A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[BluePhantom]

The answer to the poster's question is simple:

America was founded as a Christian nation, NOT as a theocracy, but a nation founded on Christian principles. Any gay couple can go to the church that agrees with gay marriage; they could do a name change in court to have the same last name and the rest of us would be none the wiser. They would be "married."

If you are referring to my question your argument would invalidate your response. The Lemon Test invalidates "Christian principles" as a basis for law. At least you tried which is more than Arte or Bigreb have done.

The real reason this practice threatens us is that it requires us to validate gay marriage. People want into the arrangement, NOT because they lack a Right to get married....

So you concede that gays DO have the right to marry. Enough said. Your personal opinions about it or what motivates them is completely irrelevant. If they have the right to do it, then they can do it for whatever reason they choose. End of story.

The gays want us to be forced into accepting their lifestyle AND be forced into participating in it.

Wow...with only three posts to your name you have already made one of the most asinine statements I have ever seen on these boards. You and Koshergirl are going to get along very well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I didn't quote the bible. I quoted a study that showed the Catholic Church performed weddings for two men hundreds of years ago.

I did not claim anything concerning religious views, but showed the fallacy of the "Marriage has been about 1 man and 1 woman for thousands of years" argument.

But Blue what ever the rest of his name is did use the bible. But if that's what you are going with? The church that thinks bowing to idols is a good thing so be it.

Nice try but that's not what happened, cowboy. Post #613. Arte said allowing gay marriage would be "tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard." He's incorrect about it being "thousands" of years...maybe more like 1,500 or so in Western culture but I saw no need to split hairs about the time frame.

Winter produced documentation (however reliable that documentation is can be debated - but documentation nonetheless) that Christianity did not always endorse an anti-homosexual position.

YOU referred to "scripture in the Bible" to refute his documentation:

There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin.

[spelling error yours]

I said in post #625 that those scriptures are not reliable and linked to previous posts on the topic most of which which have supporting documentation as well. You responded to my rejection of modern scripture in post #627 by quoting more modern scripture....not by addressing the validity of modern scripture and whether it has been impervious to mistranslation, cultural misinterpretation, political tampering, and the dangerous effects of Midrash just to name a few.

So sorry to burst your bubble pal but actually you were the one who brought the Bible into it.

Fruit loop this came from your fucking post

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

You brought up the subject of Christianity try again.
I must ask what is this John Boswell specialty?

 

[BluePhantom]

Fruit loop this came from your fucking post

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

You brought up the subject of Christianity try again.
I must ask what is this John Boswell specialty?

Provide the link to that post. I never wrote that or anything like it. Go find the post.

Here I did it for you. That was post #599 by Winter, not me dumb fuck.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

There are records of the Catholic Church having men marrying men hundreds of years ago.


from: anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

"Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded."


"These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."


"It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ."

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?

Fruit loop this came from your fucking post

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

You brought up the subject of Christianity try again.
I must ask what is this John Boswell specialty?

Provide the link to that post. I never wrote that or anything like it. Go find the post.

Here I did it for you. That was post #599 by Winter, not me dumb fuck.

Dumb ass in the post that you reply to me in reference too was 613 not post 599

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.

There are records of the Catholic Church having men marrying men hundreds of years ago.


from: anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

"Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded."


"These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."


"It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ."

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?

 

[BluePhantom]

Dumb ass in the post that you reply to me in reference too was 613 not post 599

OMG Stimpy you eeediot! You said in post #662 that the following statement came from me:

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

No...that came from Winter in post 599. Here's the fucking link to where that statement was made and who made it. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/221776-a-reasonable-solution-to-the-gay-marriage-debate-5.html#post5263398


You said in post #659:

But Blue what ever the rest of his name is did use the bible.

No...I didn't. YOU used the Bible in post #613 when you responded to what Winter write in #599 stating:

There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin.

I didn't say anything about it until post #625


So let's summarize here: you inaccurately assign a quote to me in post #662. That was Winter's statement made in post #599...not mine.

In post #655 you accuse me of being the one to bring up the Bible. A blatant lie. You did in post #613 (a response to Winter's comment about early Christian ritual, not mine) and I didn't say anything about it until post #625.

I will give you this though. It was a damned creative effort on your part to avoid answering my question which I will post yet 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 Court?" It was also a very creative effort to attempt to weasel out of having to respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I am starting to notice the trend with you and Arte: "if you have no argument, just start accusing people of shit"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass in the post that you reply to me in reference too was 613 not post 599

OMG Stimpy you eeediot! You said in post #662 that the following statement came from me:

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

No...that came from Winter in post 599. Here's the fucking link to where that statement was made and who made it. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/221776-a-reasonable-solution-to-the-gay-marriage-debate-5.html#post5263398


You said in post #659:

But Blue what ever the rest of his name is did use the bible.

No...I didn't. YOU used the Bible in post #613 when you responded to what Winter write in #599 stating:

There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin.

I didn't say anything about it until post #625


So let's summarize here: you inaccurately assign a quote to me in post #662. That was Winter's statement made in post #599...not mine.

In post #655 you accuse me of being the one to bring up the Bible. A blatant lie. You did in post #613 (a response to Winter's comment about early Christian ritual, not mine) and I didn't say anything about it until post #625.

I will give you this though. It was a damned creative effort on your part to avoid answering my question which I will post yet 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 Court?" It was also a very creative effort to attempt to weasel out of having to respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I am starting to notice the trend with you and Arte: "if you have no argument, just start accusing people of shit"

OMG Stimpy you eeediot! *You said in post #662 that the following statement came from me:

My mistake I have so many new member flying question it's hard to keep track.

 

[BluePhantom]

My mistake I have so many new member flying question it's hard to keep track.

Very well. Now that we have that cleared up:

1) 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 Court?


2) How do you respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? I will repost the argument made before the conversation was so conveniently derailed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

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?"

You can't use a case that was designed to rule because of race. When Loving vs VA was ruled on homosexual acts were illegal so Loving vs VA is moot for this issue.

Oh yeah you can pal. In fact it's been applied already. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; Perry v. Schwartzenegger (2010)

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (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.”)....

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2012) points out as well that prior to Proposition 8 same sex marriage was not illegal in California...it had simply never been defined. They write:

Before considering the constitutional question of the validity of Proposition 8's elimination of the rights of same sex couples to marry....

The word "elimination" in their decision was emphasized in italics. They make clear that prior to Prop 8 gays had the right to marry. Thus the court has ruled that banning gay marriage is indeed the elimination of rights and not the establishment of new ones. It was not until 1977 (ten years after Loving v. Virginia) that same-sex marriage was made illegal in California (see page 8).

They further write:

...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'...

We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

In their opinion the 9th Circuit directly references and upholds the opinion by the 8th Circuit in Perry v. Schwartzenegger.

 

[WinterBorn]

But Blue what ever the rest of his name is did use the bible. But if that's what you are going with? The church that thinks bowing to idols is a good thing so be it.

Nice try but that's not what happened, cowboy. Post #613. Arte said allowing gay marriage would be "tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard." He's incorrect about it being "thousands" of years...maybe more like 1,500 or so in Western culture but I saw no need to split hairs about the time frame.

Winter produced documentation (however reliable that documentation is can be debated - but documentation nonetheless) that Christianity did not always endorse an anti-homosexual position.

YOU referred to "scripture in the Bible" to refute his documentation:



[spelling error yours]

I said in post #625 that those scriptures are not reliable and linked to previous posts on the topic most of which which have supporting documentation as well. You responded to my rejection of modern scripture in post #627 by quoting more modern scripture....not by addressing the validity of modern scripture and whether it has been impervious to mistranslation, cultural misinterpretation, political tampering, and the dangerous effects of Midrash just to name a few.

So sorry to burst your bubble pal but actually you were the one who brought the Bible into it.

Fruit loop this came from your fucking post

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

You brought up the subject of Christianity try again.
I must ask what is this John Boswell specialty?

He was the chair of the history dept at Yale. He studied at Harvard and at William & Mary.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nice try but that's not what happened, cowboy. Post #613. Arte said allowing gay marriage would be "tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard." He's incorrect about it being "thousands" of years...maybe more like 1,500 or so in Western culture but I saw no need to split hairs about the time frame.

Winter produced documentation (however reliable that documentation is can be debated - but documentation nonetheless) that Christianity did not always endorse an anti-homosexual position.

YOU referred to "scripture in the Bible" to refute his documentation:



[spelling error yours]

I said in post #625 that those scriptures are not reliable and linked to previous posts on the topic most of which which have supporting documentation as well. You responded to my rejection of modern scripture in post #627 by quoting more modern scripture....not by addressing the validity of modern scripture and whether it has been impervious to mistranslation, cultural misinterpretation, political tampering, and the dangerous effects of Midrash just to name a few.

So sorry to burst your bubble pal but actually you were the one who brought the Bible into it.

Fruit loop this came from your fucking post

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

You brought up the subject of Christianity try again.
I must ask what is this John Boswell specialty?

He was the chair of the history dept at Yale. He studied at Harvard and at William & Mary.

The chairman of the Yale history department? And that has what authority with the Bible? and the ancient text?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My mistake I have so many new member flying question it's hard to keep track.

Very well. Now that we have that cleared up:

1) 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 Court?


2) How do you respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? I will repost the argument made before the conversation was so conveniently derailed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

You can't use a case that was designed to rule because of race. When Loving vs VA was ruled on homosexual acts were illegal so Loving vs VA is moot for this issue.

Oh yeah you can pal. In fact it's been applied already. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; Perry v. Schwartzenegger (2010)



9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2012) points out as well that prior to Proposition 8 same sex marriage was not illegal in California...it had simply never been defined. They write:

Before considering the constitutional question of the validity of Proposition 8's elimination of the rights of same sex couples to marry....

The word "elimination" in their decision was emphasized in italics. They make clear that prior to Prop 8 gays had the right to marry. Thus the court has ruled that banning gay marriage is indeed the elimination of rights and not the establishment of new ones. It was not until 1977 (ten years after Loving v. Virginia) that same-sex marriage was made illegal in California (see page 8).

They further write:

...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'...

We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

In their opinion the 9th Circuit directly references and upholds the opinion by the 8th Circuit in Perry v. Schwartzenegger.

Very well. Now that we have that cleared up:

1) 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 Court?

Who has been emancipate since the slaves?

2) How do you respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? I will repost the argument made before the conversation was so conveniently derailed.

When you can find a case reference dealing with same sex marriages you will have something using a racial court reference is not the same.

 

[BluePhantom]

1) 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 Court?

Who has been emancipate since the slaves?

Well women for one but I am not sure I see the point.

2) How do you respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? I will repost the argument made before the conversation was so conveniently derailed.

When you can find a case reference dealing with same sex marriages you will have something using a racial court reference is not the same.

I gave you two. 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Perry v. Schwartenegger. In both cases they decided that there was no difference between race and sexual orientation when it comes to marriage and the 14th Amendment. They used Loving v. Virginia (among others: Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safely, et al) as the basis for their determination. Sorry you lose. Next?

 

[WinterBorn]

Fruit loop this came from your fucking post


You brought up the subject of Christianity try again.
I must ask what is this John Boswell specialty?

He was the chair of the history dept at Yale. He studied at Harvard and at William & Mary.

The chairman of the Yale history department? And that has what authority with the Bible? and the ancient text?

He spent his career studying history and texts of old or ancient books and manuscriptures.

 

[BuddyColt]

The answer to the poster's question is simple:

America was founded as a Christian nation, NOT as a theocracy, but a nation founded on Christian principles. Any gay couple can go to the church that agrees with gay marriage; they could do a name change in court to have the same last name and the rest of us would be none the wiser. They would be "married."

If you are referring to my question your argument would invalidate your response. The Lemon Test invalidates "Christian principles" as a basis for law. At least you tried which is more than Arte or Bigreb have done.

Your counter - arguments are a bit narcissistic, but we can work with that. The Lemon case rests on government actions. What's already been done has been done. For example, we have twelve people on a jury and a judge in commemoration of the Lord's Last Supper. Our moral standards that are codified into law are Christian based as are the foundations of our system of jurisprudence. To deny such is to deny that which is obvious. I'm almost sure, at this stage, you can do that.

The real reason this practice threatens us is that it requires us to validate gay marriage. People want into the arrangement, NOT because they lack a Right to get married....

So you concede that gays DO have the right to marry. Enough said. Your personal opinions about it or what motivates them is completely irrelevant. If they have the right to do it, then they can do it for whatever reason they choose. End of story.

No, the end of the story is that IF such a Right exists, it is forfeited the moment you apply for a license. A license is permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. When you apply for a license, it automatically says you did not have the right. You want to have it both ways, but it don't work like that. You are judiciously picking and choosing which points of my argument apply.

That's cool. You gave potential posters a difficult task and now cannot accept that we can deal with it and still give you a good fight.

The gays want us to be forced into accepting their lifestyle AND be forced into participating in it.

Wow...with only three posts to your name you have already made one of the most asinine statements I have ever seen on these boards. You and Koshergirl are going to get along very well.

I guess when you're losing the academic end of the battle you can insult people and bring third parties into the discussion of whom I've not met yet.

Your argument is being destroyed right before your very eyes. You give people a difficult chore and once they are able to do it, you begin with insults and veiled name calling. Again, let's look at reality:

When you apply for a license, you do NOT have the Right. Then, you are beholden to the authority that issued the license for the terms and conditions thereof.

So, you want to claim a Right, but asked permission. Next, using anti - discrimination laws, you will tell parents they must hire gays. You will tell insurance companies they must include gays and all the insured becomes part of a pool that many may feel is unfair. It doesn't matter whether they are or they are not.

What is REALLY asinine is the fact that BluePhantom cannot differentiate between Liberty and License. For the record, I make no admission OR denial about any Right to marry. I'm only telling you that what the gays want is a license for it and you cannot twist someone's arm and force them to give you a license. The principle would be like undocumented foreigners demanding a state issue them a driver's license. (and BTW, it is a great analogy since it is not illegal to enter nor be in the U.S. without papers. It is only a civil infraction.)

 

[BluePhantom]

Your counter - arguments are a bit narcissistic, but we can work with that. The Lemon case rests on government actions. What's already been done has been done. For example, we have twelve people on a jury and a judge in commemoration of the Lord's Last Supper. Our moral standards that are codified into law are Christian based as are the foundations of our system of jurisprudence. To deny such is to deny that which is obvious. I'm almost sure, at this stage, you can do that.

Dude, stop it. A 12 person jury was the standard in England since Henry II in 1176 because tradition dictated that if a person could get 12 people to validate his claim he would be vindicated. When we gained our independence we simply carried that over out of tradition and not because there were 12 fucking disciples at the last supper. Give me a fucking break.

No, the end of the story is that IF such a Right exists, it is forfeited the moment you apply for a license. A license is permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. When you apply for a license, it automatically says you did not have the right. You want to have it both ways, but it don't work like that. You are judiciously picking and choosing which points of my argument apply.

Oh so all the case law I presented is wrong. The SCOTUS has been wrong five times at least when they defined marriage as a right. Interesting philosophy....The SCOTUS is wrong and you are right. I doubt the SCOTUS would agree with you.

The gays want us to be forced into accepting their lifestyle AND be forced into participating in it.



I guess when you're losing the academic end of the battle you can insult people and bring third parties into the discussion of whom I've not met yet.

Your argument is being destroyed right before your very eyes. You give people a difficult chore and once they are able to do it, you begin with insults and veiled name calling.

I didn't call you any name at all. I said your statement was asinine, not necessarily you. A bit defensive are we? BTW....usually the first person to claim victory and profess how they are so devastatingly destroying the other one is in a dire position.

Again, let's look at reality:

When you apply for a license, you do NOT have the Right. Then, you are beholden to the authority that issued the license for the terms and conditions thereof. [/COLOR]

Reality is that the SCOTUS says you are wrong and their legal opinion outranks your philosophical one.

So, you want to claim a Right, but asked permission. Next, using anti - discrimination laws, you will tell parents they must hire gays. You will tell insurance companies they must include gays and all the insured becomes part of a pool that many may feel is unfair. It doesn't matter whether they are or they are not.

I never made any claim of the kind. I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth or tell me what I will say next. I would never say that someone must hire gays. Now I would argue that people should not be disqualified from consideration because they are gay nor should they be subject to discriminatory or harassing activities due to their sexual orientation...and the courts would seem to agree with me. Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Homosexuals were interpreted as being included in the section prohibiting discrimination based on "sex" in a unanimous SCOTUS opinion (written by Scalia) in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act prohibits "discriminat(ion) for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others" [5 USC 2302(b)].

What is REALLY asinine is the fact that BluePhantom cannot differentiate between Liberty and License.

Or that you apparently feel your opinion is superior to the SCOTUS

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He was the chair of the history dept at Yale. He studied at Harvard and at William & Mary.

The chairman of the Yale history department? And that has what authority with the Bible? and the ancient text?

He spent his career studying history and texts of old or ancient books and manuscriptures.

So one man says the bible is wrong and misquoted and we leave it at that? Are you insane?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1) 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 Court?

Who has been emancipate since the slaves?

Well women for one but I am not sure I see the point.

2) How do you respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? I will repost the argument made before the conversation was so conveniently derailed.

When you can find a case reference dealing with same sex marriages you will have something using a racial court reference is not the same.

I gave you two. 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Perry v. Schwartenegger. In both cases they decided that there was no difference between race and sexual orientation when it comes to marriage and the 14th Amendment. They used Loving v. Virginia (among others: Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safely, et al) as the basis for their determination. Sorry you lose. Next?

The 9th circuit is the one court thew supreme court has trouble with they over turn their rulings more than any other We have already discussed this and you rehash it?

 

[WinterBorn]

The chairman of the Yale history department? And that has what authority with the Bible? and the ancient text?

He spent his career studying history and texts of old or ancient books and manuscriptures.

So one man says the bible is wrong and misquoted and we leave it at that? Are you insane?

No, that is not what my link said at all.

What it said was that a respected scholar found instances in which the catholic church held marriage rituals for two men. They had departments for uniting two men.

I did not talk about the bible at all. I simply showed that the church allowed and sanctioned marriages between two men. And they did so in several countries over a span or several hundred years.

I made no claim to anything being biblical. I simply showed that the "The definition of marriage has not changed in thousands of years" claim is bogus.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He spent his career studying history and texts of old or ancient books and manuscriptures.

So one man says the bible is wrong and misquoted and we leave it at that? Are you insane?

No, that is not what my link said at all.

What it said was that a respected scholar found instances in which the catholic church held marriage rituals for two men. They had departments for uniting two men.

I did not talk about the bible at all. I simply showed that the church allowed and sanctioned marriages between two men. And they did so in several countries over a span or several hundred years.

I made no claim to anything being biblical. I simply showed that the "The definition of marriage has not changed in thousands of years" claim is bogus.

It was onme mans source from the link THAT YOU USED But you did bring up christian religion. Which would bring up the bible.

 

[WinterBorn]

So one man says the bible is wrong and misquoted and we leave it at that? Are you insane?

No, that is not what my link said at all.

What it said was that a respected scholar found instances in which the catholic church held marriage rituals for two men. They had departments for uniting two men.

I did not talk about the bible at all. I simply showed that the church allowed and sanctioned marriages between two men. And they did so in several countries over a span or several hundred years.

I made no claim to anything being biblical. I simply showed that the "The definition of marriage has not changed in thousands of years" claim is bogus.

It was onme mans source from the link THAT YOU USED But you did bring up christian religion. Which would bring up the bible.

One researcher found numerous pieces of documentation of the actions of the church.

It does not speak to whether or not gay marriage is acceptable accoring to Christianity. It simply shoots down the "Marriage has always been one man and one woman" claim.

Being acceptable to Christianity or unacceptable to Christianity is irrelevant, as far as the law goes.

 

[WinterBorn]

So one man says the bible is wrong and misquoted and we leave it at that? Are you insane?

No, that is not what my link said at all.

What it said was that a respected scholar found instances in which the catholic church held marriage rituals for two men. They had departments for uniting two men.

I did not talk about the bible at all. I simply showed that the church allowed and sanctioned marriages between two men. And they did so in several countries over a span or several hundred years.

I made no claim to anything being biblical. I simply showed that the "The definition of marriage has not changed in thousands of years" claim is bogus.

It was onme mans source from the link THAT YOU USED But you did bring up christian religion. Which would bring up the bible.

Also, I did not bring up religion except to discuss the actions of the catholic church. It does not bring up the bible at all.

If I discussed the security at the Vatican, is that going to bring up the bible? If I discussed the priests who molested young boys and the actions to protect those priests, is that bringing up the bible?