Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[Edgetho]

Just last Summer, the European Human Rights Court rejected same sex marriage --

And yes, the SCOTUS does look at Foreign precedent


The court reiterated that nothing in the Convention on Human Rights imposed an obligation on States to allow same-sex marriage. The court said his alternatives were either a registered partnership, something that requires his wife’s approval, or divorce.

The court further said “it cannot be said that there exists in any European consensus on allowing same-sex marriage” and that same-sex marriage is allowed in only ten of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

The decision flies in the face of ongoing LGBT claims that same-sex marriage is about to sweep in the world. In fact, same-sex marriage is recognized in only 18 countries out of more than 200 listed in the CIA World Fact Book or the 192 member states of the UN.

 

[paperview]

What makes you think I am posting for you, Marty, and what your mentally defective mind cares ?

What makes you assume I cannot respond to your post "just because" it wasn't posted directly to me?

and arguing that I must be mentally defective to have the views I have is the same as giving up on your own argument, thanks for playing.

It's not your quacked up views on same sex marriage that make you mentally defective, Mart.
It's the 15,000 plus posts you've made on all kinds of matters here that lead me to that conclusion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.

No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.

a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?

Marriage is a contract and by definition at least two parties must be involved.

So there is no example at all of a Contract with ones self?

How to Write a Contract With Yourself 9 Steps eHow

Not legally recognized so moot.

Unless you can get some court to agree with you on made up "rights"

contract legal definition of contract

1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration.

IOW you cannot enter a legal contract with yourself.

 

[Edgetho]

contract legal definition of contract

1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration.

IOW you cannot enter a legal contract with yourself.

Common sense, people.

Your only (legal) remedy to a breach of contract is a lawsuit. And everybody with an above-room temperature IQ knows you can't sue yourself.

A meaningless and unenforceable contract is null and void on its face

 

[Skull Pilot]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

What about the rights of people who want to discriminate against Blacks, Asians, Muslims, etc etc etc

We don't let mob rule govern rights.

As far as the state is concerned marriage is simply a property contract between 2 parties. What does it matter if those parties are of the same sex and the
"God told me it was wrong" argument isn't an acceptable answer

 

[bripat9643]

No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.

and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.

Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.

Actually you are conflating standards to suit your own interest, but after a few years on this message board, I am not surprised by that.

And again, "Constitutional" does not mean right. Plessey V Furgeson was constitutional, do you think it was right? Citizens united means massive outside spending on elections is constitutional, do you think that is right?

Right and wrong have nothing to do with legalities

When debating with Seawytch, apparently it does. If a court has ruled on it, and she agrees with it, she runs right to the old "its constitutional, so shut up" line of argument.

They all do that. Then they whine like petulant children when the Court doesn't rule their way, such as in the Bush v. Algore decision or the Citizens United case.

 

[Bush92]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

What about the rights of people who want to discriminate against Blacks, Asians, Muslims, etc etc etc

We don't let mob rule govern rights.

As far as the state is concerned marriage is simply a property contract between 2 parties. What does it matter if those parties are of the same sex and the
"God told me it was wrong" argument isn't an acceptable answer

Gayness is not a civil rights issue.Don't confuse the two. Voters going to the polls to express their opinion is not "mob rule"... it's called democracy. Their vote is a civil liberties issue that was trampled on by the gay minority. we set rules all the time in our society. A 10 year old can't get a drivers license. Public nudity is not allowed (although gay pride parades do this) as a freedom of expression. States have rights.

 

[Edgetho]

What about the rights of people who want to discriminate against Blacks, Asians, Muslims, etc etc etc

We don't let mob rule govern rights.

As far as the state is concerned marriage is simply a property contract between 2 parties. What does it matter if those parties are of the same sex and the
"God told me it was wrong" argument isn't an acceptable answer

It is repugnant and abhorrent to society.

Why are animal sacrifices illegal in this Country? We kill animals every day by the millions to feed us but let one Haitian sacrifice a Chicken and the whole area goes into full panic.

Why? Because it is repugnant to society.

You people are writing checks your asses can't cash.

I'm telling you, you're going to regret this shit one day.

You should have taken more time to let society get used to the idea.

You should have accepted a Civil Arrangement with all the rights of marriage without calling it a marriage.

You could have called it anything you wanted. You could come up with an inventive and original name for gay unions -- 'Unions' would have nice ring to it. So would a 'bonding' or a 'life partnership' or -- Whatever. As creative and intelligent as many Gays are and you couldn't come up with something other than shoving it in our face by calling it something it isn't?

What you're doing is stuffing it in our faces and you're going to pay for it some day. You seriously are.

Wait until the goat fuckers come after you and you want us to come to your rescue.

Hope you packed a lunch because you might be waiting for a LONG time

 

[WorldWatcher]

You should have accepted a Civil Arrangement with all the rights of marriage without calling it a marriage.

You could have called it anything you wanted. You could come up with an inventive and original name for gay unions -- 'Unions' would have nice ring to it. So would a 'bonding' or a 'life partnership' or -- Whatever. As creative and intelligent as many Gays are and you couldn't come up with something other than shoving it in our face by calling it something it isn't?

Hate to tell you something, but it was social authoritarians that shut that door when in the 2000's there were passing all those State constitution amendments banning Civil Marriage between couples of the same sex which include also banning Civil Unions.

Laws like this didn't just bar SSCM, they bared legal Civil Partnerships/Unions from recognition.

For example here is the one from Virginia:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Social authoritarians played the all or nothing game 1-2 decades ago when they thought they would win forever, now that they are the losing side and have lost that power suddenly a compromise is supposed to be acceptable. Yet it wasn't acceptable then.

>>>>

 

[martybegan]

What makes you think I am posting for you, Marty, and what your mentally defective mind cares ?

What makes you assume I cannot respond to your post "just because" it wasn't posted directly to me?

and arguing that I must be mentally defective to have the views I have is the same as giving up on your own argument, thanks for playing.

It's not your quacked up views on same sex marriage that make you mentally defective, Mart.
It's the 15,000 plus posts you've made on all kinds of matters here that lead me to that conclusion.

I have never been adjudicated mentally by any court, I have a Masters in Chemical Engineering, I get married in July, and my IQ routinely gets measured in the 135-145 range.

Considering the evidence I have at hand, I can only conclude you can't deal with people having differing opinions than you, and thus you go with the whole "they must be crazy" line of self-delusion.

Sad, actually.

 

[martybegan]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

What about the rights of people who want to discriminate against Blacks, Asians, Muslims, etc etc etc

We don't let mob rule govern rights.

As far as the state is concerned marriage is simply a property contract between 2 parties. What does it matter if those parties are of the same sex and the
"God told me it was wrong" argument isn't an acceptable answer

Then why should we care about 5-6 people marrying? Or aunts/nephews or nieces (ironically incest loses its primary issue when the incest is same sex) marrying? Or why do we care if two roommates decide to marry because of the benefits?

All enumerated rights were actually voted on first, explicitly. The ones we have created, abortion and soon maybe SSM were extrapolated and never once got a popular vote.

 

[martybegan]

a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?

Marriage is a contract and by definition at least two parties must be involved.

So there is no example at all of a Contract with ones self?

How to Write a Contract With Yourself 9 Steps eHow

Not legally recognized so moot.

Unless you can get some court to agree with you on made up "rights"

contract legal definition of contract

1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration.

IOW you cannot enter a legal contract with yourself.

yet. Find a court that has a judge that agrees with you, and evidently it becomes binding and unquestionable.

 

[paperview]

What makes you think I am posting for you, Marty, and what your mentally defective mind cares ?

What makes you assume I cannot respond to your post "just because" it wasn't posted directly to me?

and arguing that I must be mentally defective to have the views I have is the same as giving up on your own argument, thanks for playing.

It's not your quacked up views on same sex marriage that make you mentally defective, Mart.
It's the 15,000 plus posts you've made on all kinds of matters here that lead me to that conclusion.

I have never been adjudicated mentally by any court, I have a Masters in Chemical Engineering, I get married in July, and my IQ routinely gets measured in the 135-145 range.

Considering the evidence I have at hand, I can only conclude you can't deal with people having differing opinions than you, and thus you go with the whole "they must be crazy" line of self-delusion.

Sad, actually.

lol. I deal with plenty of people who have differing opinions all the time, most are not coocoo for coco puffs like you are.

Just calling it like I see it.

On a few occasions, you put forth a decent argument, most of the time, :loco:

 

[paperview]

Marriage is a contract and by definition at least two parties must be involved.

So there is no example at all of a Contract with ones self?

How to Write a Contract With Yourself 9 Steps eHow

Not legally recognized so moot.

Unless you can get some court to agree with you on made up "rights"

contract legal definition of contract

1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration.

IOW you cannot enter a legal contract with yourself.

yet. Find a court that has a judge that agrees with you, and evidently it becomes binding and unquestionable.

^ See what I mean?

 

[martybegan]

So there is no example at all of a Contract with ones self?

How to Write a Contract With Yourself 9 Steps eHow

Not legally recognized so moot.

Unless you can get some court to agree with you on made up "rights"

contract legal definition of contract

1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration.

IOW you cannot enter a legal contract with yourself.

yet. Find a court that has a judge that agrees with you, and evidently it becomes binding and unquestionable.

^ See what I mean?

What I see is a sad human being that can't deal with people disagreeing with him.

My post is hyperbole, but its hyperbole to make a point, i.e. we have far to many courts making crap up as they go along.

 

[martybegan]

What makes you think I am posting for you, Marty, and what your mentally defective mind cares ?

What makes you assume I cannot respond to your post "just because" it wasn't posted directly to me?

and arguing that I must be mentally defective to have the views I have is the same as giving up on your own argument, thanks for playing.

It's not your quacked up views on same sex marriage that make you mentally defective, Mart.
It's the 15,000 plus posts you've made on all kinds of matters here that lead me to that conclusion.

I have never been adjudicated mentally by any court, I have a Masters in Chemical Engineering, I get married in July, and my IQ routinely gets measured in the 135-145 range.

Considering the evidence I have at hand, I can only conclude you can't deal with people having differing opinions than you, and thus you go with the whole "they must be crazy" line of self-delusion.

Sad, actually.

lol. I deal with plenty of people who have differing opinions all the time, most are not coocoo for coco puffs like you are.

Just calling it like I see it.

On a few occasions, you put forth a decent argument, most of the time, :loco:

You are mistaking indignant anger for crazy, try reading a bit better.

 

[paperview]

You should have accepted a Civil Arrangement with all the rights of marriage without calling it a marriage.

You could have called it anything you wanted. You could come up with an inventive and original name for gay unions -- 'Unions' would have nice ring to it. So would a 'bonding' or a 'life partnership' or -- Whatever. As creative and intelligent as many Gays are and you couldn't come up with something other than shoving it in our face by calling it something it isn't?

Hate to tell you something, but it was social authoritarians that shut that door when in the 2000's there were passing all those State constitution amendments banning Civil Marriage between couples of the same sex which include also banning Civil Unions.

Laws like this didn't just bar SSCM, they bared legal Civil Partnerships/Unions from recognition.

For example here is the one from Virginia:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Social authoritarians played the all or nothing game 1-2 decades ago when they thought they would win forever, now that they are the losing side and have lost that power suddenly a compromise is supposed to be acceptable. Yet it wasn't acceptable then.

>>>>

This post deserves ten Thumbs up.

Man, I am so tired of people saying things like "why couldn't the gheys just tried working the Civil Union angle..." - or some such.

Yeah, the crowbar heads on the right who - like you said - played the all or nothing game" No Civil Unions for you! Well, they screwed that pooch but good, and look it what it gotcha, authoritarian social cons.

Civil Marriage recognized in nearly 40 states.

It would be nice if the blowhards like Edgetho and some of the others would at least acknowledge it - but, they won't.

Instead we get tirades like this:
"You should have accepted a Civil Arrangement with all the rights of marriage without calling it a marriage.
You could have called it anything you wanted. You could come up with an inventive and original name for gay unions -- 'Unions' would have nice ring to it...bla bla blah..."

 

[Iceweasel]

Gay marriage is a joke. The fact that people can be fooled isn't exactly new, it's the story of mankind. Why can't two first cousin males marry? or can they? If not, why not?

But the fact is that forcing people to denounce their values in favor of the radical few to live a lie is a good sign that we are circling the drain.

 

[bripat9643]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

What about the rights of people who want to discriminate against Blacks, Asians, Muslims, etc etc etc

We don't let mob rule govern rights.

As far as the state is concerned marriage is simply a property contract between 2 parties. What does it matter if those parties are of the same sex and the
"God told me it was wrong" argument isn't an acceptable answer

Gayness is not a civil rights issue.Don't confuse the two. Voters going to the polls to express their opinion is not "mob rule"... it's called democracy. Their vote is a civil liberties issue that was trampled on by the gay minority. we set rules all the time in our society. A 10 year old can't get a drivers license. Public nudity is not allowed (although gay pride parades do this) as a freedom of expression. States have rights.

Actually, democracy is nothing more than mob rule. The majority has no more right to vote on whether you pay taxes than it does to decide whether to string you up from the nearest tree.

 

[Skylar]

Again you ignore the inherent risk of a court system that can grant rights out of thin air, namely the same court system can remove rights using the same legal logical leaps it uses to grant them when they simply do not exist in the document.

The founders included a right to keep and bear arms as well, something that progressives gleefully ignore when it suits them.

So the Supreme Court is wrong and you're right....because you say so.

And the Founders are wrong and you're right.....because you says so.

Nope. I'm sorry, Marty.....but I don't hold you to be a credible, relevant, or knowledgeable source on law or the constitution. The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list, nor was ever intended to be. The overwhelming historical and legal precedent on the matter demonstrates that the Bill of Rights is merely a list of SOME rights. While other rights still exist.

As the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

You disagree. I don't care.