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.
I am ok with the government regulating when they have a compelling state interest to do so. Children driving or drinking can cause harm to others on the road, or the child. Building codes protect those who live in the buildings. Hunting and fishing protects other humans in the area, as well as managing the animal population.
What is the compelling state interest in denying SSM?
I have answered your questions please be man enough to answer mine for once.
The burden for a case does not lie with us. You're the one that is arguing for change--the burden lies with you to show why it needs to be done. You have not demonstrated that we NEED a new form of marriage.
Did you miss ptsum's question, or did you skip over it like a student that knows they don't have a viable answer and simply skips it. Seems it is not the first time you have done this in this thread.
Is the stability of your marriage so fragile that a SSM threatens yours?
Do you simply lack the courage that your while your mind is filled with nonsense, your heart is filled with hate?
Or do you simply not have an answer?
I honestly didn't see his post. But I have answered this question before. How it affects my marriage is completely irrelevant. The effect on my marriage neither validates SSM, nor does it invalidate it. It should be able to stand on its own, regardless of its effects on existing marriages.
The burden for a case does not lie with us. You're the one that is arguing for change--the burden lies with you to show why it needs to be done. You have not demonstrated that we NEED a new form of marriage.
Incorrect. In order for equal protection of the laws to be denied the state has to show how doing so would further a compelling state interest.
So stop bobbing and weaving and answer the question.
What compelling state interest does the government have to deny same sex marriage?
Because overpopulating ourselves to extinction is a much better alternative? We have a third of the world's population still living in the Stone Age and population is increasing almost exponentially. Just how much longer do you think we can keep this up before it all collapses under the weight of our numbers?
Sooner or later - probably sooner - those 50,000,000 deaths (most of which are just cell clumps and not actual sentient beings) will seem insignificant to the death toll of the next pandemic, one that will make the Black Death look like a sniffle. Nature has a way of checking overpopulation if we don't do it ourselves, and nature will push the reset button on humanity.
Well, I guess we could tell the forum admins to delete all threads and thread categories that do not deal with abortion - since apparently we're only allowed to confront one issue at a time.
First of all, you're going to end up getting your posts deleted if you hijack this thread for an abortion debate. Secondly, imagine what it would be like if 50,000,000 more people were here in America. That's akin to having 10 more New York Cities spring up.
Secondly, I'm not insensitive to the issue, but I'm also a pragmatist. Unwanted children are the wellspring of crime in this country. In addition, as you very well know, I'm sure - barring access to legal abortion only means back alley abortions will be commonplace, more teen girls will be thrown out of their homes for getting pregnant too early, more teen girls will be dropping out of high school, more newborns will end up in garbage dumpsters, etc. etc.
You might think that banning abortion will lead to some grand utopia for children ... but no. It will only cause a plethora of other problems, many of which can't even be foreseen at this place in history. I can't help but think about 50,000,000 more Americans when almost half of the population we have now is on welfare of some kind. Our economic model can no longer support a large population, there aren't enough jobs, not enough resources. Considering almost 70% of all jobs created in the past 10 years have been low-wage? We'd simply be pushing America's habitability quotient.
Honestly, I just don't see the relevance abortion has to gay marriage. Plus, I'm really not sure what you're advocating. Anarchy? A "Mad Max" kind of world? No laws, no government, just roving gangs and paranoid conclaves in a "might makes right" society?
The relevance stemmed from the typical cite of The Constitution and "law" as a determinate of what is "fair for everybody". With a cite of the 14th Amendment, and statement that going by that is "the most fair" way to deal with the issue of same sex marriage.
You already know my position on that.
I responded from that standpoint. Noting the unfairness of the law to sanction execution of people developing in the womb.
My noting that laws don't necessarily determine "fairness" or what is "right" or "wrong"...is often interpreted as my advocating a lawless society.
Why?...I don't know. I never say that. I just point out the error of "legal equates to good/right".
My view on abortion is based upon science. It has been scientifically determined that the "cell clump" is, in fact, a completely individual and separate human being. Different from the Mother, the Father, and anyone else that has ever existed.
It is typically legal, and IMO always moral, to protect all people from harm...never mind being killed on a whim.
Mass execution as a form of population control is also neither typically legal, and IMO never moral...derivative problems not withstanding.
BTW...when I said "we argue about fairness", I meant "we" as the government officials.
A gay person cannot marry the person s/he loves and is attracted to. A straight person can marry the person s/he loves and is attracted to. A government has made that determination. Equal protection denied.
A gay person cannot marry the person s/he loves and is attracted to. A straight person can marry the person s/he loves and is attracted to. A government has made that determination. Equal protection denied.
Eating shellfish should be illegal - as well as wearing blended fabrics, planting two crops in the same field, men cutting off the hair on the sides of their heads, wearing clothes of the opposite gender, eating any number of unclean animals, touching dead pigs, and consulting a psychic (sorry, Madame Cleo!).
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.
