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.
Nope. LOL, your question was answered and you just don't like the answer that marriage is between a man (black, white, etc.) and a woman (black, white, etc.). Man and a woman of any racial composition that you like, the only coupling combination possible to comprise marriage.
The U.S. Supreme Court said 50 years ago that marriage is a "fundamental right". It'll be interesting to see how today's Supreme Court deals with that statement once it reaches that level.
While some courts have said that this holding does not apply in the context of same sex marriage
“Some” courts i.e. judges or the constitution i.e. rights? Not in the constitution, no rights denied! Glad we are in agreement. Where is that judge when you need him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43
Putting smileys at the end of your posts does not make your anti-gay bigotry any less abhorrent.
Let the name calling begin or in this case continue. Not winning any converts to your agenda very well this way. I have a few labels I could apply as well but will not for the interest of maintaining a civil, congenial and reasoned dialogue. Your side would be well advised to do the same but it apparently is impossible and of more importance to be nasty rather than attempt to accomplish anything productive via some semblance of civility. Perhaps this is why the homosexual agenda faces continued rejection. Then again, perhaps not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43
It doesn't do anything to mitigate the fundamentally nasty tone to your posts,
I am shocked! In fact I am bending over backwards to go as easy as I possibly can and this is the thanks I get? Despite the continued name calling, labels, badgering and other assorted unpleasantries I will not stoop to your level. Consider this a favor.
There has been a campaign to blur the reasons why we even have marriage at all. Seems it's no longer a vital institution where the next generation of children are born and raised. Now it's just about tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, fairytale wedding gowns and a vehicle to gain public approval of your love and commitment to your significant other.
Marriage has been a business arrangement for most of its existence. Even Martin Luther opposed Christianity having anything to do with it. It wasn't until John Calvin that marriage became intimately associated with religious ceremony and in turn carried some significant value outside the financial/family benefits.
Those people who were opposed to inter-racial marrigae were doing so out of racial bigotry. Strip away a person's race, and a man and woman having sex will still produce babies, who will then grow up to become our future generation. A man a woman who marry and have children are exactly the same as any other couple, no matter the race. Two men, no matter how much love each other, will never create a baby, hence the distinction between men and women, and same sex couples. It's really that simple.
Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. I don't see you guys proposing to ban elderly or infertile couples the right to marry, which clearly proves this bigotry has nothing to do with reproduction.
“Some” courts i.e. judges or the constitution i.e. rights? Not in the constitution, no rights denied! Glad we are in agreement. Where is that judge when you need him?
Wow, way to take my comment so far our of context that it completely changed the point I had made. Marriage has been considered a right for almost 50 years, a fundamental one under the Constitution. Again, see Virginia v. Loving.
Do we or should we legislate according to opinion polls?
Not at all, it is all based on individual rights. The majority has no right to dictate what free peaceful adults should do or not, as long as all involved are consenting.
Wow, way to take my comment so far our of context that it completely changed the point I had made. Marriage has been considered a right for almost 50 years, a fundamental one under the Constitution. Again, see Virginia v. Loving.
Exactly. Marriage in the Loving vs. Virginia case was and is between a man and a woman who happened to be of different races. Loving and Jeter, the interracial couple involved, still consist of the only coupling combination possible to be marriage which is a man and a woman nonetheless. The Loving vs. Virginia case refers to Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages, and did not address, infer or involve anything remotely regarding homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is a sexual proclivity, not a race or the racial discrimination issue that Loving vs. Virginia was and is.
Exactly. Marriage in the Loving vs. Virginia case was and is between a man and a woman who happened to be of different races. Loving and Jeter, the interracial couple involved, still consist of the only coupling combination possible to be marriage which is a man and a woman nonetheless. The Loving vs. Virginia case refers to Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages, and did not address, infer or involve anything remotely regarding homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is a sexual proclivity, not a race or the racial discrimination issue that Loving vs. Virginia was and is.
And this folks is the problem when non-legally trained individuals wade into legal debates and constitutional law discussions.
And this folks is the problem when non-legally trained individuals wade into legal debates and constitutional law discussions.
I agree. One should understand how case law works before claiming a law protecting interracial marriage has no barring on other types of marriage.
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.
Glad we are in agreement. Where is that judge when you need him?
