bcp
In My Opinion
Please end this whole conversation and point out where it is a right to marry.
Please end this whole conversation and point out where it is a right to marry.
UNA
New Member
Wirelessly posted
So now your latest little issue is that I asked a question?! Some people define marriage by ability/intent to procreate so I asked if that was your view point. Why so sensitive? It would help a lot if you would stop assuming you know everything...if it helps you sleep at night to call me a liberal than have at it but I think it's a bit sad that you have to lump me into a group in order to make your talking points :shrug: to each their own I suppose...
BTW, "proven to be anything but a choice"? Please enlighten me; provide your unbiased evidence.
bcp said:UNA said:Haven't you been paying attention at all?
So is your issue that two man/two women cannot have a child together?
No, because not all male/female marriages end up physically or mentally able to have children.
I never said that, you are trying to force that comment to fit into the talking points. Let me help with how the conversation would go in your perfect liberal world
Me: Yes, marriage is for procreation, Gays cant do it so there is no compelling need to have them marry.
You: how about couples that cant have children, should they also be denied?
Me: no
You: But if they cant produce then they should not be allowed to get married,,
See how it unfolds?
But the reality is that the human body parts are not biologically designed to work in the way that gay guys work them. there is nothing natural about the whole thing.
It is a perversion that to this day has not been proven to be anything but a choice.
You: When did you make your choice to be straight?
Me: Straight is normal, what I didn't do was make a choice to experiment with other guys then claim I'm gay.
So basically, please stop trying to steer the conversation to a place that you know it has no basis in going to and argue with real fact. or even opinion, Your opinion.
So now your latest little issue is that I asked a question?! Some people define marriage by ability/intent to procreate so I asked if that was your view point. Why so sensitive? It would help a lot if you would stop assuming you know everything...if it helps you sleep at night to call me a liberal than have at it but I think it's a bit sad that you have to lump me into a group in order to make your talking points :shrug: to each their own I suppose...
BTW, "proven to be anything but a choice"? Please enlighten me; provide your unbiased evidence.
Last edited:
(9th Amendment to the US Constitution said:
Late Edit
In other words, if something is not specifically prohibited under the law it is a right that belongs to the people. Who's trying to "change the law" now? If it isn't broke, why fix it, that was your earlier point right?
Done.
Last edited:
bcp
In My Opinion
All men are created equal. A sperm hits the egg, happens every time. The question is will those men be equal later in life? and do they have a right to be equal. They only have a right to work toward being equal.
The right to life and liberty? by not allowing gay marriage does not infringe on either of these.
Pursuit of Happiness? does this come with the right to obtain no matter what it is that makes you happy? Since its not illegal to fight for gay marriage, they are being granted their right to pursue happiness.
again, marriage is not a right, it is a privilage. (depending on who you marry)
As far as being prohibited by law. Basically it already is. If it was not, then there would be no argument going on about it right now. And I dont see anything as being broke.
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
Actually it is not prohibited by law. It is not recognized. Big difference. Just like if you want to be called a duck, the law could careless. Just because you call yourself a duck does not mean you are entitled to water. I say gays can marry away, just that law should not recognize it as such as standard marriage that has been recognized throughout history.
You mean, work toward being the same, because that's what you're really after. A very fine Communist ideal.
Translation, "I ignored the text my counterpart took the time to bold for me"
Yes, so long as you don't interfere with the rights of others. And to adjust your argument "Because I don't want them to" is not infringing on your rights.
No, driving, and owning a gun are privileges, if you're a felon, you can't own a gun. Name on case, other than homosexuals where two consenting adults are not allowed to marry. Felons can get married, they can get married in prison. You can get married if you've been divorced 15 times an obviously have no clue how to make it work. Even the mentally handicapped can get married when it's questionable if they are competent to consent.
Yes, but this didn't happen until the 1990's, where was your rally call of "don't change laws without good reason" then?
bcp
In My Opinion
And yet another look into the mind of the socialist. So, working toward a goal to be equal in all ways to another (keeping up with the Jones) is Communist. Being allowed all the same luxeries in life as the rich guy, while you sit back and do nothing is the act of a free nation? gotcha...
I didnt ignore anything, you are trying to create a condition where none exist.
If I live in a community that has an HOA, I might not be able to park my boat in the driveway. Whos rights am I infringing on to do that? There are plenty of laws out there that I have to follow that would not be infringing on anyone elses right if I did not.
Marriage is not a right, thus the states control on it. I cant marry my first cousin or my sister or my mother. And seriously mentally retarded people cant marry either. Are rights being violated in these instances? NO because marriage is a privilage that you apply for.
But since its a right, I suspect you can find the wording to establish this.
So, it was legal for gays to marry in the 80s? 70s? 60s or 50s???
You would think we would have more older gay people celebrating their 50th and such.
Again, you are wrong.
You really are a moron, who is fighting for equality in this argument. You're the one calling for total conformity, you're the one saying "be like me or you don't have rights". You are the one with the Stalin-istic view point in this conversation.. If I was sitting back and doing nothing would I be in here arguing? You call me a socialist? I want equality. I want freedom. And I want you to realize, to open your eyes and narrow mind that what you are fighting for is a theocratic oppressive state that demands conformity and if you refuse your rights are forfeit. Polpot, Stalin, Mussolini and the Nazis fought for such things. If you're too diluted to figure that out, if you're blinded by hate that you can't tell the difference than I'm truly scared for this country.
You throw terms like Un-American and Communist around because they don't mean anything to you. Just like the jack-holes in congress and the white house. You have your rights but until you're willing to fight for the rights of others, you don't deserve them.
Like most things you say, this doesn't make any sense.
HOA rules are different than laws. An HOA is a private entity with it's own rights. It is not a government body. This argument is completely invalid. The HOA has the right to do that, a restaurant has the right to enforce a dress code. If you can't tell the difference your opinion is invalid since you lack the mental capabilities to make decisions.
First, and I'm saying this for the LAST time YOU CAN MARRY YOUR FIRST COUSIN. You challenge me on the law but you don't know it yourself. And I've already provided the words establishing the right to equality of marriage law.
Oh look, someone from your side already answered this argument. They are wrong in today's world, but in the world prior to the mid 90's it was accurate:
It wasn't until 1996 that anyone actually addressed it at a federal level. States followed suit after that either allowing it or disallowing it.
You don't know the law, you don't know the history, you don't know what Communism means. You know nothing but your own blinding hate and just can't stand the idea the people who aren't like you exist. Oddly enough the thought that most people aren't like you is what allows me to sleep at night.
Don't respond, it will just be some ill thought out, bigoted response or you accusing me of being something when, in-fact, that thing is actually a reflection on what you are. You have the right to exist, but I (and this country) have no use for you.
And interestingly, if you do marry your first cousin, in Maryland, where IT IS LEGAL and move to West Virginia where it isn't, you're still married. So why if a gay couple moves from Massachusetts where it's legal and moves to Pennsylvania, where it isn't, are they no longer married.
This some how counts as being equal. But I forgot your favorite quote:
the jist of your argument said:
false in the following states:
Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee, Arizona, California, Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Texas, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Virginia.
bcp
In My Opinion
as far as federal tax goes they would be
as far as state tax and privilege go, its up to the state because marriage is not a protected right and therefore falls on the states to administer.
bcp
In My Opinion
Sorry, I was commenting on the equality issue.
bcp
In My Opinion
Gay marriage.
For the record I can see good reason not to allow first cousin marriage. If nothing else, it might reduce the number of people that vote democrat.
You're wrong, the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, even if they stay in Massachusetts. Mass give a man and woman a marriage license, the federal government recognizes it. Mass gives a gay couple the exact same marriage license and the federal government does not recognize it.
That is a fundamental violation of both the gay couples right and the rights of the State of Massachusetts to determine their own marriage law.
bcp
In My Opinion
Nope, no violation of rights. I thought the IRS still recognized it, but perhaps Im wrong.
states dont dictate what is or is not a law or a right under federal control.
Basically I guess, states can handle it how they want, grant what the feel is sound policy, but the federal government only has to follow their own laws.
at any rate, no violation of rights going on here, nothing to see, move along.
Well several Courts have disagreed and shortly the Supreme Court will weigh in but based upon comments by the justices I'm inclined to surmise they also disagree.
I apologize but I'll be taking their word for it. But since it will likely be a moot point once the new Respect for Marriage act is passed and Defense of Marriage Act (funny name, I don't need the federal government to defend my marriage) is off the books.
bcp
In My Opinion
Since I already thought the feds were recognizing these false marriages, it will be no real difference to me