It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans

funny, I don't find the word marriage in the Constitution. Can you please point out to me the Article and Section where you're reading this?

Who said rights have to be spelled out in the Constitution?

 

[Boss]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

 

[EverCurious]

In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans

funny, I don't find the word marriage in the Constitution. Can you please point out to me the Article and Section where you're reading this?

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

~Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 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.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 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.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
   

 

[Faun]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

 

[Boss]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

 

[Boss]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

 

[Faun]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's a right that the government cannot take away without a compelling reason. And while you are certainly welcome to throw away your rights, you have no business whatsoever imposing that idiocy upon others.

 

[Seawytch]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's in the 14th Amendment and there are at least 4 court cases referencing it. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

 

[Faun]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

 

[Seawytch]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​

Same Bigots, different decade.

 

[Boss]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's in the 14th Amendment and there are at least 4 court cases referencing it. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

It is NOT in the 14th!

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where is there ANYTHING about marriage? IT IS NOT MENTIONED!

 

[mudwhistle]

This thread is gay...

 

[Faun]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's in the 14th Amendment and there are at least 4 court cases referencing it. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

It is NOT in the 14th!

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where is there ANYTHING about marriage? IT IS NOT MENTIONED!

You're fucking deranged.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Boss]

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

So are hebephiles and about 5,000 other odd sexual proclivities. Marriage is the union of a man and woman... there is no requirement on any law book that those parties have to be a certain sexuality.

I am being denied the right to marry Kate Upton!

 

[EverCurious]

Declare, considers, given - same meaning as a matter of casual discussion, but sure play semantics. I did provide evidence about marriage rights declared/defined/considered/given/protected by the constitution; 14 supreme court cases which declare that marriage as a fundamental right protected by the constitution.


I then just followed the conclusion of your proposal that marriage was not a right because it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution; but I'll expand.

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" vs [relevant part] Fourteenth Amendment: "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."

To argue that marriage is /not/ a declared right of the constitution's fourteenth amendment statement (specifically liberty) is very similar to saying that the specific religion of "Christianity" is not a declared right of the Constitution's First, after all it's not specifically listed. If you argue that the constitution does not protect the specific right of marriage then you have to also argue that the constitution would not protect a specific right to follow Christian teachings/beliefs.

Under such a theory, for example; a Mormon controlled state passes a law that requires all men in the state to marry more than one wife - because the Constitution does not protect the specific freedom of the "Christian" religious beliefs (one wife) on a state level nor does it bar a state from enacting "religious" laws, and because the Constitution does not specifically protect "marriage" as a right - the law would have to be ruled as "constitutional." The only argument one could have against the constitutionality of said law, would be that states are barred from infringing upon personal liberty by the first amendment, but that too would fall into your trap of "marriage isn't a defended right" claim. So, really, as long as the feds (Congress) didn't make the law, the state could do whatever the hell the wanted; including, as I said, decide that Christianity was not socially acceptable and pass a bunch of laws that restricted its practice. Like they could say that only Mormon religions could have tax exempt status, they could argue that Christian marriages performed in other states were not valid in their state, etc., etc.



In order to proclaim that the specific "Christian religion" is protected by the constitution, one has to extend unwritten words into the constitution's first amendment, and similarly we have to extend unwritten words into the protections provided by the fourteenth amendment re liberty. I'm not sure how one can think otherwise frankly.

 

[Boss]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's in the 14th Amendment and there are at least 4 court cases referencing it. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

It is NOT in the 14th!

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where is there ANYTHING about marriage? IT IS NOT MENTIONED!

You're fucking deranged.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again... Everyone HAD equal protection. Nowhere were gays not allowed to "marry" but marriage is the union of a male and female. Gays weren't allowed to have a homosexual relationship and pretend it is a marriage. That was the issue. Well... We don't allow hebesexual relationships to pretend they are marriages... We don't allow any other sexually deviant behavior to pretend it is marriage and demand a right to it. But apparently, you and SCOTUS think we should!

The statement was made that the Constitution "very correctly declares marriage is a fundamental right" and as I have demonstrated and you are now admitting, it simply "declares" no such thing! Then the statement was altered to say...well, it says it in the 14th! ,,,,No, it's not there either! Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and I think there is a very damn good reason for that! It's not because it's unimportant and they didn't think of it... It's not because they were too stupid to include it... It's because it's not a "fundamental right" and certainly not something ordained or sanctioned by federal government. If it is anything regarding the Constitution, it is a State Right!

Finally, it appears some of you NOW want to shift the original bold statement into a completely different "argument" over whether the SCOTUS has ruled a certain way.... I can't argue that point! It's a matter of fucking public record, the SCOTUS made a ruling that defines marriage as a "fundamental right" and allows it to be redefined to include homosexual behavior. That wasn't the statement or argument we were having, which was regarding this being "very correctly declared" in the Constitution.... it is not mentioned in the Constitution!

 

[EverCurious]

Semantics again?

Okay, it's nowhere "declared" universally that marriage is between a man and a woman, many states allowed SSM - so now what?

 

[Faun]

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

So are hebephiles and about 5,000 other odd sexual proclivities. Marriage is the union of a man and woman... there is no requirement on any law book that those parties have to be a certain sexuality.

I am being denied the right to marry Kate Upton!

Why is your brain too deformed to retain the marital requirement of consent?

 

[Mertex]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic........and have a distorted view of reality....and FYI, you and a bunch of homophobes are condemning homosexuality. And, your little brag about bending over backwards to try and please them is a whole lot of rubbish....you and the rest have never accepted them much less bent over backward to please them. And here's a news flash for you..... "the country has allowed it". In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court......who wields a whole lot more authority than your puny little self.

If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one. But, your little rant isn't going to change anything....they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic.

A tad. I always try to be a tad melodramatic for effect. It tends to bring the nutbags out of the woodwork. Yeah, homophobes are condemning homosexuality, christophobes are condemning Christianity, dogs are still chasing cats.... you're still posting nonsense without making your point... what are ya gunna do?

But, you're the nutbag.....posting nonsense without making a point. I see you're talking to yourself....

In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court.

Yes... you hit the nail on the head... it has been DEEMED legal, by a rogue court legislating from the bench,. Same way Abortion was "deemed" legal... how's that one working out for ya? Have the Christians accepted it yet?

It's working out fine for me. I don't have abortions and I'm not homosexual....there's a lot going on in the world, and it doesn't affect me. Perhaps if you'd learn to keep your nose out of other people's business it wouldn't affect you either.

If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one.

But what if I like homosexuals and I just don't like them changing our traditions to include their sexual behavior? Is this like the deal with the black people where I can't disagree with them without being a racist?

Your problem is that you are totally confused. Apparently you don't know the definition of "logic". If you really liked homosexuals you wouldn't want to continue treating them the way they have been treated. What is so damn special about you that the world should worry about not changing "your" traditions? Apparently you are in the minority and nobody gives a damn how you feel.....otherwise you and your "peers" (homophobes) would have gotten your way.

they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

Would one of you please tell me what right they didn't have that everyone else had?

If I have to explain it to you then you haven't been paying attention to what has been their pleas. Why don't you do some research and find out? If you have time to get on your computer and plan out your sorry ass whine about them, then you should have time to google for some answers to your ignorant question.

 

[Boss]

Declare, considers, given - same meaning as a matter of casual discussion, but sure play semantics. I did provide evidence about marriage rights declared/defined/considered/given/protected by the constitution; 14 supreme court cases which declare that marriage as a fundamental right protected by the constitution.


I then just followed the conclusion of your proposal that marriage was not a right because it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution; but I'll expand.

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" vs [relevant part] Fourteenth Amendment: "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."

To argue that marriage is /not/ a declared right of the constitution's fourteenth amendment statement (specifically liberty) is very similar to saying that the specific religion of "Christianity" is not a declared right of the Constitution's First, after all it's not specifically listed. If you argue that the constitution does not protect the specific right of marriage then you have to also argue that the constitution would not protect a specific right to follow Christian teachings/beliefs.

Under such a theory, for example; a Mormon controlled state passes a law that requires all men in the state to marry more than one wife - because the Constitution does not protect the specific freedom of the "Christian" religious beliefs (one wife) on a state level nor does it bar a state from enacting "religious" laws, and because the Constitution does not specifically protect "marriage" as a right - the law would have to be ruled as "constitutional." The only argument one could have against the constitutionality of said law, would be that states are barred from infringing upon personal liberty by the first amendment, but that too would fall into your trap of "marriage isn't a defended right" claim. So, really, as long as the feds (Congress) didn't make the law, the state could do whatever the hell the wanted; including, as I said, decide that Christianity was not socially acceptable and pass a bunch of laws that restricted its practice. Like they could say that only Mormon religions could have tax exempt status, they could argue that Christian marriages performed in other states were not valid in their state, etc., etc.



In order to proclaim that the specific "Christian religion" is protected by the constitution, one has to extend unwritten words into the constitution's first amendment, and similarly we have to extend unwritten words into the protections provided by the fourteenth amendment re liberty. I'm not sure how one can think otherwise frankly.

Again... It seems you think we are having an argument over what the SCOTUS has ruled. Let's be perfectly clear, because I want no misunderstanding of my argument.... I have not argued that SCOTUS didn't rule in any of the cases you've cited. If you think that is our argument, you're not following me. That is without question. Anyone with any understanding of past history should realize that a SCOTUS ruling does not mean something is "declared" in the Constitution and it's certainly not "very correctly" declared... when we consider SCOTUS ruled slaves were property, Japanese-Americans could be interned, Native American could be run off their lands, women are subservient to their husbands, segregation was hunky-dory. SCOTUS doesn't change the words in the Constitution! It makes RULINGS on it's INTERPRETATION... it may be "correct" or it may be "incorrect" ...depends on perspective. In virtually EVERY case they have ever heard, there is a "dissenting opinion" stated and given, which very clearly outlines the opposing view.

ALL religion is protected by the 1st Amendment. It is a fundamental 1st Amendment right. We don't have to "extend" anything to include Christian religion, it's a religion! And besides... "extending words into the constitution" is a long way from "very correctly declared in the constitution!"