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.
Most Americans don't have the government peering into their bedrooms, so shouldn't all people have that benefit? I think personal privacy is a basic civil right.
Whether you're aware or not, you contradicted yourself - to one side and back - in one paragraph. That takes some talent.
What do laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman have to do with the government peering into bedrooms, or denying anyone personal privacy?
Actually, in MY opinion, if the homosexual agenda is truly supported by the people, then let the people's vote stand. What is the problem with that?
Why must one group of people's civil rights have to be voted upon by the nation? It goes along with whats popular isn't necessarily right... whether you think being gay is right or wrong.. treating people differently under the law according to their "sins" are uncostitutional. Thats like not allowing anyone who commits adultery to never be allowed to marry again...
Courts are designed to combat mob mentality in the legislative process... because it does happen all the time.. and the court system is by means that you challenge something and your case is heard... its how a free and democratic country functions... Besides.. what if you being allowed to marry your wife was up for vote? and everyone didn't agree with you marrying your wife? is it their place to say so? afterall the people would have been allowed to voice their opinion in a vote.. and afterall the people's word is what's important right?
I personally don't think it's a civil right to talk on the cellphone while driving, and that it probably ought to be illegal. In fact, I think those people are more a threat to society at large than people's activities involving consenting adults in private. But I don't see any election-year podium-pounding over that. People are more worried about what goes on between the sheets in somebody else's bedroom.
Why must one group of people's civil rights have to be voted upon by the nation?
The civil rights you or me, gay or straight, have, are defined in the Bill of Rights. What civil right(s) are homosexuals denied that others are privy to?
Quote:
It goes along with whats popular isn't necessarily right... whether you think being gay is right or wrong.. treating people differently under the law according to their "sins" are uncostitutional.
Cite the court decision which states this...if that is your stance. And something not yet answered...by your standard, is the "right" to marry multiple partners ALSO "unconstitutional"?
Quote:
Courts are designed to combat mob mentality in the legislative process
Courts were/are intended to interpret/apply the law as passed by due legislative process. Not MAKE law.
Quote:
and the court system is by means that you challenge something and your case is heard... its how a free and democratic country functions...
Correct, but there are checks and balances. The will of the people is expressed...in a free republic..thru the legislative process. The people of California made clear their feelings thru a legal process. A court arbitrarily decided to overrule them. Which is proper ala a democratic function...?
Quote:
Besides.. what if you being allowed to marry your wife was up for vote? and everyone didn't agree with you marrying your wife? is it their place to say so? afterall the people would have been allowed to voice their opinion in a vote.. and afterall the people's word is what's important right?
Correct you are! But it wont happen that way. Ad absurdum (did I spell that right? LOL) arguments don't work in this realm The fact is that marriage defined as between a man and woman dates back to Adam and Eve and every society that ever existed, in some form or fashion. There is a reason why one passes the test of time and morality... and the other doesn't.
BUT...lets DO put it to a test. Well, it HAS been. But the California courts overuled the vote, didnt they?
The civil rights you or me, gay or straight, have, are defined in the Bill of Rights. What civil right(s) are homosexuals denied that others are privy to?
Cite the court decision which states this...if that is your stance. And something not yet answered...by your standard, is the "right" to marry multiple partners ALSO "unconstitutional"?
Courts were/are intended to interpret/apply the law as passed by due legislative process. Not MAKE law.
Correct, but there are checks and balances. The will of the people is expressed...in a free republic..thru the legislative process. The people of California made clear their feelings thru a legal process. A court arbitrarily decided to overrule them. Which is proper ala a democratic function...?
Correct you are! But it wont happen that way. Ad absurdum (did I spell that right? LOL) arguments don't work in this realm The fact is that marriage defined as between a man and woman dates back to Adam and Eve and every society that ever existed, in some form or fashion. There is a reason why one passes the test of time and morality... and the other doesn't.
BUT...lets DO put it to a test. Well, it HAS been. But the California courts overuled the vote, didnt they?
homosexuals are denied the right to marry who they love and wish to share a life with because that person happens to be of the same sex.. they are denied that right unless they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.. which goes back to bringing the argument up about whether being gay is a choice or not.... giving me the right to marry another man.. doesn't restrict you from being able to marry another man if u wish.. so there's no special right being afforded anyone.. but I suppose you could tell me to marry a woman in the same regard... problem is.. a woman is not who I am in love with.. therefore my right to the persuit of happiness is hindered.
The california court did not MAKE law.. they made a ruling according to the INTERPRETATION of ALL laws on the books not just the vote of the people on gay marriage but as well as the passing of anti-discrimination laws.. they were put in the position of weighing ALL laws on the books as well as the voted ban... and thru that process they have (and are completely able to do so) overturn the ban because it contradicts other laws that have been a precedence... So the people have made it clear that they wish to abolish discrimination, and bigotry all the while making it clear they don't want gay marriage.. The contradictory nature of these opposing views being on the books poses a legal authority to make a ruling... hence the supreme court...
As for the history of things... you blatantly refer to adam and eve... who are two people you can't prove ever existed.. so please use substance and facts.. not religious beliefs or uneducated views of history.. because homosexuality has been around since the dawn of civilization as we know it.. and we know that because we have records of it.. beyond that.. I can't say.. but there are also many examples of homosexual relationships being widely acceptable in many cultures in human history.. you are very misguided in your premis'
homosexuals are denied the right to marry who they love and wish to share a life with because that person happens to be of the same sex.. they are denied that right unless they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.. which goes back to bringing the argument up about whether being gay is a choice or not.... giving me the right to marry another man.. doesn't restrict you from being able to marry another man if u wish.. so there's no special right being afforded anyone.. but I suppose you could tell me to marry a woman in the same regard... problem is.. a woman is not who I am in love with.. therefore my right to the persuit of happiness is hindered.
I don't intend to get into this too much today...too many things to do around the house. But I will address, briefly, your points.
As concerns the above, the simple fact is, I don't accept your concept of "rights". In this case, the "right" to a "pursuit of happiness" unhindered. For one thing, this phrase (pursuit of happiness) appears in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution...which is the actual document recognizing basic civil rights necessary for the existence of a free people. You have just as many as I do. What the homosexual activists demand is that the rest of society accept their lifestyle as equal. And if the latter doesn't? Then they are bound and determined to ram it thru (no pun intended) anyway...using activist courts to override the will of the people.
Quote:
The california court did not MAKE law.. they made a ruling according to the INTERPRETATION of ALL laws on the books not just the vote of the people on gay marriage but as well as the passing of anti-discrimination laws.. they were put in the position of weighing ALL laws on the books as well as the voted ban... and thru that process they have (and are completely able to do so) overturn the ban because it contradicts other laws that have been a precedence... So the people have made it clear that they wish to abolish discrimination, and bigotry all the while making it clear they don't want gay marriage.. The contradictory nature of these opposing views being on the books poses a legal authority to make a ruling... hence the supreme court...
You are correct in ONE narrow realm. That is, in this instance the California (9th Circuit) did not "make" law. What they DID though, was to do what most activists courts do when the issue has been decided beforehand and they wish to force their ideology on others. To wit, overturn the will of the people as expressed thru the legal/legislative process by taffy-pulling. There is a good reason why the 9th Court is the most often overuled in history. And so, will this ruling ultimately be as well.
Quote:
As for the history of things... you blatantly refer to adam and eve... who are two people you can't prove ever existed.. so please use substance and facts.. not religious beliefs or uneducated views of history.
Sorry, but the lame attempt to make me out to be some snake handling religious nut (I am just a good ol' Southern Baptist boy who likes to drink beer) and believes the world was created in a literal 6 days, isn't going to work. I used the "Adam and Eve" reference, metaphorically...to make a point in another frame and context.
And also, this "uneducated" comment? Oh hell...not THAT one again! LMAO. Podner? (notice I didn't say "partner" ,,,I'll match my education with yours any day of the week and twice ON Sundays! But that is irrelevant, isn't it? Let's get over the "one-ups and all, ok?
By the way though, as an aside, speaking of Southern Baptist and all, I just gotta share this joke...even though I realize many folks of your ilk (in my own experience and observations, only) don't have a great sense of humor! Oh well. Here it is:
Budhists don't recognize the authority of the Pope. Jews don't recognize the New Testament. Southern Baptists don't recognize each other in liquor stores!
*AHEM* Now, then, back to the point.
Quote:
because homosexuality has been around since the dawn of civilization as we know it.. and we know that because we have records of it.. beyond that.. I can't say.. but there are also many examples of homosexual relationships being widely acceptable in many cultures in human history.. you are very misguided in your premis'
Glad you brought that one up. Yes, homosexuality is NOTHING new to this world. And I have said repeatedly that I don't consider it the worst thing in the world in terms of "sin". And further, unlike many Christian conservatives (of which I count myself), I even believe that most people can't help their sexual orientation. For that reason alone, I don't care a fiddler's damn what two consenting adults do behind closed doors! Where we part company however is the notion that I (or anybody else) is duty bound to accept it as normal and on the same moral plane with heterosexual relationship and marrigage.
Main thing though is, this "myth" that homosexuality was "widely accepted" in many cultures in human history. I suppose the ancient Greeks are the first to come to mind?
Sorry, but while there are SOME elements of truth in it, the larger truth is not quite so palatable to those who wish to believe in it and/or perpetuate it:
Here are a couple of good links on the subject (an except first):
Given that only free adult men had full social status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Terms for the passive role were muliebria pati, "to submit to what is done to women" and aselgainein, "to defile oneself." The active role in Greek was hubrizein, "to exert force upon another."
But it also avoided homosexual sex between equals, which was problematic for reasons of status: if two adult citizens were to engage in homosexual activity, the one who played the passive role would lose respect.
I even believe that most people can't help their sexual orientation. For that reason alone, I don't care a fiddler's damn what two consenting adults do behind closed doors! Where we part company however is the notion that I (or anybody else) is duty bound to accept it as normal and on the same moral plane with heterosexual relationship and marrigage.
I don't understand how it affects you. Do you feel it cheapens heterosexual marriage?
I think the idea is that heterosexuals should be able to monopolize the cheapening of marriage. You know, ~50% divorce rate, prenups, that kind of thing.
"Till death do us part, but just in case..."
I think the idea is that heterosexuals should be able to monopolize the cheapening of marriage. You know, ~50% divorce rate, prenups, that kind of thing.
"Till death do us part, but just in case..."
Whatever.
Well, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I wonder if that is a reason to be against it.
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.
