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.
2) Consistency would dictate that you also leave behind the relative anonymity of the keyboard and screen and publicly decry women's suffrage and property rights as well as the recognition of dark hued folks as anything more than 3/5 a person.
No it wouldn't - the rights outlined in the second paragraph of the declaration of Independence are not an exhaustive list - but neither is there an unlimited enumeration of rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The 3/5 Compromise was highly controversial at the time - it only made its way into the original ratified document because it would have been impossible to get the Constitution ratified otherwise. The same document included a timeline for eliminating slave importation to the Republic.
The error of the 3/5 compromise was corrected through the amendment process(after a long bloody war) and the inequities concerning women's suffrage were likewise corrected. I am not aware of any provision in the Constitution that had an adverse effect on women's property rights - perhaps you could clarify that part of your post.
You say that the Constitution is "fluid". It most certainly can be changed - through the amendment process. A right is something that is unalienable - and there exists no provision to keep any part of the Constitution untouched - except for the difficult process of amending it.
Our rights come from our Creator - those cannot be touched. If something is granted by the government - it is a privelege - not a right - and it can be taken away.
That is the problem. Our society has cheapened marriage to JUST a contract. It's not considered sacred anymore or anything special. Sad. It started when married people threw their marriage into the garbage anytime they felt like it. Adultery, cheating and not caring about their marriage or partner, so it has denigrated into not much at all.
We don't want to bring it back to the sacred, special column, that would be too hard, so it continues to go to hell.
Yet somehow the moral crusaders fighting for the sanctity of marriage never want to legislate against adultery. We know why, of course - that would lead to uncomfortable questions being directed at members of their own congregation, and looking for bad behavior among themselves - that's not part of the bargain. The idea clearly is to use the force of law to tell others how to behave, then slap each others' backs for being such upstanding pillars of morality. Sure, you may be a twice-divorced serial adulterer, but you can at least fight to make sure that gays don't get to formalize their relationships, because that would lead to moral decay.
You mean like a rental agreement or a service warranty? That's it?
Thanks for proving what the same-sex "marriage" agenda is really all about: reducing and degrading all marriages to the level of a financial transaction.
All interactions between people are contracts, whether formalized in writing or just verbally agreed upon between the parties involved. Marriage is no different even when you apply the trappings of any particular religion to it. If its not a contract between people then it has no validity. You cannot define marriage as anything except a contract.
You say that the Constitution is "fluid". It most certainly can be changed - through the amendment process. A right is something that is unalienable - and there exists no provision to keep any part of the Constitution untouched - except for the difficult process of amending it.
Our rights come from our Creator - those cannot be touched. If something is granted by the government - it is a privelege - not a right - and it can be taken away.
I said that "the law" is fluid which includes policy, procedure, the bureaucracy, and the Constitution.
The recognition of our rights comes from the Magna Carta and the associating writings of the Age of Enlightenment, hardly a time reconcilable with staunch theological doctrine. I believe Everson v. The Board of Education is the precedent identified as limiting both Federal and State entities from granting religious denominations "legislative or effective privileges".
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, a husband and a wife. Out of 3% of the population only a fraction of that 3% want to marry making that argument against it even more valid. So basically .03% of the population wants something that atleast 50% of the population is against. Homosexaulity is a choice just as ones faith is a choice.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are conditions not choices. The individual has the choice as to whether their behaviors reflect that condition. A heterosexual may engage in homosexual behaviors just as a homosexual may engage in heterosexual behaviors. The engagement of a particular behavior, even over a protracted period of time, will not change the underlying condition. Thus you have the failure of the "pray the gay away" school of thought to actually change the underlying condition of homosexuality.
All interactions between people are contracts, whether formalized in writing or just verbally agreed upon between the parties involved. Marriage is no different even when you apply the trappings of any particular religion to it. If its not a contract between people then it has no validity. You cannot define marriage as anything except a contract.
You people on the dark side really need to get your talking points straight. Perhaps you should call a meeting.
The bottom line is this: marriage, for you and your tribe, is defined as anything but what all nations of Christendom have always recognized it to be. Anything but the 800 lb gorilla you know it to be.
Marriage is not a contract, but a covenant. It's not "I'll do my part if you do yours", but "I'll do my part 'till death do us part". Contracts can be broken or dissolved by mutual agreement; a marriage is binding for life. The fact that since the 1970s our laws began to treat marriage as a mere contract (a contract still defined by specific parameters of the marriage covenant) is a radical departure from 1500 years of consensus in the West.
Granted, we have already cheapened marriage by accepting co-habitation, contraception, and casual divorce. But let me ask you this: would homosexuals be crusading for same-sex "marriage" if marriage were legally indissoluble, as it ought to be? I doubt it very much. They don't want marriage: they want the quick and dirty contract that civil marriage has become.
So, I have to partially grant your point: marriage is treated (wrongly in my view) as a contract in civil law today. You probably call that progress. I call it a colossal mistake that should be repudiated. But if we can't roll civil marriage back to what it should be, the least we can do is keep it from losing all resemblance to marriage as intended by God and recognized by all until the sexual revolution turned the world inside out.
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.
