marriage. Do you surrender now Salvondia?

Surrender what? That you're an idiot? I made no comments about marriage concerning this. I simply addressed the foolish comment about following all laws because they are laws.

your both right and wrong here.. it depends on how the accident occured.. if she was able to fully merge into the lane and the guy going 180 hit her dead on in the back (rearending her) it is his fault 100%... any time you rear-end someone it is your fault reguardless.. ur suppose to be driving at a speed which allows you ample time to stop or react.. if you dont have time then you were either speeding or tailgating. however, if the accident occured while she was in the middle of merging so that his car struck the side of her car.. it is then her fault because she was not checking her blind spot no matter how fast he was going...

It is not possible to be right and wrong. I specified if the accident happened as she was merging than she is at fault. I didn't specify anything about a rear-end. In which case the law is also wrong when it comes to that. Someone pulls out 10 feet in-front of you from a side street while your doing 45 in a 45? Whose fault? You rear-ended them but who is at fault?

But then we haven't been given any other information than "interstate", "Guy doing 180mph", "woman merging", "they crash."

I think I would disagree with you on that one - marriages are a burden to taxpayers, because there are tax benefits associated with being married. This is a fine example of tax dollars being used to pay for the greater good: raising a new generation of children. Since gay couples are characteristically unable to produce children, why do they deserve a break in taxes?


Most married couples end up paying more in taxes because their added incomes puts them in a higher bracket. Further, by your logic infertile couples should not be able to marry either. Since they are characterstically unable to produce children, why do they deserve a break in taxes?

Fine you're right. But next time I'm about to speed across an intersection with a red light and you're out in the middle going the proper direction, don't expect me to stop; you should have enough common sense not to cross when there's a maniac like me around. :rolleyes:

2 AM in the morning at an intersection with no traffic coming... hey wait there was that little statement right there. “No traffic coming” I wonder what that means… hmmm.

We said that she looked, saw the car coming, saw that it was far enough out so that someone going the speedlimit would not have come close to the car by the time that she would merge in, and merged. Its a perfectly rational assumption to believe that someone is following the law...

reguardless of the assumptions she is making.. if she strikes the care while in the middle of the merge.. despite his speed she will still be given a majority of the blame... while the person going 180 will still be given some percentage of the blame as well .. This is because whenever your wish to merge into a new lane you have to yeild to cars already in that lane, because they have the right of way.

this is just like a case in which someone cuts you off then slams on his breaks.. reguardless of him cutting you off.. if you rear-end someone the blame is on you. So if you merge into a lane and you strike someone going too fast.. you were still suppose to yeild to them even if you could not have known they were breaking the law.

Traffic laws are very clear, and very strick in these terms .. any defensive driving course will tell you this

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

This is perhaps the most important one in this arguement. Basically, just because a right isn't guaranteed in the Constitution, it does not mean that the people do not possess that right. This really speaks for itself so I'm not going to belabour the point. I'll just sum up: People have rights even if they are not expressly stated in the Consitution.

It's also worth noting that when the Constitution was written they didn't think that the word constitution meant "written legal document for the founding of a nation." They considered a nation's constitution to be a matter of tradition and accumulated legal precedence. In fact, even after the writing of the constitution a great many arguments attacked opposing positions as "unconstitutional, betraying hundreds of years of tradition..."

In other words, "constitutionality" is not just a function of what's written in the document, but also of our growing understanding and practice. Like we have a seperation of Church and state because the courts have rule thus with popular support for many years. Even though it is under attack by a dedicated extremist minority.

This could be used to support the anti gay marriage side because hetero marriage is more traditional, or it could support it as the general trend has been to expand the understanding of these rights as our culture matures. IE. You have the right to practice Hinduism even though the people who wrote "no law respecting an establishment of religion" were affirming the people's right to choose which version of Christianity they wanted to practice. We realize now that the Founders may have had a great deal of foresight, but they still had a perspective limited by the culture of the day.

2 AM in the morning at an intersection with no traffic coming... hey wait there was that little statement right there. “No traffic coming” I wonder what that means… hmmm.

you can do whatever you want really.. its still wrong... my friend did exactly what you said while i was in the car.. too bad for him it was a trap and the cops were parked on the side with their lights off waiting for him to blow the light. Got a nice fat ticket and points on his license for running a red light and looked like an ass to the cop.. I almsot couldn't stop laughing since i told him not to do it

Marriage is an infantile thing, anyway. Personally, if I love someone, I do not feel the need to prove it to them legally. It seems a bit of... like wearing bling bling. Unneccessary and a little excessive.

But regardless, it makes me cry that there are people in the world who are so afraid of there being no life after death that they invent a whole new existence and world for them to believe in that takes the edge off dying. I mean, it's fine and good to live in a fairy tale, but when you impose it on others? C'mon! Argh! Marriage isn't a right, but neither is being a relentlessly stupid jackass!

It's also worth noting that when the Constitution was written they didn't think that the word constitution meant "written legal document for the founding of a nation." They considered a nation's constitution to be a matter of tradition and accumulated legal precedence. In fact, even after the writing of the constitution a great many arguments attacked opposing positions as "unconstitutional, betraying hundreds of years of tradition..."

In other words, "constitutionality" is not just a function of what's written in the document, but also of our growing understanding and practice. Like we have a seperation of Church and state because the courts have rule thus with popular support for many years. Even though it is under attack by a dedicated extremist minority.

This could be used to support the anti gay marriage side because hetero marriage is more traditional, or it could support it as the general trend has been to expand the understanding of these rights as our culture matures. IE. You have the right to practice Hinduism even though the people who wrote "no law respecting an establishment of religion" were affirming the people's right to choose which version of Christianity they wanted to practice. We realize now that the Founders may have had a great deal of foresight, but they still had a perspective limited by the culture of the day.


I'm just gonna toss out that all the founders weren't Christians--indeed the majority were Masons or Deists. Our laws are not based upon Christianity, just good common sense and the basis of equality.

It amazes me time and again that our Founders has this amazing idea that we're all created equal (be it by a god or evolution or whatever) and should be treated equally under the law. And yet, we've had to amend the constitution time and again to say "No really, ALL means ALL."

Most married couples end up paying more in taxes because their added incomes puts them in a higher bracket. Further, by your logic infertile couples should not be able to marry either. Since they are characterstically unable to produce children, why do they deserve a break in taxes?
Perhaps they don't? Maybe just a holdover to satisfy them?

you can do whatever you want really.. its still against the law... my friend did exactly what you said while i was in the car.. too bad for him it was a trap and the cops were parked on the side with their lights off waiting for him to blow the light. Got a nice fat ticket and points on his license for running a red light and looked like an ass to the cop.. I almsot couldn't stop laughing since i told him not to do it

-Fixed

It is the right and proper thing to do, but it is illegal. Any police force that runs around setting up traps enforcing it should have everyone who came up with the idea charged with corruption. There are many far more important things a cop can be doing with his time.

Marriage isn't a right, but neither is being a relentlessly stupid jackass!

Thank you for making me laugh. :)

You're right. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage anywhere.
So...the most applicable is either the Tenth Amendment or the Fourteenth. You pick.
According to X, any state can make a law whatever way it chooses, making gay marriage either legal or illegal.
According to XIV, any state that recognizes marriage must recognize marriage between any two persons.

I'm just gonna toss out that all the founders weren't Christians--indeed the majority were Masons or Deists. Our laws are not based upon Christianity, just good common sense and the basis of equality.

It amazes me time and again that our Founders has this amazing idea that we're all created equal (be it by a god or evolution or whatever) and should be treated equally under the law. And yet, we've had to amend the constitution time and again to say "No really, ALL means ALL."

simply because the consitution was designed to be vague in many areas.... All men were created equal..

and the argument can be made gays and straights are very much equal under the law here..

Because essentially Gays have the same right to attain marige lisences as straight couples do.. just as straight couples have the same restrictions on who they can marry as gays do. Its is of course obviouse that this is squewed infavor of straight couples... however TECHNICALLY they are equal, with the same access to those PRIVLAGES (tax breaks, and inheritence are not rights.. as well the only people with rights over children are BIOLOGICAL parents, even grandparents can legally lose control of children if the biological parents come into the picture) the government gives out to married couples.

thats why amendments are nessesary to conitnually say no ALL means ALL.. and I think this is a very nessesary step to go through.. (by the way I am wholey against gay marriage just to give my perspective)

You're right. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage anywhere.
So...the most applicable is either the Tenth Amendment or the Fourteenth. You pick.
According to X, any state can make a law whatever way it chooses, making gay marriage either legal or illegal.
According to XIV, any state that recognizes marriage must recognize marriage between any two persons.

Even if it isn't mentioned in the consititution directly it is indirectly and has already been ruled on by the supreme court (being that MARRIAGE is a civil right to all people) ... the issue of slaves was never directly mentioned in the consititution though from historial documents we know the founding fathers very much wished to outlaw it... however did not do so becuse they knew it would split the country... the supreme court had to intervine on this matter.

Even if it isn't mentioned in the consititution directly it is indirectly and has already been ruled on by the supreme court (being that MARRIAGE is a civil right to all people) ... the issue of slaves was never directly mentioned in the consititution though from historial documents we know the founding fathers very much wished to outlaw it... however did not do so becuse they knew it would split the country... the supreme court had to intervine on this matter.

I'm sorry, I came into this thread kind of late. Could you show me where it's mentioned indirectly?

Laws that are wrong should be broken. Like the speedlimit.

Laws that are wrong by whose definition? By your logic, anyone who thinks a law is a "stupid f-ing law" should just break that law. That attitude will bring our system of justice to a screeching halt in a hurry. Do you remember the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict? That was a bunch of people acting in the manner you're advocating. It is irrelevant to question the motives of a lawbreaker, just as it is irrelevant to say - "this law is good so I'll follow it and that law is bad so I won't." If you think a law is stupid, you should work with others who agree with you to change it. Just breaking it isn't going to change anything... I know you're smart enough to understand that.

No points for bringing up the "Murder laws are good, Speed limit laws are wrong." argument you troted out earlier.

simply because the consitution was designed to be vague in many areas.... All men were created equal..

and the argument can be made gays and straights are very much equal under the law here..

Because essentially Gays have the same right to attain marige lisences as straight couples do.. just as straight couples have the same restrictions on who they can marry as gays do. Its is of course obviouse that this is squewed infavor of straight couples... however TECHNICALLY they are equal, with the same access to those PRIVLAGES (tax breaks, and inheritence are not rights.. as well the only people with rights over children are BIOLOGICAL parents, even grandparents can legally lose control of children if the biological parents come into the picture) the government gives out to married couples.

The same arguments were used to opposed interracial marriages. But white people can't marry outside their race either! UHH! It's a stupid arguement. Marriage is about love and legality in this country--you can choose to make it about religion and more, but the government does not have that perogative because the government cannot make religious decisions. Therefore it has an obligation to treat all its citizens fairly and let htem marry whom they wish.

And tax breaks et al may not be rights, but they are PROTECTIONS the government gives and according to the consitution, we have a right to equal protection under the law.


thats why amendments are nessesary to conitnually say no ALL means ALL.. and I think this is a very nessesary step to go through.. (by the way I am wholey against gay marriage just to give my perspective)

I think all means all pretty much speaks for itself. It's only ignorant bigots who think all only applies to people like them. And somehow it doesn't surprise me you are against gay marriage.

I'm sorry, I came into this thread kind of late. Could you show me where it's mentioned indirectly?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8331612&postcount=77

That doesn't cover it entirely because as someone else cleared up, one of the amendments states that just because a right is not listed in the Consitution, doesn't mean its not granted (IX Amendment I believe). The SC has ruled that marrige is one of those rights in previous cases.

I think all means all pretty much speaks for itself. It's only ignorant bigots who think all only applies to people like them. And somehow it doesn't surprise me you are against gay marriage.

.... well im glad you were able to take it to that level.. Would you be the ignorant bigot telling the polygamists accross the country they can't marry 10 wives and h ave 30 children ? or the bigot who says first cousins can't marry... or brothers and sisters.. mothers and sons.. etc.... Im sorry if i advocate a social debate about the matter rather then blindly accepting every question to our social order as an obvious infrindgment of rights. Do I think gays should be getting married.. personally NOOOO. I dont! Im not prepared to throw out 2000 years of history around marraige just because in the last 100 years marraige has become a matter of "love"... Im not prepared to cast aside all societal belives of what is moral and acceptable in soceity because possibly 2% of the population is screaming foul... I am not prepared to start handing out PRIVLIAGES like tax breaks and inhertiance rights to people who are more ready to override the societal debate and push through their requests through ACTIVIST judges...

But despite all these belifs.. I STILL prepared to engage in debate about it ... and dont accept the idea that I should bow down because a 2% minority wants their way at all costs... As far as Im concerned.. this is a DEMOCRATIC republic... which means the majority at the end of the day still dictates what the law is less the supreme court finds otherwise... The day the supreme court passes an amdendment addressing the consititutionality of homosexual marriage is the day ill accept it!

.... well im glad you were able to take it to that level.. Would you be the ignorant bigot telling the polygamists accross the country they can't marry 10 wives and h ave 30 children ?

No, I wouldn't. Because you see, I don't think there's a problem with that. THAT is actually the normal state of human marriage--hell, its in the Bible if you want to argue that and it harms no one.


or the bigot who says first cousins can't marry... or brothers and sisters.. mothers and sons.. etc....

Actually, I am opposed to that--but I can present a valid reason other than "That's the way we've always done it!". You see, incestuous unions result in offspring that are at a MUCH higher risk fo ra variety of very terrible genetic disorders. There is a compelling reason against this. No compelling reason exists against gay marriages. In short, apples and oranges.


Im sorry if i advocate a social debate about the matter rather then blindly accepting every question to our social order as an obvious infrindgment of rights. Do I think gays should be getting married.. personally NOOOO. I dont! Im not prepared to throw out 2000 years of history around marraige just because in the last 100 years marraige has become a matter of "love"...

So I take it you are opposed to interracial marriage, interreligious marriage, interdenominational marriage, and think that wives should be property and divorce should be illegal no matter what hte situation. Because that is also the last 2000 years of history around marriage--its only in the last 100 years that its changed.

But then, I bet you don't agree with those things. So why is gay marriage so different?


Im not prepared to cast aside all societal belives of what is moral and acceptable in soceity because possibly 2% of the population is screaming foul... I am not prepared to start handing out PRIVLIAGES like tax breaks and inhertiance rights to people who are more ready to override the societal debate and push through their requests through ACTIVIST judges...

Try closer to 10%. And guess what? JUDGES ARE THERE TO INTERPRET THE LAW. And I've already explained why the law already protects gay marriage on the national level. Further, almost all the states have constitutional laws that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation (Mississippi and Alabama come to mind a two that do not). You cannot tell me that banning gays from marrying is not discrimination. Judges are being activitists when they force people to recognize laws that ALREADY EXIST.


But despite all these belifs.. I STILL prepared to engage in debate about it ... and dont accept the idea that I should bow down because a 2% minority wants their way at all costs... As far as Im concerned.. this is a DEMOCRATIC republic... which means the majority at the end of the day still dictates what the law is less the supreme court finds otherwise... The day the supreme court passes an amdendment addressing the consititutionality of homosexual marriage is the day ill accept it!

10%! And that's a conservative estimate. But you know what? Even if its 0.000000001% of the population, I would advocate equality. I will never NEVER support tyranny by majority. I support equality for all. Gay marriage harms NO ONE.

And frankly, while I am interested in a debate, I would rather hear from people who actually understand our system of government. The Supreme Court does not pass Consitutional amendments. They interpret the law--and the law already guarantees equality for all.

Laws that are wrong by whose definition? By your logic, anyone who thinks a law is a "stupid f-ing law" should just break that law. That attitude will bring our system of justice to a screeching halt in a hurry. Do you remember the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict? That was a bunch of people acting in the manner you're advocating. It is irrelevant to question the motives of a lawbreaker, just as it is irrelevant to say - "this law is good so I'll follow it and that law is bad so I won't." If you think a law is stupid, you should work with others who agree with you to change it. Just breaking it isn't going to change anything... I know you're smart enough to understand that.

No points for bringing up the "Murder laws are good, Speed limit laws are wrong." argument you troted out earlier.[/QUOTE]

What, just because you're too dumb to realize the difference? Laws have a certain spirit behind them. The spirit behind speed limits is to stop accidents. Doesn't work. The law is pointless and outdated. Its so outdated that no one follows it, and those that do tend to get cursed at by others on the roadway. In fact many of those that do follow the speedlimit aren't even aware of another nice law (in California at least) where you are supposed to move out of faster traffics way, regardless of that traffics speed. So go ahead, follow the speedlimit law and be forced to violate not one, but two laws. Not only will you not be able to move out of the way of faster traffic (even the slow lane does more than 65) but you will also not be keeping up with the speed of traffic (another law). Cheers.

Likewise, redlight laws are there to stop accidents and maintain a good flow of traffic. Forcing someone to wait at an empty intersection at 2 AM for 20 seconds when they have clear visibility in all directions is not the intent of the law either.

Blindly following a law simply because it is a law is idiotic and stupid.

The intent of the murder laws is stop the killing of people. Pretty hard to get around that one.

What, just because you're too dumb to realize the difference? Laws have a certain spirit behind them. The spirit behind speed limits is to stop accidents. Doesn't work. The law is pointless and outdated. Its so outdated that no one follows it, and those that do tend to get cursed at by others on the roadway. In fact many of those that do follow the speedlimit aren't even aware of another nice law (in California at least) where you are supposed to move out of faster traffics way, regardless of that traffics speed. So go ahead, follow the speedlimit law and be forced to violate not one, but two laws. Not only will you not be able to move out of the way of faster traffic (even the slow lane does more than 65) but you will also not be keeping up with the speed of traffic (another law). Cheers.

Likewise, redlight laws are there to stop accidents and maintain a good flow of traffic. Forcing someone to wait at an empty intersection at 2 AM for 20 seconds when they have clear visibility in all directions is not the intent of the law either.

Blindly following a law simply because it is a law is idiotic and stupid.

The intent of the murder laws is stop the killing of people. Pretty hard to get around that one.


I'm going to posit that the number of accidents stopped by redlights and speed limit laws that keep people from going 200 miles and hour are more than enough to outway the inconvience experienced at 2AM

Hmmm, that should look better with the QUOTES fixed.

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege afforded by the government. What is unconstitutional is the unequal or discriminatory dispensation of privileges.

Driving is a privilege, but there would be a whole lot of bitching and moaning if it were bestowed on racial, religious, or sexual criteria.

I'm going to posit that the number of accidents stopped by redlights and speed limit laws that keep people from going 200 miles and hour are more than enough to outway the inconvience experienced at 2AM

Well you'll have quite some trouble on the speed limit laws seeing as, well, America has had a speedlimit for quite some time and trying to figure out any number would be impossible. Though your best bet would be comparing recent death per 100,000 vehicle mile traveled (a bad measurement) or a recent death per 100,000 people caused by accidents. Then again the US doesn't really compare in driving abilities/license requirements with no speed limit nations like Germany.

As far as red lights. Are you that fucking stupid as well? Think about it for a moment. What happens between oh, 0500-2359 has very little to do with what happens at 0200.

As far as red lights. Are you that fucking stupid as well? Think about it for a moment. What happens between oh, 0500-2359 has very little to do with what happens at 0200.

Which would be why most newer redlights go on a different timing system at 2AM. And I would much rather trade off being safe at rush hour with a half a minutes inconcience at two am.

As for the rest, I was just positing, I don't have hard facts on whether they've saved people or not, its just a guess on my part and I admit that.

Oh, and BTW, there was no need for that sort of language when I wasn't pontificating and was just sharing a meandering thought.

In my religion, two men or two women can get married to each other, with a complete religious ceremony.

Is it not then a violation of religious rights and equal protection under the law for the state to deny them the benefits of marriage? While giving those benefits to straight couples?

In my religion, two men or two women can get married to each other, with a complete religious ceremony.

Is it not then a violation of religious rights and equal protection under the law for the state to deny them the benefits of marriage? While giving those benefits to straight couples?

This is a question I've asked several times on other forums--and I've never gotten a response. I would love to hear a response to this.

No, I wouldn't. Because you see, I don't think there's a problem with that. THAT is actually the normal state of human marriage--hell, its in the Bible if you want to argue that and it harms no one.


it is MENTIONED in the bible.. but not advocated.. there differences between the two.

Actually, I am opposed to that--but I can present a valid reason other than "That's the way we've always done it!". You see, incestuous unions result in offspring that are at a MUCH higher risk fo ra variety of very terrible genetic disorders. There is a compelling reason against this. No compelling reason exists against gay marriages. In short, apples and oranges.


when you speak of inreased rate of genetic disorder.. you realize the INCREASE is actually a jump from 5% to nearly 10% ... the jump is minimal.. sever genetic disorders would not arise for several generational incetual relationships several generations are needed for more and more recessive traits to start comming up... Your going to restrict people from a relationship of love because there is a 10% higher chance of genetic disorders ?? that sounds rational.... and that high a jump is only to direct blood lines such as brohters and sisters.. first cousins experiance a far lower jump in genetic disorder apearances..

If you are restricting couples from marriage because of these low rates of physical disablities... It would not such a terrible jump to make the argument then we should not be tolerating gay relationships at all as they are more suseptiable to the spread of STDs as controceptives are more likely to fail due to more anal intercourse in males.. what was your logic again for restricting incestual relationships ?


So I take it you are opposed to interracial marriage, interreligious marriage, interdenominational marriage, and think that wives should be property and divorce should be illegal no matter what hte situation. Because that is also the last 2000 years of history around marriage--its only in the last 100 years that its changed.

But then, I bet you don't agree with those things. So why is gay marriage so different?


Beacuse none of those require such a great re-definition of marriage as homosexual marriage is.. in all those cases the man-woman ratio is maintained and throughout the 2000 years of our history plenty of expampes of interreligious, interracial, interdenominational marriages can be found... but atleast in western culture almost NO (i would even argue exactly no) homosexual marriages can be found to be endorsed by governmental/relgious institutions... THATS why gay marriage is so different.


Try closer to 10%. And guess what? JUDGES ARE THERE TO INTERPRET THE LAW. And I've already explained why the law already protects gay marriage on the national level. Further, almost all the states have constitutional laws that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation (Mississippi and Alabama come to mind a two that do not). You cannot tell me that banning gays from marrying is not discrimination. Judges are being activitists when they force people to recognize laws that ALREADY EXIST.


district judges are not there to go around determing what the constitutionality of laws are.. that is to be left to the supreme court... judges are ment to interpret the law based on something called presidence... and as far as im concenerd the issue of discrimination can be argued as everyone has the same rights within the definition of what a marriage is under the law. And if it was such a clear cut case.. the supreme court would have ruled on it by now... especially as state constitutional amendments are now spreading like wildfire outlawing it... It has been clear state law up until now that gay marraiges were prohibited and so these judges are outlawing this laws themselves...

10%! And that's a conservative estimate. But you know what? Even if its 0.000000001% of the population, I would advocate equality. I will never NEVER support tyranny by majority. I support equality for all. Gay marriage harms NO ONE.

And frankly, while I am interested in a debate, I would rather hear from people who actually understand our system of government. The Supreme Court does not pass Consitutional amendments. They interpret the law--and the law already guarantees equality for all.

yes.. so i mispoke, for that im sorry... but i think you realize what my point was... when the suprem court determines the consitutionality of homosexual marriage is the day ill accept it. I however hope a consitutional amendment is NOT passed banning gay marriage... the supreme law of the land should not be used to push political agendas even if it is one i agree with.

Which would be why most newer redlights go on a different timing system at 2AM. And I would much rather trade off being safe at rush hour with a half a minutes inconcience at two am.

Ok, sit down. shut up. THINK. Use that grey matter inside of your skull for a few minutes. Its 2AM in the morning. You roll up to a 4 way intersection, red light. You stop, look left, look right, look across. Light still red. No traffic coming, any direction 1/2 mile+ visibility. 30 seconds later light turns green and you go? Bull$hit. As soon as you've found that its safe to go, GO.

Hell I advocate the same thing on turn lights when there's no traffic coming during the day. Indeed as many as half of the left turns in my city aren't protected lights and you have to make a left turn against traffic. If its safe at one intersection with visibility why is not safe at another intersection with visibility?

As for the rest, I was just positing, I don't have hard facts on whether they've saved people or not, its just a guess on my part and I admit that.

I assumed "posit" was a typo of "post". In any case you are wrong. Speed limits have not saved lives. Indeed what would save lives is more stringent licensing requirements, something we should be doing. I would posit that red lights have saved ~0 lives between the hours of 0200-0500.

This is a question I've asked several times on other forums--and I've never gotten a response. I would love to hear a response to this.

it is not a matter of religious rights because if your religioun allows you to get married.. you can be married under that religion... because of seperation of church and state .. marriage licesens are not destributed on weather or not you can are married through a religious organization. If your religion allowed a brother and sister to be married, it would not be an infrindgment of religious rights or equal protection to deny that marraige a governmental marriage lisence. Because the law clearly states what is permitted in marraige and what is not...

Ok, sit down. shut up. THINK. Use that grey matter inside of your skull for a few minutes. Its 2AM in the morning. You roll up to a 4 way intersection, red light. You stop, look left, look right, look across. Light still red. No traffic coming, any direction 1/2 mile+ visibility. 30 seconds later light turns green and you go? Bull$hit. As soon as you've found that its safe to go, GO.

Hell I advocate the same thing on turn lights when there's no traffic coming during the day. Indeed as many as half of the left turns in my city aren't protected lights and you have to make a left turn against traffic. If its safe at one intersection with visibility why is not safe at another intersection with visibility?



I assumed "posit" was a typo of "post". In any case you are wrong. Speed limits have not saved lives. Indeed what would save lives is more stringent licensing requirements, something we should be doing. I would posit that red lights have saved ~0 lives between the hours of 0200-0500.

sucks for you that more and more red lights are incorporating cameras huh.... personally i dont care... because if you get caught by a cop.. what you think is right or wrong will become moot... your getting the 100 dollar ticket the mulitple points on your license..

and of course if you kill someone by chance... youll just go to jail.. so as long asyou think the 30 seconds your saving is worth all of this go right ahead.. hopefully i never pass you on the road

sucks for you that more and more red lights are incorporating cameras huh.... personally i dont care... because if you get caught by a cop.. what you think is right or wrong will become moot... your getting the 100 dollar ticket the mulitple points on your license..

No cameras on any redlights in Santa Barbara. Cheers.

and of course if you kill someone by chance... youll just go to jail.. so as long asyou think the 30 seconds your saving is worth all of this go right ahead.. hopefully i never pass you on the road

Why don't you answer a two very simple questions for me. How exactly would I by chance kill anyone under the scenario I mentioned?

What is wrong with the scenario I mentioned, here's a reminder for you

Its 2AM in the morning. You roll up to a 4 way intersection, red light. You stop, look left, look right, look across. Light still red. No traffic coming, any direction 1/2 mile+ visibility. 30 seconds later light turns green and you go? Bull$hit. As soon as you've found that its safe to go, GO.

If instead of being a redlight it was a flashing red-light/stop-sign? Hmm? Anything at all wrong with it? Come on, I'm sure you could find something. I mean after all you do have a reason for why its wrong right?

No cameras on any redlights in Santa Barbara. Cheers.



Why don't you answer a two very simple questions for me. How exactly would I by chance kill anyone under the scenario I mentioned?

What is wrong with the scenario I mentioned, here's a reminder for you

Its 2AM in the morning. You roll up to a 4 way intersection, red light. You stop, look left, look right, look across. Light still red. No traffic coming, any direction 1/2 mile+ visibility. 30 seconds later light turns green and you go? Bull$hit. As soon as you've found that its safe to go, GO.

If instead of being a redlight it was a flashing red-light/stop-sign? Hmm? Anything at all wrong with it? Come on, I'm sure you could find something. I mean after all you do have a reason for why its wrong right?

what happens when a kid wandering the streets comes out of the shadows off on your right or left.. you dont see them.. but they ahve the right of way as you have the red light.. sure your senario maybe safe 98% of the time. but the 2% your wrong will leave with a 100% chance of jail time

sucks for you that more and more red lights are incorporating cameras huh.... personally i dont care... because if you get caught by a cop.. what you think is right or wrong will become moot... your getting the 100 dollar ticket the mulitple points on your license..

and of course if you kill someone by chance... youll just go to jail.. so as long asyou think the 30 seconds your saving is worth all of this go right ahead.. hopefully i never pass you on the road

And actually, if you did pass me on the road you'd more likely go "well damn, someone who actually knows how to drive", or maybe "hey the guy is actually maintaining more than 3 car lengths between him and the guy in-front of him", or maybe "well damn, that guy actually used a signal when changing lanes, merging, left-turn/right turn etc...", or a nice little thing like "the guy actually went when the light turned green, didn't wait, he actually went."

Despite your imagined fantasies I'm likely to be a far better and more considerate driver than 95% of the people on American roads.

what happens when a kid wandering the streets comes out of the shadows off on your right or left.. you dont see them.. but they ahve the right of way as you have the red light.. sure your senario maybe safe 98% of the time. but the 2% your wrong will leave with a 100% chance of jail time

Why don't you answer both questions? Running around with wild imagined fantasies about some random kid running around the street that I manage to not only hit, but kill, is what it is termed a red herring.

The roadway itself is not safe 98% of the time. If my scenario is safe 98% of the time it is golden.

-also, your scenario applies to stop signs as well. The person walking always has right of way. I guess you would advocate replacing all stop signs with red lights?

I KNOW you weren't talking about the Constitution. That's why your post doesn't belong in a thread titled "Since when is marriage a Constitutional right"? Maybe if it said "universal right" or "Canadian right" your post wouldn't be horribly stupid and off-topic. And yet, here we are.
Yo! Canada has a constitution too.

Marriage itself isn't addressed. The Constitution doesn't prohibit marriage, however, and since it doesn't go against anything else well then you can make a case for us Constitutionally having a right to marriage.

However, the main point is that the government can't let one group of people have a certain right and another not. So if straight people have the right to marriage, so do gays.

What is wrong with the scenario I mentioned, here's a reminder for you

Its 2AM in the morning. You roll up to a 4 way intersection, red light. You stop, look left, look right, look across. Light still red. No traffic coming, any direction 1/2 mile+ visibility. 30 seconds later light turns green and you go? Bull$hit. As soon as you've found that its safe to go, GO.

If instead of being a redlight it was a flashing red-light/stop-sign? Hmm? Anything at all wrong with it? Come on, I'm sure you could find something. I mean after all you do have a reason for why its wrong right?

Oh man you're too easy. Maybe there's someone else like you who thinks it's a good idea to drive at an unsafe speed rather than arrive at his or her destination 5 minutes later. They're coming from your right driving, lets say, 80 mph. You look and you don't see anyone coming except way down the road. But you're not expecting that pair of headlights to be going more than twice the speed limit. You accelerate, they slam into your passenger side, killing that girl in your gym class you had a crush on for like years and you finally got the nerve to ask out and she said yes and shit but now shes dead and your like shit.

Also: I'd like to see a study that did not show a correlation between speed limits and traffic-related deaths. I've seen probably five that found that the lower the speed limit, the lower the death toll. They found this across the board, with all types of roads, all types of cars, all types of drivers.

By the way, 35000 teenagers died in traffic-related accidents last. That's more than died of any other cause. How old are you again?

maybe they should just get rid of marrage. i mean, besides confirming publicly what is already know, i.e. one persons love for another, what purpose does it serve. with the amount of divorces these days, i think that people dont take marrage as seriously as they used to. if anything, marrage puts more of a strain on relationships. plus, being that it is a religious thing, the 'state' should really butt out and let the denominations choose who they are willing to wed. i have said before that religion and politics dont mix, and it is seeming more and more that religion is being used as an excuse for political actions. i know someday i will marry most probably, but i would be just as content being with my girl without the pressures of marrage

Marriage itself isn't addressed. The Constitution doesn't prohibit marriage, however, and since it doesn't go against anything else well then you can make a case for us Constitutionally having a right to marriage.

However, the main point is that the government can't let one group of people have a certain right and another not. So if straight people have the right to marriage, so do gays.

by this logic i still fail to see why incestual relationsships can then be argued to be wrong... there is no difference.. your infrinding on their rights arn't u ?

the argument of genetic disfunction is a moot one since the increase of rates jumps a marginal percentage and really only becomes an issue through several generations of incestual mating...

Murder laws are good, Speed limit laws are wrong.

The law is the law, but if the law is wrong it should be broken. IE, turn left of red laws. Its 2 AM at night at a clear intersection and your left turn light is red, no traffic in any direction. Is it actually wrong to just make the goddamned turn? No its not. Should you? YES.

Is that advocating breaking the law? Yes. Is that advocating breaking a stupid f-ing law? Yes.

This is an old quote, but I started reading at the beginning.
My question is where do you get your basis for deciding what's right and what's wrong, upon which you make your decision to break the law? There has to be some standard which dictates these things so that you can say "murder is bad", or in your case "making a left turn at 2 am is not bad" or "homosexuality is bad". This standard can't be subjective otherwise two people with directly oppositional positions are considered just as acceptable, which just doesn't fly. Murder can't be accepted and tolerated just because some people are ok with it. Basically there's got to be some absolute standard of truth. Personal opinion, majority opinion, common sense, the constitution or any other document of the same type are not good standards because even they vary. Some people call the arbiter of this standard God.

Oh man you're too easy. Maybe there's someone else like you who thinks it's a good idea to drive at an unsafe speed rather than arrive at his or her destination 5 minutes later.

Would I drive at an unsafe speed? No. And despite your feelings on the matter, depending on the road, 80 mph is not unsafe.

They're coming from your right driving, lets say, 80 mph. You look and you don't see anyone coming except way down the road. But you're not expecting that pair of headlights to be going more than twice the speed limit. You accelerate, they slam into your passenger side, killing that girl in your gym class you had a crush on for like years and you finally got the nerve to ask out and she said yes and shit but now shes dead and your like shit.

Lets think about that scenario for awhile. Given what I can determine from your sketchy description. Speed limit = 40. You're at a T-intersection and the person is coming for the right at 80 mph.

First thing.

First, You pulled out into the road, ok fine so far.
But then we run into trouble. If the person hits you from the side, and not the rear, it wouldn't matter if they were doing 80 or 40, you pulled out too soon because there wouldn't be enough distance between you and them to allow for a seamless merger of the road. IE if they had been doing 40, they would have had to put on the brakes to prevent from rear-ending you. So basically you would both be dumbasses for pulling out at an unsafe distance at the legal speed limit.

Nevermind of course that you’re also arguing about something that clearly is not a freeway and my points regarding the speed limit have always been directed freeway driving.

Cheers.

Also: I'd like to see a study that did not show a correlation between speed limits and traffic-related deaths. I've seen probably five that found that the lower the speed limit, the lower the death toll. They found this across the board, with all types of roads, all types of cars, all types of drivers.

Deaths will ultimately tend to increase slightly due to the higher speed of the accidents that do happen. Heres a correlation even you can draw though. Who has more deaths, per capita, by crashes, Germany of the US? ... The US. Who has speed limits on their freeway? The US.

Cheers.

By the way, 35000 teenagers died in traffic-related accidents last. That's more than died of any other cause. How old are you again?

Does age having anything to do with this? Nope. Nice red herring though. But aside from that why don't you go find the amount of deaths age 18-35, or 35-65 and find out that, get this, more of them die.

This is an old quote, but I started reading at the beginning.
My question is where do you get your basis for deciding what's right and what's wrong, upon which you make your decision to break the law? There has to be some standard which dictates these things so that you can say "murder is bad", or in your case "making a left turn at 2 am is not bad" or "homosexuality is bad". This standard can't be subjective otherwise two people with directly oppositional positions are considered just as acceptable, which just doesn't fly. Murder can't be accepted and tolerated just because some people are ok with it. Basically there's got to be some absolute standard of truth. Personal opinion, majority opinion, common sense, the constitution or any other document of the same type are not good standards because even they vary. Some people call the arbiter of this standard God.

Ever hear of the slippery slope? You just bought yourself a season pass.

Ever hear of the slippery slope? You just bought yourself a season pass.


Tell me about this slippery slope. Sounds like one of those weakly defined terms that gets thrown around alot. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Tell me about this slippery slope. Sounds like one of those weakly defined terms that gets thrown around alot. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Slippery Slope

In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.

Fine. Whatever. You can throw out the if-then clauses if you like, although i don't know exactly what was 'illegitimate' about them. But in any case the question still stands:
Who's deciding what's right and wrong?

when you speak of inreased rate of genetic disorder.. you realize the INCREASE is actually a jump from 5% to nearly 10% ... the jump is minimal.. sever genetic disorders would not arise for several generational incetual relationships several generations are needed for more and more recessive traits to start comming up... Your going to restrict people from a relationship of love because there is a 10% higher chance of genetic disorders ?? that sounds rational....


Actually the chances are higher than 10% and will vary depending on the genetic defect. To take a common one for example, hemophilia.....Now of course it would depend on the genetic makeup of the individuals involved to determine their chances of having affected offspring. It is a sex linked disease meaning its locus is on the X chromosome therfore females can either express the disease or be carriers. Men can't only be carriers, they will express it if it is on their X chromosome. So, if you have an affected mother (that would mean she shows the trait on both her X chromosomes) and a non-affected father the chances of a child having that trait are 50%. So you can only imagine how that would rise if there were consanguineous unions in the mix. People as a far as third cousins can bring together recessive traits that have run in the family and thereby increasing the chances of recessive gene expression much higher than the 10% you suggested, especially if its a sex linked gene in question. If its an autosomal recessive, yes, it would take a little longer to show up, in probability, but there are no guarentees. The laws on independant assortment can work against you and pass on all the recessive genes available, it all depends on how those little gametes decide to form. So, if you're a gambler, go for it, marry a cousin or a sibling.

Fine. Whatever. You can throw out the if-then clauses if you like, although i don't know exactly what was 'illegitimate' about them. But in any case the question still stands:
Who's deciding what's right and wrong?
I have to agree here, I don't see the slippery slope at all in your argument.

Fine. Whatever. You can throw out the if-then clauses if you like, although i don't know exactly what was 'illegitimate' about them. But in any case the question still stands:
Who's deciding what's right and wrong?

The individual naturally.

PS- I think God supports my position on speeding and red lights. So if I'm wrong I'll let him punish me in the afterlife and the rest of you should just stay out of it... :rolleyes:

I have to agree here, I don't see the slippery slope at all in your argument.

Very simple. Speeding and violating red light laws is on a vastly different magnitude than committing murder. Being willing to violate the red light and speeding laws because they are idiotic laws does not justify anything about murder.

it is MENTIONED in the bible.. but not advocated.. there differences between the two.

But not banned either, so obviously its okay as far as the Bible is concerned.



when you speak of inreased rate of genetic disorder.. you realize the INCREASE is actually a jump from 5% to nearly 10% ... the jump is minimal.. sever genetic disorders would not arise for several generational incetual relationships several generations are needed for more and more recessive traits to start comming up... Your going to restrict people from a relationship of love because there is a 10% higher chance of genetic disorders ?? that sounds rational.... and that high a jump is only to direct blood lines such as brohters and sisters.. first cousins experiance a far lower jump in genetic disorder apearances..

Actually the rate of severe genetic disorders is far lower in the general population then 5%. However, if we assumed without arguement aht your numbers are correct, then you've just convinced me that there is nothing wrong with incest provided all parties are consenting adults who were not abused as children (which is the typical state of those partaking in incest, though by no means the one and only state). By my own arguements, I cannot oppose something with no compelling reason.


If you are restricting couples from marriage because of these low rates of physical disablities... It would not such a terrible jump to make the argument then we should not be tolerating gay relationships at all as they are more suseptiable to the spread of STDs as controceptives are more likely to fail due to more anal intercourse in males.. what was your logic again for restricting incestual relationships ?

You are assuming that the majority of gays are engaging in anal sex which is incorrect. Most gays I know (including myself) do not engage in it in a regular basis or at all. Further, the only STD having a higher rate in gay men is HIV. The others are far more likely to occur in straight men and women--with straight women being the most susceptible to catching any of them from an infected partner. Perhaps they should be banned from sex.

And to carry your line of logic one step farther, lesbians have a far LOWER rate of ALL STDs. So by my line of arguement which you chose to further, lesbians should certainly be able to get married.


Beacuse none of those require such a great re-definition of marriage as homosexual marriage is.. in all those cases the man-woman ratio is maintained and throughout the 2000 years of our history plenty of expampes of interreligious, interracial, interdenominational marriages can be found... but atleast in western culture almost NO (i would even argue exactly no) homosexual marriages can be found to be endorsed by governmental/relgious institutions... THATS why gay marriage is so different.

And that's just what the people opposing divorce and opposing interracial marriages said--that it was so different. That it was okay to subjugate people who loved differently because it was so different. I am not forcing you to partake in a gay relationship or a gay wedding for that matter--no gay person ever would want to. We have a right to expect equal protections under the law. Tradition be damned if that's what it takes. Let's not forget that tradition says that slavery is okay.


district judges are not there to go around determing what the constitutionality of laws are.. that is to be left to the supreme court...


Check your government class again my friend. ALL courts have to answer to the US Consitution. They may be overriden by higher courts with the exception of the Supreme Court which has the final say on constitutionality. That doesn't mean that lower courts just get to ignore the Consitution. The order of power in the US from highest to lowest:

US Constitution > Federal Law > State Constitution > State Laws > County Laws > City Laws > Subdivisional Governmental Bodies

All courts have to take the US Consitution into accoutn first and foremost. That is their job.


judges are ment to interpret the law based on something called presidence...


Judges rule on the constitution and readings of other laws that are not contraindicated by the constitution. Precidents are when one judge uses the ruling of a previous judge without writing a new opinion him or herself. However, one judge may over turn a precedent, though this usually only occurs when a high judge overturns a lower one. And lawyers please correct me if I'm wrong, but a lower court can indeed overturn higher court's precedents if they interpret the Constitution/law differently provided its in a different case.


and as far as im concenerd the issue of discrimination can be argued as everyone has the same rights within the definition of what a marriage is under the law.

But everyone doesn't. One group of people has the right to marry the person they love and want to spend their lives with. Like it or not, marriage these days is about love. Try taking love out of it and see how the VAST majority of people react (since you are so fond of majorities tyrannizing and taking rights away).

Gay people do not have the right to marry those who they love and have that union protected by law. This means that if I were to marry, I might not be able to see my husband in the hospital if his family doesn't like me, it means that if he had a child and then died, that child could be ripped away from me even if I was the only other parent s/he had ever known, it means that my husband's family who he may not have talked to in thirty years could decide to turn the ventilator off AGAINST HIS WISHES EXPRESSED TO ME AS HIS SPOUSE and then contest the will on the basis that I'm not a blood relative or legal next of kin.

These are real issues that gay couples face every day and you cannot tell me that we do not deserve those protections under the law or that the situation is currently equal.


And if it was such a clear cut case.. the supreme court would have ruled on it by now... especially as state constitutional amendments are now spreading like wildfire outlawing it... It has been clear state law up until now that gay marraiges were prohibited and so these judges are outlawing this laws themselves...

The Supreme Court can only rule on cases that come to their level. That takes years and years. It's only been recently that this battle has began and its going to take a while to work a case up that high. And most of the time, the Supreme Court is going to refuse to hear these cases because marriage is in the prevue of the states to regulate and its up to the State Supreme Courts to make the decisions--like what happened in MA. There, the courts said "Hey guess what, our Consitution says its illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and so we have to have equality and that means we have to have gay marriages to make our citizens equal." And that's what they did.

The Supreme Court of the USA won't come into play until there is a challenge to DOMA (while one state doesn't have to recognize a marriage from another for which it does not have an equivalent--which is already in US Case Law from prvious SCUSA rulings the federal government DOES have to and that's why DOMA is unconsitutional). Oncethat happens, we will see how the Supreme Court rules.



yes.. so i mispoke, for that im sorry... but i think you realize what my point was... when the suprem court determines the consitutionality of homosexual marriage is the day ill accept it. I however hope a consitutional amendment is NOT passed banning gay marriage... the supreme law of the land should not be used to push political agendas even if it is one i agree with.

It's no the US SC's decision--its up to the state supreme courts. Somehow Bush and his followers have decided that marriage should be a federal issue and not a state one--rather amusing given that the Republican party has traditionally stood for small government and state's rights. But its just like the Terry Schiavo case--they're all for freedom until you do something that disagrees with them and then they want to control you.

And as for your last comment about a consitutional amendment, you earned some major respect from me for that--for what it's worth.

How can 2 individuals with completely conflicting senses of right and wrong both be considered right? According to this logic, something like murder could be both morally right and morally wrong at the same time. That just doesn't work at all.

when you speak of inreased rate of genetic disorder.. you realize the INCREASE is actually a jump from 5% to nearly 10% ... the jump is minimal.. sever genetic disorders would not arise for several generational incetual relationships several generations are needed for more and more recessive traits to start comming up... Your going to restrict people from a relationship of love because there is a 10% higher chance of genetic disorders ?? that sounds rational....


Actually the chances are higher than 10% and will vary depending on the genetic defect. To take a common one for example, hemophilia.....Now of course it would depend on the genetic makeup of the individuals involved to determine their chances of having affected offspring. It is a sex linked disease meaning its locus is on the X chromosome therfore females can either express the disease or be carriers. Men can't only be carriers, they will express it if it is on their X chromosome. So, if you have an affected mother (that would mean she shows the trait on both her X chromosomes) and a non-affected father the chances of a child having that trait are 50%. So you can only imagine how that would rise if there were consanguineous unions in the mix. People as a far as third cousins can bring together recessive traits that have run in the family and thereby increasing the chances of recessive gene expression much higher than the 10% you suggested, especially if its a sex linked gene in question. If its an autosomal recessive, yes, it would take a little longer to show up, in probability, but there are no guarentees. The laws on independant assortment can work against you and pass on all the recessive genes available, it all depends on how those little gametes decide to form. So, if you're a gambler, go for it, marry a cousin or a sibling.

in countries thoughout europe.. even in the UK i belive marrying first cousins is deemed legal... according to your assesments.. we should be seeing far higher rates of genetic disorders in these cultures.. but this is not readily visible.. perhaps the statistics you claim are slightly.. overstated...

Ok, sit down. shut up. THINK. Use that grey matter inside of your skull for a few minutes. Its 2AM in the morning. You roll up to a 4 way intersection, red light. You stop, look left, look right, look across. Light still red. No traffic coming, any direction 1/2 mile+ visibility. 30 seconds later light turns green and you go? Bull$hit. As soon as you've found that its safe to go, GO.

I'm going to respond to this. Then I'm going to put you on my ignore list. Congrats, you are only number two to make it there.

If you had read what I had said, I didn't say i LIKED stopping at redlights at 2 int eh morning. I said I would accept the inconvenience of it in trade for being safe during rushhour. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Further, I pointed out that many redlights shut off or go flashing at night OR they change to a different timing cycle that holds less people up.


I assumed "posit" was a typo of "post". In any case you are wrong. Speed limits have not saved lives. Indeed what would save lives is more stringent licensing requirements, something we should be doing. I would posit that red lights have saved ~0 lives between the hours of 0200-0500.

You would assume wrong on the definition of the word posit. So to clear matters up:


pos·it Audio pronunciation of "posit" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pzt)
tr.v. pos·it·ed, pos·it·ing, pos·its

1. To assume the existence of; postulate. See Synonyms at presume.
2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest: “If a book is hard going, it ought to be good. If it posits a complex moral situation, it ought to be even better” (Anthony Burgess).
3. To place firmly in position.


I was postulating, assuming, just making an arguement from my mind and I admitted as I did that I had no hard facts to back it up. I would ask you to prove that speed limits haven't saved lives, but I will save us both the time by not doing so and immediately proceeding to place you on ignore.

Very simple. Speeding and violating red light laws is on a vastly different magnitude than committing murder. Being willing to violate the red light and speeding laws because they are idiotic laws does not justify anything about murder.

Violating red light laws was just one example and not at all critical to the argument. Pick any other controvercial moral issue which people have different (conflicting) opinions about and substitute it in. The argument still has to be dealt with, not the example.

it is not a matter of religious rights because if your religioun allows you to get married.. you can be married under that religion... because of seperation of church and state .. marriage licesens are not destributed on weather or not you can are married through a religious organization. If your religion allowed a brother and sister to be married, it would not be an infrindgment of religious rights or equal protection to deny that marraige a governmental marriage lisence. Because the law clearly states what is permitted in marraige and what is not...


Well, at least you said that governmental marriage isn't based on the religion's definition of marriage. Now I'd like to hear a response from someone who does think its a religious issue.

How can 2 individuals with completely conflicting senses of right and wrong both be considered right? According to this logic, something like murder could be both morally right and morally wrong at the same time. That just doesn't work at all.
What was the statement that started all this? Oh yeah..

It's the law....so you better base your choices on it or you're going to jail.

My reply?

Laws that are wrong should be broken

Nice simple statement. But then we get dumbasses like yourself who run along and say "Well what if someone thinks murder is wrong." Here's a medal, go argue with your Ethics teacher about moral relativism some other time seeing as I am not a proponent of it. I am a proponent of looking at laws rationally and realizing that today we are enforcing the letter rather than the spirit of the laws.

maybe they should just get rid of marrage. i mean, besides confirming publicly what is already know, i.e. one persons love for another, what purpose does it serve. with the amount of divorces these days, i think that people dont take marrage as seriously as they used to. if anything, marrage puts more of a strain on relationships. plus, being that it is a religious thing, the 'state' should really butt out and let the denominations choose who they are willing to wed. i have said before that religion and politics dont mix, and it is seeming more and more that religion is being used as an excuse for political actions. i know someday i will marry most probably, but i would be just as content being with my girl without the pressures of marrage


I hear this arguement a lot and I just have to conclude that many people do not seem to understand why having the government involved in marriage is a good thing. Marriage automatically grants next of kin status to your spouse--a spanking good thing if you are hospitalized. It grants inheritance status, joint custody and adoption rights of children. There are lots of reasons the government should be involved in marriage. There are protections that I know I personally want my spouse and I to have and that I think are totally reasonable expectations.

Further, the arguement that because some people mistreat marriage these days is like say that because some people speed we should ban all driving and everyone should walk.

Also, somewhere along the line people seem to have gotten that idea that marriage and religion are inseparable. This hasn't been the truth for about a 100 years or more and it wasn't the truth at the beginning of marriage when it was a civil affair. Really, religious marriages are the newer state of things.

by this logic i still fail to see why incestual relationsships can then be argued to be wrong... there is no difference.. your infrinding on their rights arn't u ?

the argument of genetic disfunction is a moot one since the increase of rates jumps a marginal percentage and really only becomes an issue through several generations of incestual mating...


You keep bringing that up. Studies please.

in countries thoughout europe.. even in the UK i belive marrying first cousins is deemed legal... according to your assesments.. we should be seeing far higher rates of genetic disorders in these cultures.. but this is not readily visible.. perhaps the statistics you claim are slightly.. overstated...



like i said, it depends on the make-up of the parents and if its a sex linked or autosomal defect and on the independent assortment during gamete production. while i did pick the worst case scenario to show my point, it was not over stated, its a simple genetic cross. you have the female that is X'X' and the male that's X'Y and if you have four children the probabilities are 50% that you would have an affected child. And yes, I agree that in the real world one couple doesn't always have the 4 children that are used in the determination of the percentages, but that's genetics, it's just a probability, not a certainty. I was simply stating that the CHANCES are higher than the 10% that the other person stated.

Tell me about this slippery slope. Sounds like one of those weakly defined terms that gets thrown around alot. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh surely you know about the slippery slope! You know the one that says that if gays get legal marriages then we have to have legal pedophilia and beastiality and arbophilia and necrophilia and cats and dogs will want to get married!

I'm going to respond to this. Then I'm going to put you on my ignore list. Congrats, you are only number two to make it there.

Cheers whatever. I'll respond simply to satisfy myself.

If you had read what I had said, I didn't say i LIKED stopping at red lights at 2 in the morning. I said I would accept the inconvenience of it in trade for being safe during rush-hour. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Try this, its really is a very easy concept. There is no NEED to stop at traffic lights at night to be safe at rush-hour. The two DO NOT correlate. You can stop at the traffic lights during the day and then treat them as stop signs at 2 am with no problem.

But apparently that concept was beyond you.

Further, I pointed out that many redlights shut off or go flashing at night OR they change to a different timing cycle that holds less people up.

I'll refer to the point above. It doesn't matter. If it safe to go, you should go. Waiting simply because it is the law is foolish. As I asked you earlier, give me a reason why you should wait.

You would assume wrong on the definition of the word posit. So to clear matters up:

I was postulating, assuming, just making an argument from my mind and I admitted as I did that I had no hard facts to back it up.

No really? Yeah like I didn't already conclude that after seeing that it wasn't a typo. Here's a beer.

I would ask you to prove that speed limits haven't saved lives, but I will save us both the time by not doing so and immediately proceeding to place you on ignore.

You can't prove a negative you dumbass...

Oh surely you know about the slippery slope! You know the one that says that if gays get legal marriages then we have to have legal pedophilia and beastiality and arbophilia and necrophilia and cats and dogs will want to get married!
Actually, s/he was talking about something entirely different.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8334401&postcount=154

Violating red light laws was just one example and not at all critical to the argument. Pick any other controvercial moral issue which people have different (conflicting) opinions about and substitute it in. The argument still has to be dealt with, not the example.

No the argument does not need to be dealt with, because I never applied to anything like murder dumbass.

Actually, s/he was talking about something entirely different.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8334401&postcount=154

Eh, so my smart-ass attitude puts me in the wrong. My apologies.

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?
No one is arguing it is a constitutional right. However, it is something the government offers some people, but not others. If the government offers a service, it needs to be available to everyone, not just a selct group. Citizens don't pay their taxes in order to be discriminated against. I don't think you would pay a restrant for a meal, but not eat it because they don't allow "your kind" to eat there, would you?.

Woo! That's a lot of info. I'll just add, if it hasn't already BEEN added, that the Supreme Court has declared that matters regarding family, marriage and procreation are fundamental rights safeguarded by the Constitution, oftentimes the 14th Amendment.

I would ask you to prove that speed limits haven't saved lives, but I will save us both the time by not doing so and immediately proceeding to place you on ignore.

Actually, Salvondia agrees that the lower the speed limit, the lower the death rate. Here is a quote:

Deaths will ultimately tend to increase slightly due to the higher speed of the accidents that do happen.

That might be why Germany has a higher rate of traffic accidents than the US, but a much lower fatal accident rate. In both countries the majority of accidents occur not on freeways, but on side roads and on non-limited-access highways. And it is on those roads that Germany has a much lower speed limit than the US. So there.

Woo! That's a lot of info. I'll just add, if it hasn't already BEEN added, that the Supreme Court has declared that matters regarding family, marriage and procreation are fundamental rights safeguarded by the Constitution, oftentimes the 14th Amendment.

Coudl you by chase offer a case number or something? I'd just like it for future reference :)

Actually, Salvondia agrees that the lower the speed limit, the lower the death rate. Here is a quote:



That might be why Germany has a higher rate of traffic accidents than the US, but a much lower fatal accident rate. In both countries the majority of accidents occur not on freeways, but on side roads and on non-limited-access highways. And it is on those roads that Germany has a much lower speed limit than the US. So there.

You know, how did I get so caught up in this? I made a posit (and admitted it!) and got called a dumb-ass and insulted left and right for being an idiot and now I'm getting "So-thered". This isn't even the part of the debate I'm interested in. So I'm withdrawing, no need to further respond to me about any of this because frankly, I dont' care!

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?

Since when was marriage a right? As opposed to a priviledge? As someone who is getting married to a woman that I love I will come to the defence of gay marriage.

Marriage is an expression more than an institution. Marriage is how two people express their love and commitment to one another. It is these peoples right to be able to do this, it is against the civil freedoms of individuals to prevent them from doing so. If someone came along and told me I couldn't marry my girl because she was a redhead I would scream bloody blue murder.

Two people, no matter what they are, should be allowed to be married. If they want to share their work benefits then fine, let them. Anyway, the government will make more money off of marriage licenses this way.

Tell me about this slippery slope. Sounds like one of those weakly defined terms that gets thrown around alot. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example:

"If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#slope



Slippery Slope
Alias:

* Argument of the Beard
* Fallacy of the Beard

Types:

* Vagueness (Semantic Version)
* Non Causa Pro Causa (Causal Version)

[snip]

Analysis
Exposition:

There are two types of fallacy referred to as "slippery slopes":

1. Causal Version:
Form:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B through Y that is the "slope", and the smallness of each step that makes it "slippery".

This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.0

2. Semantic Version:
Form:

A differs from Z by a continuum of insignificant changes, and there is no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two can be drawn.
Therefore, there is really no difference between A and Z.

This type plays upon the vagueness of the distinction between two terms that lie on a continuum. For instance, the concepts of "bald" and "hairy" lie at opposite ends of a spectrum of hairiness. This continuum is the "slope", and it is the lack of a non-arbitrary line between hairiness and baldness that makes it "slippery". We could, of course, decide to count, say, 10,000 hairs or less as the definition of "bald", but this would be arbitrary. Why not 10,001 or 9,999? Obviously, no answer can be given other than the fact that we prefer round numbers, but round numbers are an artefact of our base 10 numbering system. However, it does not follow from the fact that there is no sharp, non-arbitrary line between "bald" and "hairy" that there really is no difference between the two. A difference in degree is still a difference, and a big enough difference in degree can amount to a difference in kind. For instance, according to the theory of evolution, the difference between species is a difference in degree.

Exposure:

A great deal of ink has been spilled in fruitless philosophical debates over exactly where to draw the line between concepts that lie on continua. This might be called the "legalistic" side of philosophy, for it is primarily in the law that we are forced to decide hard cases that lie in gray areas. For instance, if the legislature passes a tax on chairs, the courts may be forced to decide the issue of whether barstools count as "chairs" for tax purposes. In everyday life, we are seldom faced with decisions of this kind, and we continue to use the concept of chair without worrying about whether barstools really are chairs or not.

One reason that so many philosophical debates are seemingly endless and undecidable is because they involve a search for a mythical entity, namely, a non-arbitrary distinction between concepts which lie upon continua in conceptual space. The logical attitude towards such problems is to avoid them if at all possible; but if a decision cannot be avoided, then draw an arbitrary line in the gray zone and stick with it. Don't be drawn into defending the decision against the charge that it is arbitrary; of course it's arbitary, for any such decision will be arbitrary. For this reason, it is not a criticism of such decisions to point out their arbitrariness. Philosophers, naturally, are uneasy about arbitrariness, but when we are dealing with conceptual continua, it is an unavoidable fact of life. Where there is only gray, there are no black-and-white distinctions to be made.
Resources:

* Julian Baggini, "Bad Moves: Slippery Slopes" A short column on the causal version of the fallacy by the editor of The Philosophers' Magazine.
* S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 170-172. Causal version.
* Geoffrey Nunberg, "Slippery Slopes", "Fresh Air" Commentary, 7/1/2003. An excellent article on both versions of the fallacy by a Stanford University linguist. As you might expect from a linguist, it discusses various ways of referring to slippery slopes, and contains a short but useful bibliography. You can listen to the audio commentary at NPR's "Fresh Air" online site.
* Eugene Volokh & David Newman, "In Defense of the Slippery Slope" An article in PDF format on how to make causal version slippery slope arguments nonfallacious.

Analysis of the Example:

An eloquent example of the causal version of the fallacy. In over seventy-five years since the Scopes trial, which Darrow lost, few if any of the horrors that he paraded before the jury have taken place.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Since when was marriage a right? As opposed to a priviledge?
It's not a priviledge, it's a governmental service. Allowing some citizens to have access to a governmental service and not others is a form of discrimination and is unconstitutional.

Coudl you by chase offer a case number or something? I'd just like it for future reference :)

Well, this was formed over the course of several court cases. I've had a discussion with a fellow on this board in which he disputed some of my claims, but I feel they're sound; and I don't believe they were specifically over the fundamental rights issue.

These are not the only cases involved in the fundamental rights doctrine; however, they are the ones I, a mere student, am currently familiar with. Generally speaking, the fundamental rights doctrine's evolution can be found in the following cases:

Meyer v. Nebraska
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Griswold v. Connecticut
Einstadt v. Baird

These cases also led to Roe v. Wade, I would note!

Well, this was formed over the course of several court cases. I've had a discussion with a fellow on this board in which he disputed some of my claims, but I feel they're sound; and I don't believe they were specifically over the fundamental rights issue.

These are not the only cases involved in the fundamental rights doctrine; however, they are the ones I, a mere student, am currently familiar with. Generally speaking, the fundamental rights doctrine's evolution can be found in the following cases:

Meyer v. Nebraska
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Griswold v. Connecticut
Einstadt v. Baird

These cases also led to Roe v. Wade, I would note!

I can see I have my research cut out for me :) Thanks!

But not banned either, so obviously its okay as far as the Bible is concerned.

ACTUALLY ... it is banned if you read the ten commandments.. throughout the bible ideal marriage, and the marriage system which is actually promoted is one man one woman... this is why divorse is improper in christianity.. not only that but the union is a life long one... so if your mate dies you cannot be re-married, you certainly cannot have sex with anyone else.. and as such the same is for divorsed marriages. Poligamist marraiges are clearly frowned upon..


Actually the rate of severe genetic disorders is far lower in the general population then 5%. However, if we assumed without arguement aht your numbers are correct, then you've just convinced me that there is nothing wrong with incest provided all parties are consenting adults who were not abused as children (which is the typical state of those partaking in incest, though by no means the one and only state). By my own arguements, I cannot oppose something with no compelling reason.

I would not argue that... i imagin it is lower then 5%.. but i have still heard statsitcs bringing most genetic disorders at a marginal rate of increase at best (which can be viewed in countries in which first cousin marriages are legal such as the UK) If your a first generation engaging in incestual relationships.. it is highly probable any offspring you bear will not reveal tremendous genetic disorders if any...

And that's just what the people opposing divorce and opposing interracial marriages said--that it was so different. That it was okay to subjugate people who loved differently because it was so different. I am not forcing you to partake in a gay relationship or a gay wedding for that matter--no gay person ever would want to. We have a right to expect equal protections under the law. Tradition be damned if that's what it takes. Let's not forget that tradition says that slavery is okay.

As i said.. in all other cases, even before it became socially acceptable in modern times... one could identifiy instances in which such marriages took place.. to making the jump to accept these was not a far step..However, the acceptance of homosexual marriage is a far greater step as it has no presidence in western culture.. and is directly flying in the face of tradition.

Check your government class again my friend. ALL courts have to answer to the US Consitution. They may be overriden by higher courts with the exception of the Supreme Court which has the final say on constitutionality. That doesn't mean that lower courts just get to ignore the Consitution. The order of power in the US from highest to lowest:

US Constitution > Federal Law > State Constitution > State Laws > County Laws > City Laws > Subdivisional Governmental Bodies

All courts have to take the US Consitution into accoutn first and foremost. That is their job.

its true all courts have to take the consititution into account (to determine if an action is unconsititutional).. but not all have the authority to make judgements on what Laws are constitutional and which are not... as far as i know the types of cases a court may address is determined by the level of the court itself... lower courts do not address consititutional issues... such things are left to state supreme courts and the federal supreme court... there is a higharchy in the judicial system... and mirrioring that higharchy is the power each court posses... county courts simply dont have the same power district courts have, who dont have the same power state courts have who dont have the same power supreme courts have.. and each court addresses differing cases.

And quite frankly i dont belive republicans really have a problem with leaving the decision to states.. (seeing how 11 have already banned it, and this is expected to rise again next year as more states address the issue) the call for a consititutional amendment was nothing more then a political ploy to put the democrats on a fences.. (a tactic which worked all too well however inapropriate)


But everyone doesn't. One group of people has the right to marry the person they love and want to spend their lives with. Like it or not, marriage these days is about love. Try taking love out of it and see how the VAST majority of people react (since you are so fond of majorities tyrannizing and taking rights away).

Gay people do not have the right to marry those who they love and have that union protected by law. This means that if I were to marry, I might not be able to see my husband in the hospital if his family doesn't like me, it means that if he had a child and then died, that child could be ripped away from me even if I was the only other parent s/he had ever known, it means that my husband's family who he may not have talked to in thirty years could decide to turn the ventilator off AGAINST HIS WISHES EXPRESSED TO ME AS HIS SPOUSE and then contest the will on the basis that I'm not a blood relative or legal next of kin.

the fact of the matter is... marriage has been widely defined under most state laws, and this is what is preventing gay marriage... the sad fact is.. love simply isn't enough, marriage has pre-requisits... it is that these pre-req's are so low that the divorse rates have soared throughout the country, another issue in the equation.

And many of these issues of parental rights and right to life on a ventilator are still heavily debated for hetosexual couples ... let alone for homosexual ones...

First of all even if a gay couple was married and the biological father/mother died... if there is a nother biological parent in the picture.. custody automatically goes to them..

The only reason why parents have the highest power to retain their children in custidy issues is because of biological ties... if the issue came down to a grandparent or a legal spouse who was not boilogically related.. it can be argued that the grandparent has more authority to take custody of the child since they are biologically related. The only time this issue maybe pertinent is when no extended family exists... and then it is clearly easier to adopt... (not a very common case i would imagin)

as for the issue of ventilators... look at one case today (sorry i dont know any names.. i m very bad with names) anyway the husband claims his wife made verbal implications she would never want to live like a vegtible.. however lacking a writen statement to that effect he has thus far been unable to have doctors pull the feeding tube keeping her alive because her faimly is fighting it... Soooo lacking a writen statement doctors almost always have an obligation to keep the patient alive (marriage does not assure these powers).

It's not a priviledge, it's a governmental service. Allowing some citizens to have access to a governmental service and not others is a form of discrimination and is unconstitutional.

marraige in a system of monogamy is always goign to be mutally exclusive to some group... in that groups can't be married.. this too would be considered governmental services not rendered to others.... Afrmative action can be argued as a form of discrimination.... services to the disabled could be considered governmetnal services rendered to a specific group and thus discrimination.... see where im going ?

Not all cases of services rendered to specific groups is considered discrimination under the eyes of the law...

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?
where in the Constititution does it say driver's licenses are a right? oh wait, it doesn't...so i guess that makes it okay for the government to refuse to issue drivers licenses to, say, all Jewish people, right? or all black people? or hey, how about gay people?

I think I would disagree with you on that one - marriages are a burden to taxpayers, because there are tax benefits associated with being married. This is a fine example of tax dollars being used to pay for the greater good: raising a new generation of children. Since gay couples are characteristically unable to produce children, why do they deserve a break in taxes?interesting; so you feel entitled to other people's money, and therefore you feel justified in denying them equal rights because doing so would reduce how much of their money you get to have?

It doesn't say anyone has the right to marry. It also doesn't say anyone has the right to go to school. So how does your question have any bearing on gays having the right to marry?

It seems pretty easy to figure out that the lack of a given right in the constitution doesn't mean it's meant to be parceled out to a select group.

It seems pretty easy to figure out that the lack of a given right in the constitution doesn't mean it's meant to be parceled out to a select group.
keep in mind, these are the people who still try to use the slippery slope falacy in debates. they are the same people who think that redefining marriage to be about putting a penis into a vagina is the best way to keep it "sacred." it seems pretty easy to see the problems with all of their arguments...and yet, there they sit.

why do people start debates with subject matter that is full of bullet holes the size of big macs? (to quote Chunk from The Goonies)

keep in mind, these are the people who still try to use the slippery slope falacy in debates. they are the same people who think that redefining marriage to be about putting a penis into a vagina is the best way to keep it "sacred." it seems pretty easy to see the problems with all of their arguments...and yet, there they sit.

'Slippery Slope' isn't a fallacy. It's only a fallacy in the context it's typically used in reference to homosexuality and gay marriage.

Odd how the same people think that the slippery slope of deprivation of liberty is the fallacy, isn't it? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-004.gif

I know this was posted a while back in this thread and has most likely already been responded to but...

Marriage originated in the Bible.

Wrong. Marriage exists as far back as ancient Egypt, maybe further.

The Bible is the text of Christianity.

Fair enough, though many people who call themselves Christian don't even know the texts or what they mean.

Christianity prohibits homosexuality.

Wrong. The Bible only directly mentions it in Leviticus, which Christians don't follow anyway.

Only 1 out of 3 correct. I'm afraid that's not a passing grade...

Interesting point - so, if it's not explicitely allowed in the constitution, nobody shall be allowed to marry? I guess in your constitution you have something like equality before the law?

Why don't they just define marriage as two consenting adults. That seems more than reasonable to me.

the constitution is guidelines for running the country. maybe you should look into the legislation to find the basis for this argument.

Why do some people think the Bible has or should have any bearing on the law of this country? In this country it's not a legal document. Get over it. This is not a theocracy. Iran is. Afghanistan was. I don't want to live under biblical law anymore than Christians want to live under Sharia.

Why do some people think the Bible has or should have any bearing on the law of this country? In this country it's not a legal document. Get over it. This is not a theocracy. Iran is. Afghanistan was. I don't want to live under biblical law anymore than Christians want to live under Sharia.
you have a point there. if it was legislation, it would go against the constitutional right to freedom of religion, being biased towards christianity (and any other religion that practices strictly hetrosexual arrage), thus meaning those christian sects that allow same sex unions, as well as any other religion that does, is having its rights infringed upon

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?
Where's the right to discrimination?

Nevermind of course that you’re also arguing about something that clearly is not a freeway and my points regarding the speed limit have always been directed freeway driving.

Yes, but you're advocating that anyone may break a law that they find 'stupid'. Why does this not then apply to these red light arguments as well. Perhaps the speeding driver thought the speed limit on the road was too slow, so they decided to break it.

You can't argue for breaking any laws one finds 'stupid' and then turn around and say that you weren't talking about this particular situation. Like I said before, even stupid laws should be followed until they are changed. I personally agree that turning at a red light at 2 am is probably going to be safe 98% of the time, but I don't want to take the 2% chance I'm going to be wrong.

Your argument is weak, and you ad hominem attacks on people that disagree with you don't strengthen it.

I know this was posted a while back in this thread and has most likely already been responded to but...

Wrong. Marriage exists as far back as ancient Egypt, maybe further.

Fair enough, though many people who call themselves Christian don't even know the texts or what they mean.

Wrong. The Bible only directly mentions it in Leviticus, which Christians don't follow anyway.

Only 1 out of 3 correct. I'm afraid that's not a passing grade...

1. Marriage was instituted in the Garden of Eden at least 1500 years before Ramses II (the godfather of Moses if you will), so technical it is antedeluvian Mesopatamians who "created" marriage. (Although I believe it was designed by God even before that.

2. Sadly I have to agree on both counts.

3. Paul clearly says homosexuality is an abomination.

Romans 1:26 : God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the woman turned against the natural way to have sex, and indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. (NLT)

1 Timothy 1:10
"...(The laws of Moses) ... are for people who are sexually immoral, people who are homosexual and for slave traders." (NLT)

In some ways the King James almost would have been better here because this translation is really blunt.

(On a side not, I noticed here the Bible speaks directly against slavery. but that is another thread...)

So it looks like the original poster gets an A, Cromotar.

Very simple. Speeding and violating red light laws is on a vastly different magnitude than committing murder. Being willing to violate the red light and speeding laws because they are idiotic laws does not justify anything about murder.

In you opinion, but your arguments about breaking laws one finds 'stupid' contradicts your statement here. Either I can break laws I find 'stupid' or I can't. If I think the laws against murder are stupid, I can just ignore them according to your argument. Please be consistent.

Marriage, for just about the majority of human history, has been a traditionally religious institution, correct?

For just about the most of human history, marriage has been about property and alliance. For many people today, it is the same.

I suspect that this issue would be nearly moot if the US Government did not offer particular advantages to married people.

I don't really care what the bible says about homosexuality. It doesn't fugure into my ideas of right and wrong, and is not a governmental document, Winter Alliance. And Paul was a misogynistic prick anyway. Other apostles had to call him down because he didn't think Jesus should hold a mere woman like Mary Magdalene to have any importance. So even if I were Christian, he'd be on the bottom of my list of people who said things worth listening to.

There are two reasons this issue is receiving so much focus by homosexuals:

1.) There is a valuable bundle of rights and obligations that come with the state recognition of a union. These include inheritance rules, property rights, ability to act on behalf of another (such as in medical emergencies), tax implications (although currently it's a tax burden to be married), frequently access to work-supplied health benefits, etc. Many of these rights and obligations can be iindependantly created through other legal instruments (wills, power of attorney, etc.), but some cannot.

2.) A desire to have their lifestyle "accepted." This goal has nothing to do with the legal rights, but I'll bet it's the real driver of their desire. Homosexuals feel stigmatized whenever their sexual orientation prevents them from enjoying the same rights as others. This is akin to the "separate but equal" doctrine that used to exist for African-Americans, and the Supreme Court agreed that even if equal facilites existed for whites and African-Amernicans, the fact that there was a distinction is inherently discriminatory.

That being said, all of you who are promoting gay marriage, I have a question for you. Our society has to choose who will be allowed to participate in the legal bundle of rights we call marriage (has nothing to do with spiritual benefits, that's not the government's baliwick). How do you address the issue of polygamy? A union of two is OK, but a union of three is not? On what basis? As many people have already pointed out, there is no "inherent harm" in allowing gay marriage, therefore they argue it should be permitted. Where is the "inherent harm" in polygamy?

Right now, our society sees a benefit to be had from people having children. As such, they have established laws to encourage childbearing, including tax benefits, and laws to promote stable unions. A line has to be drawn in determining when these benefits are offered. The more objective the line is, the less risk there is of it being applied in a discriminatory fashion. Right now, we are using biology to draw that line - procreation (absent genetic manipulation) requires one male and one female. So, to promote childbearing, the laws focus on that union in preference to all others in allowing participation in the bundle of legal rights we call marriage.

Are there other rules we could apply to determining when we award the rights of marriage? Sure. How about requiring love and devotion? How about requiring demonstration of fidelity? Can you see the difficulty in applying these standards? Laws cannot be infinitely flexible, compromises have to be made.

And for all you Catholics who cry that homosexuality is against God, what about adulterers? Should they be allowed to marry? How about people who are divorced? Isn't marriage a holy sacrement that no man may tear asunder? I find it humerous that people have to search the fine print of the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemed by God, when they are ignoring adultery, probably a more prevelent sin, that is IN THE TOP TEN THINGS GOD SAID NOT TO DO.

Well, anyway, my 2 cents. Maybe some day we can turn all this energy into a more productive use that benefits a greater number of Americans.

ACTUALLY ... it is banned if you read the ten commandments.. throughout the bible ideal marriage, and the marriage system which is actually promoted is one man one woman... this is why divorse is improper in christianity.. not only that but the union is a life long one... so if your mate dies you cannot be re-married, you certainly cannot have sex with anyone else.. and as such the same is for divorsed marriages. Poligamist marraiges are clearly frowned upon..

Really? Which commandment bans it? I'm assuming you are referring to number 7"Though shalt not commit adultery." Adultery is sex outside of marriage so it exist if you are married. So really, tell me where in the Big Ten I'm missing because its possible I don't remember something right. And where does it say unions are life long?


As i said.. in all other cases, even before it became socially acceptable in modern times... one could identifiy instances in which such marriages took place.. to making the jump to accept these was not a far step..However, the acceptance of homosexual marriage is a far greater step as it has no presidence in western culture.. and is directly flying in the face of tradition.


So did ending slavery. So did giving women the right to vote. Tradition is not a reason to deprive anyone of equality. If we used tradition every time something new came up, we'd still be swinging from the trees. So forgive me, if I *NEVER* accept tradition as an acceptable reason to do anything. Other reasons are required for traditions to be carried on.


its true all courts have to take the consititution into account (to determine if an action is unconsititutional).. but not all have the authority to make judgements on what Laws are constitutional and which are not... as far as i know the types of cases a court may address is determined by the level of the court itself... lower courts do not address consititutional issues... such things are left to state supreme courts and the federal supreme court... there is a higharchy in the judicial system... and mirrioring that higharchy is the power each court posses... county courts simply dont have the same power district courts have, who dont have the same power state courts have who dont have the same power supreme courts have.. and each court addresses differing cases.

I think we are having semantics problems here, so I'm going to try and rephrase. A court is only going to here a case regarding a Constitutionality of a law if that court has authority over it. Ergo, you aren't going to file a case challenging a law in divorce, family, traffic, civil, or justice courts. You are going to file them in a state level court on the lowest level available (which varies in title from state to state) and work your way up if its a matter regarding state law. If its a matter regarding federal law, you are going to file in Federal court and work your way up. No one has ever gone to a divorce judge and asked for a law to be overturned.


And quite frankly i dont belive republicans really have a problem with leaving the decision to states..

Really now, ever heard of the Arlington group? You know, the group of I think about 15 senators who told Bush they wouldn't back his Social Security reform if he didn't exped "considerable political capital" to ban gay marriage nation wide via a constitutional amendment? And take a glance at the planks in the Republican parties platform last election.


(seeing how 11 have already banned it, and this is expected to rise again next year as more states address the issue) the call for a consititutional amendment was nothing more then a political ploy to put the democrats on a fences.. (a tactic which worked all too well however inapropriate)

And you are at least partially right there. It saddens me that enough Americans are ignorant and hard-hearted enough to fall for it.


the fact of the matter is... marriage has been widely defined under most state laws, and this is what is preventing gay marriage...


The fact of the matter is. . . discrimination against gays has been banned under most state consitutions, so laws banning gay marriage are illegal anyways.


the sad fact is.. love simply isn't enough, marriage has pre-requisits... it is that these pre-req's are so low that the divorse rates have soared throughout the country, another issue in the equation.

So straight have fucked up there chance, so let's deny it to gays cause the divorce rate is so high. And maybe its because not enough emphasis is put on loving one another (and what love really means and that love ISN'T EASY) that the divorce rate is so high.


And many of these issues of parental rights and right to life on a ventilator are still heavily debated for hetosexual couples ... let alone for homosexual ones...

Yeah, and homosexuals have even less right in the matter that straights. Gee, doesn't sound like equality. At least Terry Schiavo's parents have had to fight as opposed to a gay couple's parents who could just call hospital security and have the spouse kicked out of the room, never to see their loved one alive again.


First of all even if a gay couple was married and the biological father/mother died... if there is a nother biological parent in the picture.. custody automatically goes to them..

Except that if the couple was married, the other parent would have had the right to adopt the child and would have rights to him/her as well. And there isn't always another parent in the picture. Oftentimes, the gay parents are the only two the child has known. You cannot tell me its better for the child to be ripped away from a loving parent and sent to foster care or some random blood relative on their other's parents side they've never met. But that is what happens.


The only reason why parents have the highest power to retain their children in custidy issues is because of biological ties... if the issue came down to a grandparent or a legal spouse who was not boilogically related.. it can be argued that the grandparent has more authority to take custody of the child since they are biologically related.

Which is stupid in and of itself. What is best for the child should be taken into consideration. And what is best for the child is the greatest amount of emotional stability that can be given which is gneerally to stay right where they are with their other gay parents, even if s/he didn't legally get to adopt the child because S/HE COULDN'T.

I'm going to go out on a limb that you've never known a gay couple and had to watch them go through this situation. While I haven't done it myself, I've seen what happens to families and how destroyed they can get. It's not right and it will never be fair until gays have the same rights as heterosexuals in legal marriage.


The only time this issue maybe pertinent is when no extended family exists... and then it is clearly easier to adopt... (not a very common case i would imagin)

The only time this issue is pertinent si when the child has SPENT THEIR ENTIRE LIFE WITH ONE PARENT AND IS SNATCHED AWAY TO GO WITH PEOPLE, S/HE DOESN'T KNOW. This happens--FREQUENTLY. I will never, Never, NEVER, *NEVER* accept it is better for a child to go with a relative they've never met just because s/he has blood ties when that could easily be prevented if gay people could just get married and legally adopt one another's children.


as for the issue of ventilators... look at one case today (sorry i dont know any names.. i m very bad with names) anyway the husband claims his wife made verbal implications she would never want to live like a vegtible.. however lacking a writen statement to that effect he has thus far been unable to have doctors pull the feeding tube keeping her alive because her faimly is fighting it... Soooo lacking a writen statement doctors almost always have an obligation to keep the patient alive (marriage does not assure these powers).

That is the Terry Schiavo case in Florida. And you're wrong. I'm not going to argue the whole thing, but lacking written testament of a patient's wishes the legal next of kin (the spouse if they are marrie, which gays can't be) gets to make those decisions. S/he should make them based upon what they believe to be the wishes of the patient. Mr. Schiavo has every right to speak for his wife and no court has found him to be improperly acting. However, her parents cannot accept this and, indeed, the Republicans controlling Florida couldn't accept this and tried to pass a law allowing the Governor to intervene--a law which was overturned by the state supreme court as unlawful venturing into judicial powers by teh executive branch.

This is a case I've followed very closely for the last year because its one that many medical practioners (and I'm a med student) have a keen interest in because of the ethics issues involved.

interesting; so you feel entitled to other people's money, and therefore you feel justified in denying them equal rights because doing so would reduce how much of their money you get to have?

Oh Bottle thank goodness you've arrived! <hugs>

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?

Right to the "pursuit of happiness" is how it can be defended. But surely marriage ends one's happiness?

Where's the right to discrimination?

Only in their minds. . . .

ntly discriminatory.

That being said, all of you who are promoting gay marriage, I have a question for you. Our society has to choose who will be allowed to participate in the legal bundle of rights we call marriage (has nothing to do with spiritual benefits, that's not the government's baliwick). How do you address the issue of polygamy? A union of two is OK, but a union of three is not? On what basis? As many people have already pointed out, there is no "inherent harm" in allowing gay marriage, therefore they argue it should be permitted. Where is the "inherent harm" in polygamy?

I see no issue with it … consenting adults and such

(though there would be some issues in the case of a medical emergency and the “wives” or the “husbands” don’t agree with each other on what is the best course of action )

Recent bitching and moaning regarding gay marriage has led me to this question:

Can anyone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to marriage?

Don't see anything in the Constitution explicitly about marriage but one would assume that it's covered in the "persuit of happiness." That said, gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.... a gay man can marry ANY WOMAN HE WANTS and vice versa for lesbians. No one is trampling on their rights to marry. That said, changing the definition of marriage cannot be done. Marriage = man + woman. Period. No debating that FACT.

Don't see anything in the Constitution explicitly about marriage but one would assume that it's covered in the "persuit of happiness." That said, gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.... a gay man can marry ANY WOMAN HE WANTS and vice versa for lesbians. No one is trampling on their rights to marry. That said, changing the definition of marriage cannot be done. Marriage = man + woman. Period. No debating that FACT.


Really. I don't think marriage should be one man one women, but shoudl be two consenting adults. There I'd just debated the NON-FACT.

The Constitution forbids government to deny people "the equal protection of the law"- 14th Amendment.

Yes, but you're advocating that anyone may break a law that they find 'stupid'. Why does this not then apply to these red light arguments as well. Perhaps the speeding driver thought the speed limit on the road was too slow, so they decided to break it.

You can't argue for breaking any laws one finds 'stupid' and then turn around and say that you weren't talking about this particular situation.

Hey dumbass, I'm not arguing for breaking any and all laws. Simple eh? Just because you're to much of an idiot to not be able to draw a line between red lights at 2AM and Murder doesn't mean I'm that much of an idiot.

Like I said before, even stupid laws should be followed until they are changed.

Really? Hey you know what was a law in Germany? Don't hide Jews in your attic. I guess you would of peaceablly followed that law just because it was a law huh?

The extreme argument works both ways dumbass. You can apply it to me where I advocate breaking stupid laws and we can apply it to you advocating following all laws simply because they are laws.

I personally agree that turning at a red light at 2 am is probably going to be safe 98% of the time, but I don't want to take the 2% chance I'm going to be wrong.

Cheers, while you're at it, never drive. You would be taking too big a risk.

Your argument is weak, and you ad hominem attacks on people that disagree with you don't strengthen it.

Your argument is pathetic and my ad hominem attacks are truthful, dumbass. If you don't like them you can be like cry-baby Pracus and get in a last word and then hit the ignore button. I'm sure it will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Marriage = man + woman. Period. No debating that FACT.
hmm, somebody ought to tell the makers of all current English dictionaries that they are printing "non-facts" under the heading of "marriage."

i guess internet homophobes are better authorities on FACT than the good people at Oxford English or Webster's, huh? :)

The Constitution forbids government to deny people "the equal protection of the law"- 14th Amendment.
Since everybody disregards that they better repeal it

hmm, somebody ought to tell the makers of all current English dictionaries that they are printing "non-facts" under the heading of "marriage."

i guess internet homophobes are better authorities on FACT than the good people at Oxford English or Webster's, huh? :)


mar·riage
n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.


Would you like a Heineken or an Arrogant Bastard Ale?

Yes, but you're advocating that anyone may break a law that they find 'stupid'. Why does this not then apply to these red light arguments as well. Perhaps the speeding driver thought the speed limit on the road was too slow, so they decided to break it.

You can't argue for breaking any laws one finds 'stupid' and then turn around and say that you weren't talking about this particular situation. Like I said before, even stupid laws should be followed until they are changed. I personally agree that turning at a red light at 2 am is probably going to be safe 98% of the time, but I don't want to take the 2% chance I'm going to be wrong.

Then I am to assume that you believe civil disobedience to be wrong and never justified.

Would you like a Heineken or an Arrogant Bastard Ale?
LOL. read your own bloody post, chump.

1. Marriage was instituted in the Garden of Eden at least 1500 years before Ramses II (the godfather of Moses if you will), so technical it is antedeluvian Mesopatamians who "created" marriage. (Although I believe it was designed by God even before that.

Please provide some evidence for both those claims.

The constitution does not have any clause anywhere saying that marriage is a legal write. The only things the government does is to provide benifits for married people. The government can choose not to accept gay marriage as an accepted from which is what the case is now.

AN STOP KNOCKING ON MADISON

marraige in a system of monogamy is always goign to be mutally exclusive to some group... in that groups can't be married.. this too would be considered governmental services not rendered to others.... Afrmative action can be argued as a form of discrimination.... services to the disabled could be considered governmetnal services rendered to a specific group and thus discrimination.... see where im going ?

Not all cases of services rendered to specific groups is considered discrimination under the eyes of the law...

1. Monogamy does not mean that some people have NO access, it is just that the number of interactions is limited.

2. I disagree that only monogamy should be allowed in marriage, but that's another thread.

3. Absolutely, Affirmative Action IS a form of discrimination and it should be abolished.

The constitution does not have any clause anywhere saying that marriage is a legal write. The only things the government does is to provide benifits for married people. The government can choose not to accept gay marriage as an accepted from which is what the case is now.

AN STOP KNOCKING ON MADISON


Actually, the Constitution does guarantee the "write" that people will be treated equally by the government. So, I'm afraid that the government cannot choose not to accept gay marriage.

I could throw in a few snide remarks about English and Government classes in modern schools, but I choose not to do so.

'Slippery Slope' isn't a fallacy. It's only a fallacy in the context it's typically used in reference to homosexuality and gay marriage.

Odd how the same people think that the slippery slope of deprivation of liberty is the fallacy, isn't it? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-004.gif

Slippery Slope IS a logical fallacy.


The slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example:

"If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#slope



Slippery Slope
Alias:

* Argument of the Beard
* Fallacy of the Beard

Types:

* Vagueness (Semantic Version)
* Non Causa Pro Causa (Causal Version)

Quote-Unquote:

"…[I]f once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time."
Source: Thomas De Quincey, "Second Paper on Murder"

Example:

"If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lectures, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After while, your honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind."

Source: Clarence Darrow, The Scopes Trial, Day 2

Analysis
Exposition:

There are two types of fallacy referred to as "slippery slopes":

1. Causal Version:
Form:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B through Y that is the "slope", and the smallness of each step that makes it "slippery".

This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.
2. Semantic Version:
Form:

A differs from Z by a continuum of insignificant changes, and there is no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two can be drawn.
Therefore, there is really no difference between A and Z.

This type plays upon the vagueness of the distinction between two terms that lie on a continuum. For instance, the concepts of "bald" and "hairy" lie at opposite ends of a spectrum of hairiness. This continuum is the "slope", and it is the lack of a non-arbitrary line between hairiness and baldness that makes it "slippery". We could, of course, decide to count, say, 10,000 hairs or less as the definition of "bald", but this would be arbitrary. Why not 10,001 or 9,999? Obviously, no answer can be given other than the fact that we prefer round numbers, but round numbers are an artefact of our base 10 numbering system. However, it does not follow from the fact that there is no sharp, non-arbitrary line between "bald" and "hairy" that there really is no difference between the two. A difference in degree is still a difference, and a big enough difference in degree can amount to a difference in kind. For instance, according to the theory of evolution, the difference between species is a difference in degree.

Exposure:

A great deal of ink has been spilled in fruitless philosophical debates over exactly where to draw the line between concepts that lie on continua. This might be called the "legalistic" side of philosophy, for it is primarily in the law that we are forced to decide hard cases that lie in gray areas. For instance, if the legislature passes a tax on chairs, the courts may be forced to decide the issue of whether barstools count as "chairs" for tax purposes. In everyday life, we are seldom faced with decisions of this kind, and we continue to use the concept of chair without worrying about whether barstools really are chairs or not.

One reason that so many philosophical debates are seemingly endless and undecidable is because they involve a search for a mythical entity, namely, a non-arbitrary distinction between concepts which lie upon continua in conceptual space. The logical attitude towards such problems is to avoid them if at all possible; but if a decision cannot be avoided, then draw an arbitrary line in the gray zone and stick with it. Don't be drawn into defending the decision against the charge that it is arbitrary; of course it's arbitary, for any such decision will be arbitrary. For this reason, it is not a criticism of such decisions to point out their arbitrariness. Philosophers, naturally, are uneasy about arbitrariness, but when we are dealing with conceptual continua, it is an unavoidable fact of life. Where there is only gray, there are no black-and-white distinctions to be made.
Resources:

* Julian Baggini, "Bad Moves: Slippery Slopes" A short column on the causal version of the fallacy by the editor of The Philosophers' Magazine.
* S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 170-172. Causal version.
* Geoffrey Nunberg, "Slippery Slopes", "Fresh Air" Commentary, 7/1/2003. An excellent article on both versions of the fallacy by a Stanford University linguist. As you might expect from a linguist, it discusses various ways of referring to slippery slopes, and contains a short but useful bibliography. You can listen to the audio commentary at NPR's "Fresh Air" online site.
* Eugene Volokh & David Newman, "In Defense of the Slippery Slope" An article in PDF format on how to make causal version slippery slope arguments nonfallacious.

Analysis of the Example:

An eloquent example of the causal version of the fallacy. In over seventy-five years since the Scopes trial, which Darrow lost, few if any of the horrors that he paraded before the jury have taken place.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

sorry about the typo

anyway the government is suppose to treat everyone equally we have a long history of not doing so to suit our own needs here are a few:

Japanese American Detainment during WWII
Manifest Destiny
Jim Crow

now as to your response about the right to treat all equally the government has this problem where the people elect officials to oversee the running of the country. I.E. the people are responsible for the officials being in power in the first place.

What im trying to get at here is that more people said lets put the bigots in power then the gay rights supporters.

In this case the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

ant BTW I am for Gay Rights I'm just trying to point out why everyone is not equal.

sorry about the typo

anyway the government is suppose to treat everyone equally we have a long history of not doing so to suit our own needs here are a few:

Japanese American Detainment during WWII
Manifest Destiny
Jim Crow

And these just exemplify that our country isn't as perfect as Bush would like us to believe. But they are not an excuse to not keep fighting.


now as to your response about the right to treat all equally the government has this problem where the people elect officials to oversee the running of the country. I.E. the people are responsible for the officials being in power in the first place.

And guess what. The people decided--a majority of them--that the government was supposed to treat everyone equally. THAT was a majority too. We don't get to pick and choose who is more equal. The courts have to interpret that.


What im trying to get at here is that more people said lets put the bigots in power then the gay rights supporters.

In this case the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

ant BTW I am for Gay Rights I'm just trying to point out why everyone is not equal.

Actually the majority of people favor rights for gay unions--slightly less than half of those supporting full marriage status. The peopel who were put in office were put in for different reasons--such a support in Iraq. Hell, my own father voted for Bush, but it wasn't for his stance on gay rights.

You are right about one thing, everyone isn't equal, but that doesn't mean we stop trying.

Just so it's clear why I'm continuing to argue with you on this subject...

You state that...
Laws that are wrong should be broken. Like the speedlimit.

And...
Murder laws are good, Speed limit laws are wrong.

Then you turn around and say...
...hey it will only make me happy if I get to piss in public and walk around nude? I guess I should be able to do that ensure my happy life? No? Didn't think so.
.

I would just ask why shouldn't you be ale to do those things to ensure your happy life? What if those laws are wrong? How does walking around nude break any law that isn't just stupid anyway?

Then you say that people who make personal attacks are dumbasses...
Perhaps you could attempt to show what is wrong with what I said? Or perhaps its because you can't so you decide to be a dumbass and make personal attacks instead?

Then you begin/continue to make personal attacks...
Are you that much of a dumbass?

again...
You can't prove a negative you dumbass...

Then you contradict your own argument...
Here's a medal, go argue with your Ethics teacher about moral relativism some other time seeing as I am not a proponent of it.

Since you're not a proponent of moral relativism, you will agree that there is no single absolute moral position on an issue. Therefore, by your own argument, I am free to use my own moral compass to decide whether a law should be broken or not.

I believe I am correct in saying that you are a Troll, just here to argue with anyone who will argue with you. All right, I'm game. Just please refrain from the immature name-calling...it really doesn't become you. :fluffle:

<insert great post here>


Wow.

So we do agree that everyone is NOT equal as it stands now. That was the point I was trying to make.

The real issue here is that people have an idea of what marriage is man and women. The problem is that was they way it was for a very long time not sure about the number, but im sure it is at least 10,000 years, and at an extreme the idea of gay marriage has only been around for say 100 years. Some people aren't ready to except this change.

I'm not saying they are right, or justified I am merely stating what is.

What is is. We have to see that before we can affect change, and I am for change. However we can't accuse people of being the source of all evil it gets us nowhere. Look on the bright side in a few years Bush won't be back and we will have the chance to affect change.

Or we could set up a plot to get him impeached that would be neat, we'd have to take out a few others too, but i think it can be done...... :sniper: at worst.

So we do agree that everyone is NOT equal as it stands now. That was the point I was trying to make.

Was this point ever in debate? You do realize I'm gay right .. . .


The real issue here is that people have an idea of what marriage is man and women. The problem is that was they way it was for a very long time not sure about the number, but im sure it is at least 10,000 years, and at an extreme the idea of gay marriage has only been around for say 100 years. Some people aren't ready to except this change.

The idea that marriage was only one man one woman has been aroudn a lot less time than people believe.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html


Or we could set up a plot to get him impeached that would be neat, we'd have to take out a few others too, but i think it can be done...... :sniper: at worst.

I think you just violated the Patriot Act.

hey I didn't say anything about :mp5: anyone........

hey I didn't say anything about :mp5: anyone........

Didnt' you hear, just suggesting he shouldn't be President if a federal offense these days. You might be a terrorist.

Meanwhile, all the computers at FBI headquarters are going crazy as the internet reports that I just used the T word.

So we do agree that everyone is NOT equal as it stands now. That was the point I was trying to make.

Um, yeah. That's kinda what we're upset about, the whole being denied equal access and oportunity dealie. People, metaphysically speaking, are inherently equal. At this point in time that perspective is not adequately reflected by the law.

The real issue here is that people have an idea of what marriage is man and women. The problem is that was they way it was for a very long time not sure about the number, but im sure it is at least 10,000 years, and at an extreme the idea of gay marriage has only been around for say 100 years. Some people aren't ready to except this change.

I don't understand. Why is this relevant? Tradition is not a good enough reason for the continuing violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution. You know what I'm talking about, the constitution? That document that is the supreme law of the land? Supreme, as in superior, above all else? And yes, that means above public opinion too.

I realize you're on our side, but I'm just stating what is, because you know, what is is. :fluffle:

LOL. read your own bloody post, chump.

I suggest you do. You'll see the first, and primary, definition is the legal union between a man and a woman. You'll also see that the 4th definition is a "same sex marriage" that does not carry the same legal rights as a marriage between a man and a woman.

Generally speaking the first definition takes precedence over the 4th. Cheers.

sidenote- Both Heineken and Arrogant Bastard Ale are real drinks.

Marriage originated in the Bible. The Bible is the text of Christianity. Christianity prohibits homosexuality. Homosexual "marriage"? Good one!

People were getting married long before there was a Bible. Try again, chucklehead.

Just so it's clear why I'm continuing to argue with you on this subject...

You state that...


And...


Then you turn around and say...


I would just ask why shouldn't you be ale to do those things to ensure your happy life? What if those laws are wrong? How does walking around nude break any law that isn't just stupid anyway?

Then you say that people who make personal attacks are dumbasses...


Then you begin/continue to make personal attacks...


again...


Then you contradict your own argument...


Since you're not a proponent of moral relativism, you will agree that there is no single absolute moral position on an issue. Therefore, by your own argument, I am free to use my own moral compass to decide whether a law should be broken or not.

I believe I am correct in saying that you are a Troll, just here to argue with anyone who will argue with you. All right, I'm game. Just please refrain from the immature name-calling...it really doesn't become you. :fluffle:


Now that you’ve run around and dodged points, why don't you face up to your own words and deal with your own stupid ass "Follow all laws until they're no longer laws" and deal with this.

Really? Hey you know what was a law in Germany? Don't hide Jews in your attic. I guess you would of peaceably followed that law just because it was a law huh?

Your own argument will fall apart under the extreme. Almost every argument will. Cheers.

You see, unlike what you insist upon believing, I’m not arguing that people should always follow their own personal feelings on every law. I’m not actually dumb enough to ever believe that. I am however smart enough to realize that all laws have a spirit and a point behind them. The Red light law is a fundamentally good thing. At the same time red light laws are idiotic at 2AM in the morning when it becomes useless.

Meanwhile you are the idiot who appears to be arguing to obey all laws at all times.

And as a side note, running around and grabbing a bunch of out of context quotes is a great way of being an asshole.

That's nice. But when you talk about the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, you don't care what they do in Canada. Thanks for the irrelevant post.
But it's a hate-crime in real America as well, at least where I live.

Wait, how is it changing the law to allow homosexual marriages? as previously stated, there is nothing in the Constitution saying anything about marriage what so ever, so at this point there are no laws either way. Marriage is a union of love, and thats all it should be. I say we abandon all of the economic benifits associated with it, and make it a union on love and love alone. If two people love each other, they should have the right to express that love to the world through a union of marriage. The First Amendment enforces the "right to expression", and marriage is an expression of love, so in my opinion, the law currently supports it.
The problem is that people are bringing religion into the picture and saying that "marriage is a religious union, and doesnt apply to homosexuals" well, at one point minorities werent allowed to vote, and that changed for the better in my opinion, because all citizens were granted the same rights. So in my opinion, everyone should have a right to marriage, because everyone also has a right to love.

No Marriage is a state recognized Inion of people. Not love, look at arranged marriages.
Arabian culture (Islam, etc) has had a couple aranged marriages in culture and yet they are not always love.

Everyone even humans and dogs to each other? See if you say no now you are restricting things.
What about Preteens and adults? YOU are restricting again, aren't you?

See even you agree restrictions can be placed in marriage.

Civil Unions have no economic benefits and homosexual will not accept them. Civil unions are also legal.

You see the prtoblem isn't marriage is based on economic benefitd, but that guys want those benefits.
Your method take it from the homosexuals as well as straight so both would protest.

Unless Homosexuals are just jealous...

Don't see anything in the Constitution explicitly about marriage but one would assume that it's covered in the "persuit of happiness." That said, gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.... a gay man can marry ANY WOMAN HE WANTS and vice versa for lesbians. No one is trampling on their rights to marry. That said, changing the definition of marriage cannot be done. Marriage = man + woman. Period. No debating that FACT.
According to the way THIS society defined marriage. In the OT, marriage involved one man and any number of women. In America, before Europeans landed, marriage involved any number of men and women.

Hey dumbass, I'm not arguing for breaking any and all laws. Simple eh? Just because you're to much of an idiot to not be able to draw a line between red lights at 2AM and Murder doesn't mean I'm that much of an idiot.



Really? Hey you know what was a law in Germany? Don't hide Jews in your attic. I guess you would of peaceablly followed that law just because it was a law huh?

The extreme argument works both ways dumbass. You can apply it to me where I advocate breaking stupid laws and we can apply it to you advocating following all laws simply because they are laws.



Cheers, while you're at it, never drive. You would be taking too big a risk.



Your argument is pathetic and my ad hominem attacks are truthful, dumbass. If you don't like them you can be like cry-baby Pracus and get in a last word and then hit the ignore button. I'm sure it will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Can you discuss anything without being insulting to others?

HEY MODS, I thought flaming was a matter to get posts deleted.

The constitution does not have any clause anywhere saying that marriage is a legal write. The only things the government does is to provide benifits for married people. The government can choose not to accept gay marriage as an accepted from which is what the case is now.

AN STOP KNOCKING ON MADISON
The government provides the service of legal marriage. It is unconstitutional to provide the service to some people, but deny it to others.

Hey dumbass, I'm not arguing for breaking any and all laws. Simple eh? Just because you're to much of an idiot to not be able to draw a line between red lights at 2AM and Murder doesn't mean I'm that much of an idiot.

The extreme argument works both ways dumbass. You can apply it to me where I advocate breaking stupid laws and we can apply it to you advocating following all laws simply because they are laws.

Your argument is pathetic and my ad hominem attacks are truthful, dumbass. If you don't like them you can be like cry-baby Pracus and get in a last word and then hit the ignore button. I'm sure it will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Meanwhile you are the idiot who appears to be arguing to obey all laws at all times.

And as a side note, running around and grabbing a bunch of out of context quotes is a great way of being an asshole.
Your ad hominem attacks are against site rules, Salvondia. Knock it off. Now.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team
sidenote- Both Heineken and Arrogant Bastard Ale are real drinks.Damn good ones too. Don't drag Arrogant Bastard (http://www.arrogantbastard.com/) into your attacks, please. It doesn't deserve the comparison.

The government provides the service of legal marriage. It is unconstitutional to provide the service to some people, but deny it to others.
Many things like banrupcy laws are resticted to people based on wealth according to a new law.
It is basically a way to force you to pay chapter 13 (so you can't go 7 and not pay) and mostly caused by medical bills.

And we do not provide marriage to people with Beastility, Pedophillia, necrophillia (can't marry dead), etc.

So it is constitutional and based on certain reasons and cicumstances.

There's the equal protection under the law clause. Straights have a right gays don't; that's unconstitutional.

Your ad hominem attacks are against site rules, Salvondia. Knock it off. Now.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team
Damn good ones too. Don't drag Arrogant Bastard (http://www.arrogantbastard.com/) into your attacks, please. It doesn't deserve the comparison.

Cheers, have a drink.

Many things like banrupcy laws are resticted to people based on wealth according to a new law.
It is basically a way to force you to pay chapter 13 (so you can't go 7 and not pay) and mostly caused by medical bills.

Are you thinking of chapter 11, reorganization? Chapter 13 is a business level bankrupcy and chapter 7 is a personal level bankrupcy. Anyway, what's that got to do with gay marriage?

And we do not provide marriage to people with Beastility, Pedophillia, necrophillia (can't marry dead), etc.

So it is constitutional and based on certain reasons and cicumstances.

Slippery slope. No one's talking about all of those other things, we're talking about what services consenting adults are allowed to recieve from the government. None of those things you mentioned involve only consenting adults, therefore your position is moot. You would have been better off going for polygamy or incest.

Can you discuss anything without being insulting to others?

Yes, and indeed I have for aprox ~500 of my posts on this website. But hey when Emo decides to call me an idiot I'll end up responding in kind to him and others who end up taking his same view on the matter.

HEY MODS, I thought flaming was a matter to get posts deleted.

I thought you were supposed to use the "!" symbol to report bad-posts...

Now that you’ve run around and dodged points, why don't you face up to your own words and deal with your own stupid ass "Follow all laws until they're no longer laws" and deal with this.

What points did I dodge?

Really? Hey you know what was a law in Germany? Don't hide Jews in your attic. I guess you would of peaceably followed that law just because it was a law huh?

Do you know what the punishment for getting caught doing this was? Often the Nazis took your property and threw you in jail, if you were lucky. Later, they killed families who harbored Jews in their homes. Yeah, I probably wold have followed that law. I bet you would have, too, under threat of death.

Meanwhile you are the idiot who appears to be arguing to obey all laws at all times.

I'm not saying anyone should do anything. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your weak minded, poorly thought out argument.

And as a side note, running around and grabbing a bunch of out of context quotes is a great way of being an asshole.

Not out of context. They accurately represent your failed attempts at coherent debate. Rather than admit you're being inconsistent, you berate others and resort to name calling. Rather pathetic, actually. Its clear you have little or no debate skills, and when you can't think of an intelligent comeback, you act like a two year old (I should know, I raised three boys). Grow up and act like an adult.