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.
Article 4, Section 2 - The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
The DOMA Act was passed and signed into law (despite the Constitution) just so States would not be required to recognize same-gendered marriage made in other States.
I find the simple fact that Religion can circumvent our Constitution (DOMA, Motto, Pledge) in such a ready, and readily accepted, manner to be quite disturbing.
Not to mention section 1 of that same article of the constitution:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
Funny, I recall much the same arguments being made by the anti-inter-racial marriage crowd.
Hmm, seems they were wrong in using a slippery slope fallacy as well.
Sit, read, learn...
Homosexuals are NO different than we heterosexuals. They require the same thing that we do from their relationships. Love, understanding, mutual support, friendship, etc, and yes, intimacy as well.
Two loving consenting adults who wish to make a public commitment while enjoying the thousand plus rights and privaleges MY wife and I do, harms no one at all, no matter what their genders are. It doesn't harm them, nor does it harm you.
Pedophiles are, according to the APA, fixated on the AGE of their victims, not the gender. Pedophiles also harm children on every concievable level possible, physically, emotionally, mentally, in many cases throughout that child's entire life.
Just the fact that you people can so readily dismiss the terrible tragedy that is an abused child, and use it so callously, so easily, as ammunition in your War on Gay pisses me off to no end.
Funny, I recall much the same arguments being made by the anti-inter-racial marriage crowd.
Hmm, seems they were wrong in using a slippery slope fallacy as well.
Sit, read, learn...
Homosexuals are NO different than we heterosexuals. They require the same thing that we do from their relationships. Love, understanding, mutual support, friendship, etc, and yes, intimacy as well.
Two loving consenting adults who wish to make a public commitment while enjoying the thousand plus rights and privaleges MY wife and I do, harms no one at all, no matter what their genders are. It doesn't harm them, nor does it harm you.
Pedophiles are, according to the APA, fixated on the AGE of their victims, not the gender. Pedophiles also harm children on every concievable level possible, physically, emotionally, mentally, in many cases throughout that child's entire life.
Just the fact that you people can so readily dismiss the terrible tragedy that is an abused child, and use it so callously, so easily, as ammunition in your War on Gay pisses me off to no end.
You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
This is coming from someone who was raped and molested as a child.
If gays are being "denied" the right to marry aren't polygamists and pedophiles being denied it as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dusk99
The definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, not two adults. But hell, if we're going to change the gender then there's nothing stopping us from changing the number and after that the ages.
I have to agree with the above posters. Why in the world do you think a child is capable of informed consent? Children are not capable of making decisions as adults. Their brains are not fully matured. They are protected for good reasons. I live in MA where we have gay marriage. The sky has not fallen.
But...
Massachusetts sues U.S. over gay marriage rights
"BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts sued the U.S. government on Wednesday to seek federal marriage benefits for about 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since the state became the nation's first to legalize same-sex marriage.
The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying it denies "essential rights and protections" to married gay couples.
The federal government is interfering with the state's "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage," said the lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston. It calls the law "overreaching and discriminatory."" Massachusetts sues U.S. over gay marriage rights | U.S. | Reuters
Therefore, by your argument: Heterosexual couples that do not produce children should be demoted to "Civil Unions" and stripped of any advantage that "Marriage" legally bestows upon people who actually extend the bloodline.
This is an interesting argument on your part. It puts government right in the heart of a union of two people. I don't think that's a Conservative value, do you?
As always, this is the rebuttal of this failed position. Homosexuals can NEVER produce a bloodline between their union. When we look at marriage and its purpose, its core is to recognize this relation. The fact that a couple may choose not to create one or by some factor is incapable of doing so does not invalidate the historical definition and purpose.
The entire purpose of such in its origin was designed for such. It was designed as such because it was common knowledge that man and woman could produce a bloodline. Your attempt to find a ***** in the armor of my position is nothing more than an attempt to argue over details that are irrelevant to the issue.
The fact is... homosexual never can produce as such between them. One could be devious making the position that homosexuals can produce, but one would be purposely ignoring the fact that this is an issue of those married, not that one can go out and find another to carry or donate as such. The issue is between the historical purpose of marriage, not a technicality designed to win an argument in spite of the purpose of the position.
Again, this is about the definition. Homosexuals do not fit the definition. Adding them to the list would invalidate the historical definition ultimately resulting in confusing the understanding of such. Civil unions meet a proper delineation by describing the relation as one that can never produce. Not because of choice, not because of a medical condition, but because it is a simple unquestionable fact of the issue.
Let us have intelligent conversation that is without devious motive, shall we?
This, from the guy who claims to want to have intelligent discourse.
And you're awfully riled up for someone who also claims to be approaching this from a non-emotional position.
I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes discussing this issue with you, since you are obviously incapable of the very things you demand of your opponents. You're undeserving of my attention.
Thank you for not wasting anymore responses on me. I do not know how much more I could take of your emotional arguments which were void of all intelligent and rational thought. I want intelligent and ethical debate, not emotionally driven banter that ignores all concept of intelligent discourse. Thank you for no longer responding.
I have to agree with the above posters. Why in the world do you think a child is capable of informed consent? Children are not capable of making decisions as adults. Their brains are not fully matured. They are protected for good reasons. I live in MA where we have gay marriage. The sky has not fallen.
But...
Massachusetts sues U.S. over gay marriage rights
"BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts sued the U.S. government on Wednesday to seek federal marriage benefits for about 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since the state became the nation's first to legalize same-sex marriage.
The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying it denies "essential rights and protections" to married gay couples.
The federal government is interfering with the state's "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage," said the lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston. It calls the law "overreaching and discriminatory."" Massachusetts sues U.S. over gay marriage rights | U.S. | Reuters
What age is a child and how can this be established as a general rule? I have met children that show far more capability of acting rationally as an adult than MANY of the adults I have met in my life.
My grandfather left home at age 13 to support himself. This was common during his time. My grandmother was married to my grandfather at age 15 and they had their first child at age 16. My grandfather served in WW2 at age 17 and had already experienced more responsibility by the time he was 18 then most 50 year old's today.
You can pretty up your argument all you want with words, but in the end you are living in sin, and you trespass against God by continuing to live like this. I married for love, but I understood at an early age that I was suppose to marry a woman, and only a married couple should be having children.
No matter how you justify it, explain it, or defend it.... Same sex marriage is not natural, is not normal, and is a sin.
As always, this is the rebuttal of this failed position. Homosexuals can NEVER produce a bloodline between their union. When we look at marriage and its purpose, its core is to recognize this relation. The fact that a couple may choose not to create one or by some factor is incapable of doing so does not invalidate the historical definition and purpose.
Obviously, some courts disagree with you. Sorry, but the definition of marriage is evolving, just as it always has.
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.
