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.
OP, I was just looking over my post and would like to ask if you'd answer at least this part: Besides the customer support phone calls to India, which of the issues you list affects you personally, in your daily life?
I just answered your question in the 8-part reply to another poster. Everything I mentioned affects me, affects you, affects society in negative ways.
I neglected to mention one huge burden to everyone in society in relation to the illegal immigrant problem.
Anchor babies!
The millions of illegals that break the law by migrating here without the necessary documentation are reproducing faster than mice. Their children are automatically citizens under a technicality in the 14th amendment. Your tax money is funding the costs of the uninsured anchor kids!
With that said the 14th amendment needs to be repealed. This country cannot afford the continuation of aiding and abetting the millions of illegal migrants and their vermin offspring.
I believe it should still be illegal for people of different races to marry, but maybe the majority do not adhere to those beliefs. The majority is what should make the final decision.
Like it or not white males are the people that founded this country and fought and died for it. Whites were (and still are, but not for long) the majority in this country.
What do you mean by sub-segment? Homosexuals? It wasn't until the '90s when they were allowed into the military, but only under the guidelines of don't ask-don't tell. In other words a person is allowed to engage in a deviant lifestyle in private but not in public or on the job.
The constitution secures for every person the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of gender, color or sexual tendency. No state has the right to pass any laws that violates the constitution of United States. The constitution does not say that only male and females are allowed to marry, so to deny any person the same rights that you enjoy is unconstitutional. Even if the "majority" of the people vote to restrict the right of another it is still unconstitutional. We live in a country where it is the rule of law that applies, this is called a Constitutional Republic. The United States is not a democracy. In a democracy you have the majority of the people inflecting their views on the minority, this is called Mob Rule. You must understand that every citizen in this country has equal rights under the law and that NO law can be made to oppresses or take away the rights of another person or group of people.
The constitution secures for every person the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of gender, color or sexual tendency. No state has the right to pass any laws that violates the constitution of United States. The constitution does not say that only male and females are allowed to marry, so to deny any person the same rights that you enjoy is unconstitutional. Even if the "majority" of the people vote to restrict the right of another it is still unconstitutional. We live in a country where it is the rule of law that applies, this is called a Constitutional Republic. The United States is not a democracy. In a democracy you have the majority of the people inflecting their views on the minority, this is called Mob Rule. You must understand that every citizen in this country has equal rights under the law and that NO law can be made to oppresses or take away the rights of another person or group of people.
Along the same arguments the Constitution does not mention anything about homosexuals being allowed to marry.
I never said anything about denying civil rights to anybody. Marriage is not about civil rights. It's about the uniting of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. The dictionary defines it this way and so does the Bible. This has been the way of the land since the beginning of the human race.
Disagree? Take it up with Mr. Webster, and Him!
Obviously people are agreeing with this viewpoint more than yours as witnessed by the passing of Constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage in many states.
The Constitution of the United States doesn't mention anything about anyone being allowed to marry.
Denying the right to marry is denying civil rights to them.
Your definition of marriage is simply your definition; it has served as a way to transfer property, to use women as chattal.
You might want to look up the history of marriage, and you won't find it in a dictionary. Webster wrote a dctionary.
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Marriage In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.
Along the same arguments the Constitution does not mention anything about homosexuals being allowed to marry.
I never said anything about denying civil rights to anybody. Marriage is not about civil rights. It's about the uniting of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. The dictionary defines it this way and so does the Bible. This has been the way of the land since the beginning of the human race.
Disagree? Take it up with Mr. Webster, and Him!
Obviously people are agreeing with this viewpoint more than yours as witnessed by the passing of Constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage in many states.
True, the U.S. Constitution does not mention marriage, and it shouldn't. The constitution is the frame work on how our government is suppose to work. The legal aspect of marriage is made at the State level of government, having said this, again, no state can make a law that infringes upon the rights of any people or group, because these rights are protected by the U.S Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States doesn't mention anything about anyone being allowed to marry.
Denying the right to marry is denying civil rights to them.
Your definition of marriage is simply your definition; it has served as a way to transfer property, to use women as chattal.
You might want to look up the history of marriage, and you won't find it in a dictionary. Webster wrote a dctionary.
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Marriage In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.
Once again....pay attention:
NOBODY IS DENYING ANYONE THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!!!!!!!
You should absolutely be forced to tolerate unconventional things that don't infringe on anyone else's rights, in general. Whether you accept these things is up to you.
Tell me, what's so ubiquitously great about the conventional? Where do we draw the line between which conventions are okay to break and which aren't? What is inherently negative about being unconventional?
EDIT: I'm sorry, I made that reply before I read through the thread and found out that you support anti-miscegenation laws. You don't have to answer, I'd disregard it now anyway.
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.
