Page 2 of 53 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
52
... LastLast
  1. #21
    The Insane Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    15,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealed Shut View Post
    They would then have to legalize marriage between a man and a goat, a man and two women, a man and his couch, two children.... where does it stop?
    Oh this fucking argument... really people..

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkacid View Post
    Gays are by definition "freaks" and their behavior should not be encouraged. I don't say that out of hatred for gay people, I say that because it's true.
    Actually gays are by definition people attracted to the same gender.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkacid View Post
    Gays are by definition "freaks" and their behavior should not be encouraged. I don't say that out of hatred for gay people, I say that because it's true.
    No they're not. Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. Its not even particularly rare. There's nothing "freakish" about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Auloria View Post
    I'd really prefer that this be an issue left to the states. It gives people time to see that this isn't the apocalypse. You do have to respect that this a very core fundamental belief that you are asking people to change.
    "Leave it to up the states" often seems like a cop-out. Or a distinction made when you believe one thing but have to act another way to appease your constituents *cough*universalhealthcare*cough*.

    The idea that blacks were lesser people was a very core fundamental belief that we left up to the states, and we all know how well that worked out. The hope is that we could have moved beyond this sort of thing in the past ~150 years...but as you say, people are averse to change.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2012-11-28 at 07:23 AM.

  5. #25
    The Insane Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    15,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Auloria View Post
    I'd really prefer that this be an issue left to the states. It gives people time to see that this isn't the apocalypse. You do have to respect that this a very core fundamental belief that you are asking people to change.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 07:12 AM ----------



    Right, that's why I'm embarassed. I'd rather be laughing at their backwards views and silly beaver hats.
    CIVIL LIBERTIES AREN'T UP TO STATES TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO FOLLOW. States just about can do anything they wan't EXCEPT infringe upon civil liberties. The supreme court treats marriage as a civil liberty and for any state to legally remove a civil liberty they MUST remove it from all people of that state. There is a reason the federal government doesn't allow states to just willy nilly revoke civil liberties to select groups, though they are choosing to ignore a glaring issue.

  6. #26
    I am Murloc! Sky High's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SO-CALI
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkacid View Post
    Gays are by definition "freaks" and their behavior should not be encouraged. I don't say that out of hatred for gay people, I say that because it's true.
    your ignorance and bigotry are whats "freaky" here. and its YOUR behavior on this subject that should not be encouraged.

  7. #27
    The Insane Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    15,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkacid View Post
    Gays are by definition "freaks" and their behavior should not be encouraged. I don't say that out of hatred for gay people, I say that because it's true.
    Really. Hmm in order for gays to be freaks we would have to assume homosexuality isn't a natural sexuality. Given the fact that just about every animal exhibits homosexual behaviour and has same-sex, sex. It would seem homosexuality is a normal sexuality part of human sexuality that is also just about part of every other animal on the face of this planet. That would mean homosexuality isn't a freak behaviour at all. Instead the freak behaviour are those that attack homosexuality as an abnormal thing, despite the fact science tends to disagree with those "special" types of people who choose to ignore facts and nature. You know what shouldn't be encouraged? Stupidity and ignorance.

  8. #28
    I still cannot think of a reason why gay people can't get married. It doesn't harm me or anyone I can think of in any possible way.
    I don't know much about the laws and the legality of it all but no one has ever told me a honest negative to legalizing gay marriage.

  9. #29
    The Lightbringer DEATHETERNAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA, more fascist every day
    Posts
    3,679
    It would be unconstitutional if it were defining marriage for the nation as the federal government is not granted that power within the Constitution. Instead, it defines marriage for the purpose of federal benefits which would be constitutional. The majority of those federal benefits programs are unconstitutional themselves but that is a different argument. It does not violate the 14th amendment in any way, legitimate unconstitutionality would spring from the lack of the power to regulate marriage for the federal government (if it was attempting to do that which it does not).

    The government needs to get out of regulating marriage entirely (as well as eliminate any and all government benefits associated with it) and simply enforce contracts. If you want to call yourselves married, that’s fine but no one else has to recognize it and it doesn’t come with any legal status or benefits. If you want the thing you’re going to call marriage to have some legal standing between the two individuals, they can sign a contract creating that legal standing (such as what would happen in a divorce would be entirely predetermined within the contract according to various circumstances). The government need not be involved in marriage at all beyond enforcement of contracts between individuals like it does for businesses.
    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
    Revelation 6:8

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by soulknife View Post
    I still cannot think of a reason why gay people can't get married. It doesn't harm me or anyone I can think of in any possible way.
    I don't know much about the laws and the legality of it all but no one has ever told me a honest negative to legalizing gay marriage.
    That's because most of the arguments against gay marriage are based on religion.

  11. #31
    If a man loves his goat that much then more power to the fucker.

  12. #32
    The Insane Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    15,181
    Quote Originally Posted by soulknife View Post
    I still cannot think of a reason why gay people can't get married. It doesn't harm me or anyone I can think of in any possible way.
    I don't know much about the laws and the legality of it all but no one has ever told me a honest negative to legalizing gay marriage.
    Because we live in a god fearing Christian nation that was founded on the principals of freedom and freedom of religion. Where the fore fathers weren't all christian and one rewrote the bible.

    A nation filled with immigrants of all different types of religions and agnostics and atheist. Yet these majority Christians feel it is their right, since they are the majority, to steer the country away from the principals it was founded upon.

  13. #33
    It would be unconstitutional if it were defining marriage for the nation as the federal government is not granted that power within the Constitution. Instead, it defines marriage for the purpose of federal benefits which would be constitutional.
    Either way it violates the equal protection clause.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  14. #34
    The Insane Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    15,181
    What I find interesting about this whole marriage thing... Marriage isn't Christian, it isn't some type of holy communion, unless you WANT it to be. You can get married in a court house with no ties to any church or pastor and no speeches to God or anything. Yet we are allowing government to define marriage under a Christian order? This makes no damn sense. Especially in a country that has separation between church and state IN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION!

  15. #35
    The Lightbringer DEATHETERNAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA, more fascist every day
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Either way it violates the equal protection clause.
    No it does not as the equal protection clause clearly specifies "states", not the federal government. Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not restrict the federal government, only the states.
    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
    Revelation 6:8

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by DEATHETERNAL View Post
    No it does not as the equal protection clause clearly specifies "states", not the federal government.
    Both the states and the federal government are bound by the equal protection clause and as such no state has legal ground to deny marriage rights for homosexuals.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  17. #37
    The Lightbringer DEATHETERNAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA, more fascist every day
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Both the states and the federal government are bound by the equal protection clause and as such no state has legal ground to deny marriage rights for homosexuals.
    That is not what the 14th amendment states.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It clearly says that no "State" cannot do etc. It makes no reference to the federal government and the federal government is therefore not bound to the equal protection clause.
    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
    Revelation 6:8

  18. #38
    The Unstoppable Force Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jaina Proudmoore's side. Always and forever.
    Posts
    24,657
    Just define Marriage by human beings so we can end it.
    Blizzard do not destroy Jaina Proudmoore's character. Make her who she once was, not full of rage and vengeance.,If you are curious about me or about my writing aspirations, feel free to pst me. Paladin-Sorcerer at your service! My Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/Aeluron Big fanboy of Yrel now. Love her now

  19. #39
    The Insane Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    15,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DEATHETERNAL View Post
    That is not what the 14th amendment states.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It clearly says that no "State" cannot do etc. It makes no reference to the federal government and the federal government is therefore not bound to the equal protection clause.
    The fact of the matter is that NO STATE has the right to deny ANY civil liberty to any person or group without denying that civil liberty to ALL people of that state.

    For instance free speech. New Jersey can't say "gays have no free speech!" because that is against the law, but New Jersey can say "No free speech for anyone in this state!" which is perfectly fine. Gay marriage is a civil liberty as far as the federal government is concerned, they just refuse to enforce it because it's a sticky issue and could cost some of them their careers.

  20. #40
    The Lightbringer DEATHETERNAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA, more fascist every day
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron View Post
    Just define Marriage by human beings so we can end it.
    Inbefore one guy marries 800 woman and they each qualify for social security benefits based on the $10,000,000 salaray per year he was making.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    The fact of the matter is that NO STATE has the right to deny ANY civil liberty to any person or group without denying that civil liberty to ALL people of that state.

    For instance free speech. New Jersey can't say "gays have no free speech!" because that is against the law, but New Jersey can say "No free speech for anyone in this state!" which is perfectly fine. Gay marriage is a civil liberty as far as the federal government is concerned, they just refuse to enforce it because it's a sticky issue and could cost some of them their careers.
    A state may not, the federal government can deny civil liberty selectively unless it is a constitutionally mandated liberty. And as I said before, the states nor the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. It can be handled entirely be contract between individuals who wish to be whatever form of "married" they want to be and they aren't forced to acknowledge other types of marriage and no one else is forced to acknowledge theirs. Liberty for all.
    Last edited by DEATHETERNAL; 2012-11-28 at 07:38 AM.
    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
    Revelation 6:8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •