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.
Mardi Gras is not a celebration of heterosexuality
Yah, sure. The entire beads-for-flashing concept has nothing to do with sex. Nuh-uh.
Quote:
(baby showers are, however).
Oh, I may see where you're coming from now. Sex for procreation only, is that what this "modicum of decency" is about?
Quote:
Original intent of the 14th Amendment | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty (http://www.dailypaul.com/132657/original-intent-of-the-14th-amendment - broken link)
Did you just grab in a random list of links, or does jus solis citizenship have some sort of bearing on the debate?
Mardi Gras is not a celebration of heterosexuality (baby showers are, however).
and
Original intent of the 14th Amendment | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty (http://www.dailypaul.com/132657/original-intent-of-the-14th-amendment - broken link)
First of all, your link is entirely about the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, not the Equal Protection Clause. Secondly, Ron Paul's opinion about the Equal Protection Clause is just that, his opinion. He is not the ultimate arbiter on what the Constitution means. Thirdly, the link you went to contained an egregious misinterpretation of the Wong Kim Ark case it discussed:
Quote:
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child.
The Supreme Court in this case explicitly stated that a person born in the US is a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of their parents. And at the time there were restrictions on Chinese immigration into the US, and Wong Kim Ark was the son of Chinese immigrants born in the US. The court went out of its way to say that the status of the parents was in no way crucial, unless the parents were foreign ambassadors or members of invading armies.
Quote:
Are you actually comparing a function of national defense with some supposed right to Federally recognize the "marriage" of a man and another man?
You asked where the words "gay marriage" or "homosexual" appear in the Constitution; I ask you where the words "Air Force" appear in the Constitution.
Quote:
Yeah, but national defense, unlike men hooking up with men, is actually a major part of the constitution.
But now you're making an interpretation, because you acknowledge that the Framers did not originally intend for there to be an Air Force. The Equal Protection Clause is also a "major" part of the Constitution, and Equal Protection demands that legislation by states have a higher purpose than animosity towards a particular group of people, the way these same sex marriage bans have been.
Quote:
How is gay "marriage" going to fix our economy?
Are you saying "Sorry same sex couples, no equal marriage rights for you until the unemployment rate gets below 5%!" Under your logic, didn't a bunch of states during "Republican Wedge Issue 2004-2008" have better things to do than impose gay marriage bans?
Quote:
I never said that homosexuals should have all of the legal rights of normal citizens AS COUPLES.
Then what was your whole discussion of civil unions about? You said " But a civil union gives the gays all of the legal cover they need for insurance and job benefits. I think they deserve that, why not?" And now you're turning around and saying that you don't think that same sex couples should enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexual couples? I know you're coming from your starting position that homosexuality is immoral, but at least try to keep some internal consistency in your posts!
Stating that various clauses in the Constitution have been "misinterpreted" does nothing to explain how he thinks they should be interpreted. Before I can make a judgement as to his being right or wrong, I'd need to know that. (though I will say that the man has never made a lick of sense to me)
Hey come off it "ppl have been having SEX " with children in America Since 1492 until today 2011. Some states allow it with the parents permission at the age of 16 years old , wereas some states view 16 year pld girls as adult women. Some states here in these United States of AMERICA allow girls to get married as young as 13 , so please give me a break " In 40 YEARS HUMMMMMM.
Homo sapiens has existed as a separate species from the greater family of primates for around 60,000 years. We have been 'civilized' for maybe 3,000, industrialized for maybe 200 and computerized for less than 100. 60,000 years of genetic memory inform the modern policy wonks that only a man and woman can produce more humans. Only women can bear and nurse infants. These things simply are. Like gravity or sound or light. Early religions worshipped what was. Civilization gave humanity the ability to conceived beyond their five senses and ever since then Darwinian evolution has ceased to apply to humanity.
If the species survives it will indeed one day be possible to create new human entities from any combination of parent DNA. Male/Female designations will be arbitrary. Gays won't have to fight for marriage equality then. There is a fight now because the concept is so new and without any obvious benefit to society. Abortion is still being debated. Even with the obvious inability of the U.S. government to support the presence of any new Americans, Republican politicians want to eliminate abortion and deal with the estimated 11 extra million Americans by conscripting them into the armed forces. Fertility is still a prized intrinsic of human beings. It might be an obsolete emotion in the abstract and completely obsolete in the practical sense in a few years, but there you have it as things stand in 2011.
As a divorced Agnostic who will likely never ever marry again, I am bemused and amused at the fervor with which the right to marry is pursued by a minuscule number of gay men and women. I do believe it is the desire for validation. I simply cannot relate. I've never been a joiner. Those who are, however, usually understand the need for 'clubs' to have rules of order and qualifications for membership. They might not always seem fair but that is what makes a club 'exclusive' and worth the joining. Strangely, I get that. I don't understand married people who don't understand that if marriage is opened to gays that it will not affect their own marriage status. I also don't understand gay or straight people who believe that it would simply stop there. Desk lamps and trees (or livestock) as marriage participants is a stretch but not so polyamorous aggregations or bisexual ones. Will conventional marriage participants believe their opposite sex/ man/woman marriages make some socially significant statement when things fully shake out and any two human beings with a pulse, in any number and gender combination, can be 'married' and all that that entails? I wonder.
Enjoy it while it lasts, for it is a temporary situation. Gay marriage will be the law of the land in all 50 states, before I assume room temperature I predict. I'm 42. You can do that math, I hope.
This has been said before, but I'll say it again: "adults" have been marrying "children" for thousands of years. This is nothing new.
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.
