Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 14th amendment applies to all state laws too. So while the state can regulate marriage under the 10th amendment, they can not deny any citizen equal protection under those laws without showing how doing so will further a compelling state interest.
Nobody can give a legal argument you accept. Several courts have ruled ssm bans are constitutional. When the SC decides in a split decision, you'll accept the side you like and reject the other side as being ignorant, bigoted ninnies trying to impose their antiquated views on society.
What court rulings affirm SSM bans constitutional?
I can't speak to any ruling that might come from the SC because no specific case has made it to the court as of yet. So if I don't know...then I don't think you are in any special position to claim what I would or would not do.
Nobody can give a legal argument you accept. Several courts have ruled ssm bans are constitutional. When the SC decides in a split decision, you'll accept the side you like and reject the other side as being ignorant, bigoted ninnies trying to impose their antiquated views on society.
Well, actually, yes, we WOULD say that - because that's what you're doing. Even if your side loses a court battle, you're STILL guilty of imposing your "antiquated views" onto society.
Every single one of those gay marriage bans violates the 1st Amendment since Congress (that includes state congresses, 10th Amendment notwithstanding) cannot pass laws establishing a religion. Modern interpretation of that amendment says that "establishing" a religion is any law that either favors one religion over all others or any law that interferes with the right of someone else to practice a different religion.
And ... courts have set precedent saying that atheism IS a religion for the purposes of being protected by the 1st Amendment. Therefore, any law (or amendment) that forces atheists to adhere to Christian dogma is subsequently unconstitutional.
In other words, no one in this country is obligated to follow your Bible or march in lockstep with your fascistic moral code. This isn't a theocracy. I wish I could put that sentence in lights because that is how important it is. We are not a theocracy. If you want a theocracy, by all means, go join the Taliban. They'll teach you what it means to live under religious tyranny.
Now then, why do those amendments exist? Essentially, the authors of the various anti-gay state amendments omitted any reference to homosexuality or religion and simply defined marriage as "one man and one woman." Wow, talk about a dishonest piece of legislation. Not only have we now enshrined hatred and bigotry in all of those constitutions, we've enshrined deception as well.
Because those amendments were purposely designed to hoodwink the Supreme Court by literally pretending that gay marriage bans have nothing at all to do with religion or gays. I mean, seriously? I can only hope that the justices can see through such a transparent ploy to circumvent the US Constitution - and that's exactly what it is: a big fat ploy.
I really don't understand why so many Americans are opposed to a truly free nation. Instead, their definition of freedom is: "The freedom to take way other people's freedom."
Whoever said that you have no legal argument to ban gay marriage is 100% correct. You don't have good secular argument at all ... of any kind. Religious arguments are disqualified instantly thanks to the Establishment Clause.
There isn't a single argument you can put on this forum that I can't destroy in seconds. Go ahead. Test me.
I think homosexuality is harmful for all parties. It is basically a mistake of nature. It has never been desirable by any society ever.
Since you don't believe in god, you will argue that religion is something which was created by men for a purpose. The "purpose" of religion is usually for the "greater good". Basically, they want you to behave in a way which is optimal for society. And all societies of man have despised homosexuality. Because it is socially destabilizing, and useless.
Moreover, homosexuality isn't as simple as being gay or straight. Human sexuality is a much more broad spectrum. The cause of homosexuality in many cases is not biological, it is psychological. It is those guys who were molested, or who have dominant mothers, or absent fathers, or whatever. And these men wouldn't truly be gay or straight, in most cases they are really just "bi-sexual". Which people tend to forget is the "B" in "LGBT". We need to stop discussing this as a simple gay vs straight paradigm. In fact, if you go off the Kinsey scale, a very large percentage of people are effectively bisexual. And I think that is especially true of women.
Ideally, everyone would be straight. And every non-insane person knows it.
Even if you don't want to condemn gay people, and you appreciate their company for buying shoes and what-not. You must ask the question, who in their right mind if given the choice, would want to have a gay child? What man wants his son to be gay? Or his daughter to be a lesbian? The answer is NO ONE. Or at least, no one who is sane.
Furthermore, homosexuals in general are less happy than straight people. Even in European countries where homosexuality is accepted, homosexuals are usually unhappy. Most likely because they are necessarily limiting themselves, and they know it.
Many gays want to have children, and they decide to adopt. Though while I do admit, two women do a reasonable job raising children. Two men do a pretty horrible job statistically raising children. In my opinion, kids need a mother. A mother is simply irreplaceable.
The question in regards to homosexuality is not about its virtues or its drawbacks. Because it has no virtues, but has tons of drawbacks. The question really is, what role should the government play in either encouraging or discouraging homosexuality? Regardless of what you want to believe, granting same-sex marriages is the equivalent to government encouragement of homosexuality. For that matter, government-sanctioned marriages are an encouragement of marriage.
In my view, the government should not be involved in any way with what is a social matter. If marriage is a contract, then it should be a contract. And the state should not force people into a "one-size-fits-all" contract. People should be able to write up their own contracts in regards to what they think marriage should be(kind of like a pre-nuptial agreement).
This would neither encourage or discourage homosexuality. Nor would it encourage or discourage marriage.
Problem solved, you're welcome.
Okay you gave me an essay to my little paragraph, so I'm gonna respond each statement you made.
First off, I'm not harming myself nor my partner, and most importantly you. If you're talking about STDs, I can protect myself like every other heterosexual person. If religion is for the "greater good", why are there people getting killed in the name of religion? Most importantly, why are there people like the Westboro Baptist spreading their hate in the name of their god? It seems to me that religion brings more harm than good so it's useless. There are cultures that have admired homosexuality, but then religion reared it's ugly head.
Second I was never molested, had my father present in all of my life. Also I am a happy gay person, and I have a lot of happy gay friends. I am not limiting myself. I live my life like everyone else. What part of that don't you anti gay people get? Maybe those gay people seem unhappy because there are people who still harass them in those countries who legally recognize same sex marriage. Or better yet, their families disowned them.
Third, two fathers could be great parents and raise wonderful children. Where are statistics that two fathers are bad parents? Nobody's' sexuality has to have virtues. If you think so what are virtues of heterosexuality then besides children? Bearing children is not a virtue nor a moral.
Again you guys have not given anyone a rational reason to be against homosexuality or marriage. Like I said before, stay out of peoples' lives. That's when the world would be a better place.
Well, actually, yes, we WOULD say that - because that's what you're doing. Even if your side loses a court battle, you're STILL guilty of imposing your "antiquated views" onto society.
Every single one of those gay marriage bans violates the 1st Amendment since Congress (that includes state congresses, 10th Amendment notwithstanding) cannot pass laws establishing a religion. Modern interpretation of that amendment says that "establishing" a religion is any law that either favors one religion over all others or any law that interferes with the right of someone else to practice a different religion.
There isn't a single argument you can put on this forum that I can't destroy in seconds. Go ahead. Test me.
Go look at the cases cited [there are others] and tear them apart. Enjoy yourself.
Meanwhile, can you cite a case, just one, that ruled against ssm bans based on the violation of the 1st Amendment's establishment clause ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody's' sexuality has to have virtues. If you think so what are virtues of heterosexuality then besides children? Bearing children is not a virtue nor a moral.
