A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[Artevelde]

Yes, we should ban mass murderers from marrying.

I am sure we will save this nation from every problem we face if we ban two people that are committed to each other of the same sex to get married.
Just last night I woke up shocked by the fact that somewhere near me there may be 2 men or 2 women that love each other laying in their bed as they sleep. Then I had this terrible thought? What if they want to get married? I spent the rest of the night worrying about the devestating impact that would have on my life, my marriage and career if 2 gays or 2 lesbians were allowed to have a wedding ceremony to get married. If that was allowed I just do not know how I could go on with my life. What would be the purpose in my life if those 2 homosexuals were allowed to get married and make that kind of commitment to each other?
And now we have those that want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and set all of us at ease. We have needed this for such a long time. How fitting to use The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, rather than tell the GOVERNMENT what it can not do which is what the Constitution was founded on.
No, we do not need tax reform, we do not need to end the massive deficit, we do not need energy reform, healthcare reform, tax reform and earmark reform. We do not need fiscal responsibily.
What we need is a Constitutional Amendment to ban gays from marrying and all of a sudden that makes us a moral nation again over night and everything else is solved.

The discussion is not about "banning" something, but about introducing a completely new concept of marriage and tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard.

Dumbass, Constitutional Amendments in the states all call for a BAN on gay marriage.
You vote yes you vote for the ban.
You vote no you oppose the ban.
Comprende?

No, the constitutional amendments in most cases just affirm the actual and current concept of marriage. You may hurl insults, but it would be wiser to learn to read first.

 

[BluePhantom]

First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right?? .

Oh I will say it. Even more importantly the SCOTUS has said it. Loving v. Virginia (1967)

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right?? .

Oh I will say it. Even more importantly the SCOTUS has said it. Loving v. Virginia (1967)

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.
There is no fundamental right for same sex marriage.
__________________

 

[Gadawg73]

The discussion is not about "banning" something, but about introducing a completely new concept of marriage and tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard.

Dumbass, Constitutional Amendments in the states all call for a BAN on gay marriage.
You vote yes you vote for the ban.
You vote no you oppose the ban.
Comprende?

No, the constitutional amendments in most cases just affirm the actual and current concept of marriage. You may hurl insults, but it would be wiser to learn to read first.

Why does one need new laws to "just affirm"
That is an uneducated guess.
Existing law does ban gay marriage but constitutional amendments do much more than just affirm. Read the law on those challenges and get back to us. This effectively shuts the door on any court challenges.
Try again next time with an informed post.
Constitutional changes never "just affirm".
They make, reinforce or change existing law.
You are the one that needs to read the legislation. Your lack of doing so earns the hurling.

 

[BluePhantom]

Fruit loop, you know what you posted is a lie. There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin. Now why would the early church of CHRISTIANS do something they know God look at as sin?

There is scripture in the Bible as it is written today that says homosexuality is a sin. As it was first written? No...sorry there's not. I have been over this 1,000 times on USMB and I am not going to type it all out again. Just go from here and read forward.

 

[Gadawg73]

The leader of the legislation in NC was on TV last night.
"This strenghtens us as a nation" she said.
How does this law strengthen us as a nation?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fruit loop, you know what you posted is a lie. There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin. Now why would the early church of CHRISTIANS do something they know God look at as sin?

There is scripture in the Bible as it is written today that says homosexuality is a sin. As it was first written? No...sorry there's not. I have been over this 1,000 times on USMB and I am not going to type it all out again. Just go from here and read forward.

OH really? OK if God intend for people too have sex with anyone he would have made Adam and Steve and made everybody asexual.

Gen 2:18 ¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.


Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

[BluePhantom]

First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right?? .

Oh I will say it. Even more importantly the SCOTUS has said it. Loving v. Virginia (1967)

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.
There is no fundamental right for same sex marriage.
__________________

just how exactly do you figure that? Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant. An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is still unconstitutional.

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not. It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant. You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.

 

[Artevelde]

Dumbass, Constitutional Amendments in the states all call for a BAN on gay marriage.
You vote yes you vote for the ban.
You vote no you oppose the ban.
Comprende?

No, the constitutional amendments in most cases just affirm the actual and current concept of marriage. You may hurl insults, but it would be wiser to learn to read first.

Why does one need new laws to "just affirm"
That is an uneducated guess.
Existing law does ban gay marriage but constitutional amendments do much more than just affirm. Read the law on those challenges and get back to us. This effectively shuts the door on any court challenges.
Try again next time with an informed post.
Constitutional changes never "just affirm".
They make, reinforce or change existing law.
You are the one that needs to read the legislation. Your lack of doing so earns the hurling.

You're not even writing coherently anymore. Learn writing too.

 

[Artevelde]

Oh I will say it. Even more importantly the SCOTUS has said it. Loving v. Virginia (1967)

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.
There is no fundamental right for same sex marriage.
__________________

just how exactly do you figure that? Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant. An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is still unconstitutional.

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not. It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant. You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.
There is no fundamental right for same sex marriage.
__________________

just how exactly do you figure that? Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant. An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is still unconstitutional.

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not. It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant. You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?

Until that happens loving vs VA is moot.

 

[BluePhantom]

Fruit loop, you know what you posted is a lie. There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin. Now why would the early church of CHRISTIANS do something they know God look at as sin?

There is scripture in the Bible as it is written today that says homosexuality is a sin. As it was first written? No...sorry there's not. I have been over this 1,000 times on USMB and I am not going to type it all out again. Just go from here and read forward.

OH really? OK if God intend for people too have sex with anyone he would have made Adam and Steve and made everybody asexual.

Gen 2:18 ¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.


Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I am not going to write all this shit out again. 1) I have done it 1000 times. Just read what I linked to. 2) God has nothing to do with this issue. Religion has nothing to do with constitutional law and I am not going to derail the thread so you can quote Bible verses. It all comes down to Loving v. Virginia and Lemon v. Kurtzman....how many damned times on this thread alone do I have to point to the Lemon Test and how many times will the anti-gay crowd conveniently pretend it doesn't exist? Since Arte couldn't answer the question, perhaps you can: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"

Those criteria are again:

1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
2) it can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.


Loving v. Virginia specifically defines marriage as a "right" under the 14th Amendment. Now, answer that question and explain how to deny homosexuals their rights and remain in compliance with the Lemon Test?

 

[BDBoop]

It's called cause and effect.

When do we stop giving special right to everybody.

Special rights? We want to give ordinary benefits to more people. Can you see the difference?

There is no right to marry, give gays a right to marry is giving someone a special right.

You can verbalize it however you want, but they cannot marry the person they love, and you can. I can. Anybody who is straight, can. They cannot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is scripture in the Bible as it is written today that says homosexuality is a sin. As it was first written? No...sorry there's not. I have been over this 1,000 times on USMB and I am not going to type it all out again. Just go from here and read forward.

OH really? OK if God intend for people too have sex with anyone he would have made Adam and Steve and made everybody asexual.

Gen 2:18 ¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.


Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I am not going to write all this shit out again. 1) I have done it 1000 times. Just read what I linked to. 2) God has nothing to do with this issue. Religion has nothing to do with constitutional law and I am not going to derail the thread so you can quote Bible verses. It all comes down to Loving v. Virginia and Lemon v. Kurtzman....how many damned times on this thread alone do I have to point to the Lemon Test and how many times will the anti-gay crowd conveniently pretend it doesn't exist? Since Arte couldn't answer the question, perhaps you can: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"

Those criteria are again:

1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
2) it can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.


Loving v. Virginia specifically defines marriage as a "right" under the 14th Amendment. Now, answer that question and explain how to deny homosexuals their rights and remain in compliance with the Lemon Test?

A revised version of the bible? Dude wake the fuck up the homosexual act is unnatural and not of God. It is a sin No matter how much of your perversions try's to make it not a sin.

 

[BDBoop]

OH really? OK if God intend for people too have sex with anyone he would have made Adam and Steve and made everybody asexual.

Gen 2:18 ¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.


Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I am not going to write all this shit out again. 1) I have done it 1000 times. Just read what I linked to. 2) God has nothing to do with this issue. Religion has nothing to do with constitutional law and I am not going to derail the thread so you can quote Bible verses. It all comes down to Loving v. Virginia and Lemon v. Kurtzman....how many damned times on this thread alone do I have to point to the Lemon Test and how many times will the anti-gay crowd conveniently pretend it doesn't exist? Since Arte couldn't answer the question, perhaps you can: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"

Those criteria are again:

1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
2) it can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.


Loving v. Virginia specifically defines marriage as a "right" under the 14th Amendment. Now, answer that question and explain how to deny homosexuals their rights and remain in compliance with the Lemon Test?

A revised version of the bible? Dude wake the fuck up the homosexual act is unnatural and not of God. It is a sin No matter how much of your perversions try's to make it not a sin.

The Bible does not supersede the Constitution, no matter how much you want it to.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Special rights? We want to give ordinary benefits to more people. Can you see the difference?

There is no right to marry, give gays a right to marry is giving someone a special right.

You can verbalize it however you want, but they cannot marry the person they love, and you can. I can. Anybody who is straight, can. They cannot.

So you agree family member should be allowed to marry? A person should be allowed to marry as many people as they choose too? is this correct in your view?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not going to write all this shit out again. 1) I have done it 1000 times. Just read what I linked to. 2) God has nothing to do with this issue. Religion has nothing to do with constitutional law and I am not going to derail the thread so you can quote Bible verses. It all comes down to Loving v. Virginia and Lemon v. Kurtzman....how many damned times on this thread alone do I have to point to the Lemon Test and how many times will the anti-gay crowd conveniently pretend it doesn't exist? Since Arte couldn't answer the question, perhaps you can: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"

Those criteria are again:

1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
2) it can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.


Loving v. Virginia specifically defines marriage as a "right" under the 14th Amendment. Now, answer that question and explain how to deny homosexuals their rights and remain in compliance with the Lemon Test?

A revised version of the bible? Dude wake the fuck up the homosexual act is unnatural and not of God. It is a sin No matter how much of your perversions try's to make it not a sin.

The Bible does not supersede the Constitution, no matter how much you want it to.

I don't think I was the one who brought the Bible up I am just following the comments as they come.

 

[BDBoop]

There is no right to marry, give gays a right to marry is giving someone a special right.

You can verbalize it however you want, but they cannot marry the person they love, and you can. I can. Anybody who is straight, can. They cannot.

So you agree family member should be allowed to marry? A person should be allowed to marry as many people as they choose too? is this correct in your view?

Let's discuss that after we've finished discussing this. Obviously, you don't have a leg to stand on, or you wouldn't be changing the subject.

 

[BDBoop]

A revised version of the bible? Dude wake the fuck up the homosexual act is unnatural and not of God. It is a sin No matter how much of your perversions try's to make it not a sin.

The Bible does not supersede the Constitution, no matter how much you want it to.

I don't think I was the one who brought the Bible up I am just following the comments as they come.

Lemon Law.

 

[BluePhantom]

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.
There is no fundamental right for same sex marriage.
__________________

just how exactly do you figure that? Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant. An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is still unconstitutional.

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not. It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant. You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?

Same sex marriage no. But the specific topic was whether marriage itself was a "right" enjoyed by United States citizens. According to Loving v. Virginia...yes it is a "right". It's not a "privilege", it's not a "perk", it's a "right". The SCOTUS defined it twice in that very section I quoted as a "right". And not just a "right" but a "vital right".

So to deny gays marriage is denying them their "rights" according to Loving v. Virginia. Now here we go again: "what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?"