Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[Ravi]

I cannot fathom what you are babbling about.

Ya can't fathom? Well now... whatta shame... what must life me in the absence of the means to fathom... but such is the nature of left-think...

What rights are being taken away from "those that we are taking the rights away from?" Your right to not be offended?

Well, no valid right can be taken away from anyone, by another of equitable power.

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards... Specifically wherein certain idiots use the color of science; thus the inherent authority of science, which is derived by the objective nature of true science... but in actuality is the subjective nature of pseudo-science... in particular the pseudo-science which pretends to 'study' sexuality...

Such is a machine which perpetuates myth, lies and colors such in empty platitudes, which portray the deception of reasonless conclusions of the vacuous variety, for the purposes of stripping the American culture of its VALUES...

It's rather frustrating...

We're a civilized people, who tend towards enduring the burden until it becomes unbearable... the long pause, wherein our endurance is being tested, tends to lead those who would rob us of our means to exercise our rights, into a false sense of security... in which they erroneously conclude that there is no point at which we will rise up... and inevitably, demand what we know is right, in terms from which there is negotiation; and through a level of determination, which they've no means to comprehend.

Such has proven to be a cultural ending mistake, in the past; for those who have failed to recognize the nature of our metal and the permenance of the bed-rock on which our we and principles are founded...

Let me just throw this out there. How about this concept:

No right is maintained except at the expense of another. If this were not true, there would be no need for "rights." The concept of rights exist at the edge of a political divide. That is, politics is the art and science of determining who gets what and how in the division of scarce resources. A right is claimed, by some or all, against the contestant for that same space that the right subsumes.

In the instant case, if gay people wish to maintain a right to same sex marriage, the new right (for it must be a new right if it does not currently exist) is created in the space currently occupied by societies current conception of marriage. Therefore, the new right to marry burdens the current right to marry. While it does not take it away, it modifies marriage and what it means to be married to some extent.

Whether the burden on the current concept of marriage is too great, is the question we are discussing.

Except...we are all born with inherent rights. The government cannot give us rights, it can only deny us rights.

 

[Ravi]

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

I'm still waiting for you to explain what immutable responsibilities come with "those rights" that give validity to denying rights to a group of law abiding citizens.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards...

The Right of Sound Cultural Standards.

Which amendment is that?

In other words, Pubic believes that rights should be withheld from people that offend him.

This is a guy that claims to be an uber-Patriot...

Huh... There's no means to 'withold' a right... There is only the means to infringe upon, or usurp the means to exercise a right.

And I've not advocated infringing upon ANYONE'S means to exercise ANY RIGHT; nor have I stated ANYTHING which could lead ANY reasonable person to reasonable conclude that I have...

This member simply comes with an obtuse projection that such is the case, as she has no other alternative but to do so...

The homosexual lobby comes to redefine the standards of Marriage... they want to insert something which is NOT marriage and turn Marriage into THAT. It is the same thing that they did when they re-named homosexuals: Gay... when they revided perversion to reflect a 'sexual orientation'... when they declared that deviation from baseline norm, no longer reflects abnormality... but 'in reality' reflects normality... and this on the grounds that it 'exists in nature', ergo... it's normal...

Marriage is a Union between TWO people who represent BOTH distinct GENDERS... THAT is what Marriage is... Homosexuals will tell you that they are being DENIED the RIGHT to BE MARRIED... when in TRUTH... IN REALITY... NO, NONE, NADA ZERO homosexuals who make application for Marrriage is, are or HAVE BEEN denied the license to marry...

What homosexuals want to to, is to REDEFINE what Marriage IS... and this is because they seek the LEGITIMACY which the DEFINING STANDARD OF MARRIAGE PROVIDES... and what DOES that standard provide? From what does this Legitimacy come?
.
.
.
.
.
.
NORMALCY....

That is what this entire issue is about; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Economic privilege; it has absolutely NOTHING to do with their means to cohabitate with the person who 'they love'... to set up house, live, love and support one another... and to do with the means to receive the Lion's share of evonomic privilege as any other member of this culture and those prvileges or benefits which they are not PRESENTLY able to realize, can be sought through the SAME processes which they are presently using to turn Marriage into something that it is not, but with vastly less trouble and without undermining infringing upon the rights of those who recognize and defend the valid scope of marriage.

And they can do that RIGHT NOW without interference, without fear of reprisal, without concern that they will be denied housing, employment, healthcare... or membership in the Book of the month...

They want to turn Marriage into something that it is NOT... a union between two individuals of the SAME GENDER; THIS IS NOT MARRIAGE; There is no right to turn something to which you've NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM, into something which you NEED IT TO BE... as a means to a deceitful end.

And THAT is the basis of my position that there is NO RIGHT which is being infringed or usurped with regard to Homosexuals, PERIOD.

 

[mattskramer]

The homosexual lobby comes to redefine the standards of Marriage... they want to insert something which is NOT marriage and turn Marriage into THAT. It is the same thing that they did when they re-named homosexuals: Gay... when they revided perversion to reflect a 'sexual orientation'... when they declared that deviation from baseline norm, no longer reflects abnormality... but 'in reality' reflects normality... and this on the grounds that it 'exists in nature', ergo... it's normal...

Marriage is a Union between TWO people who represent BOTH distinct GENDERS... THAT is what Marriage is... Homosexuals will tell you that they are being DENIED the RIGHT to BE MARRIED... when in TRUTH... IN REALITY... NO, NONE, NADA ZERO homosexuals who make application for Marrriage is, are or HAVE BEEN denied the license to marry...

What homosexuals want to to, is to REDEFINE what Marriage IS... and this is because they seek the LEGITIMACY which the DEFINING STANDARD OF MARRIAGE PROVIDES... and what DOES that standard provide? From what does this Legitimacy come?
.
.
.
.
.
.
NORMALCY....

That is what this entire issue is about; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Economic privilege; it has absolutely NOTHING to do with their means to cohabitate with the person who 'they love'... to set up house, live, love and support one another... and to do with the means to receive the Lion's share of evonomic privilege as any other member of this culture and those prvileges or benefits which they are not PRESENTLY able to realize, can be sought through the SAME processes which they are presently using to turn Marriage into something that it is not, but with vastly less trouble and without undermining infringing upon the rights of those who recognize and defend the valid scope of marriage.

And they can do that RIGHT NOW without interference, without fear of reprisal, without concern that they will be denied housing, employment, healthcare... or membership in the Book of the month...

They want to turn Marriage into something that it is NOT... a union between two individuals of the SAME GENDER; THIS IS NOT MARRIAGE; There is no right to turn something to which you've NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM, into something which you NEED IT TO BE... as a means to a deceitful end.

And THAT is the basis of my position that there is NO RIGHT which is being infringed or usurped with regard to Homosexuals, PERIOD.

Nope. Wrongo. Unmarried couples (or couples without “civil union” status) must jump through a few extra hoops to get the same things that married couples receive. Members of a class may want the same thing for different reasons.

Some gays might just be happy or settle for civil union recognition so that they, as couples, can get things as easily as do heterosexual married couples. Other gays may want to be recognized as married. Some Christians are relatively quiet and passive. Others resort to violence.

Also the term “marriage” has practically, if not officially, redefined throughout time.

What is Marriage? Gay Marriage Can’t Be a Real Marriage: The Definition of Marriage Can’t be Changed for Gay Couples

Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can’t possibly marry. The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?

Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries:

• Legalization of divorce
• Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
• Legalization of contraception
• Legalization of interracial marriage
• Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
• Elimination of dowries
• Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
• Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
• Elimination of polygamy
• Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
• Women not taking the last names of their husbands
• Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment

Finally, tell me what you think about this story:

Gay woman fights over hospital visitation rights in Miami court - Living - MiamiHerald.com

A gay woman not allowed to visit her dying partner at Jackson Memorial Hospital in 2007 hopes a federal judge will allow her claims of emotional distress and negligence to go to trial.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I cannot fathom what you are babbling about.

Ya can't fathom? Well now... whatta shame... what must life me in the absence of the means to fathom... but such is the nature of left-think...

What rights are being taken away from "those that we are taking the rights away from?" Your right to not be offended?

Well, no valid right can be taken away from anyone, by another of equitable power.

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards... Specifically wherein certain idiots use the color of science; thus the inherent authority of science, which is derived by the objective nature of true science... but in actuality is the subjective nature of pseudo-science... in particular the pseudo-science which pretends to 'study' sexuality...

Such is a machine which perpetuates myth, lies and colors such in empty platitudes, which portray the deception of reasonless conclusions of the vacuous variety, for the purposes of stripping the American culture of its VALUES...

It's rather frustrating...

We're a civilized people, who tend towards enduring the burden until it becomes unbearable... the long pause, wherein our endurance is being tested, tends to lead those who would rob us of our means to exercise our rights, into a false sense of security... in which they erroneously conclude that there is no point at which we will rise up... and inevitably, demand what we know is right, in terms from which there is negotiation; and through a level of determination, which they've no means to comprehend.

Such has proven to be a cultural ending mistake, in the past; for those who have failed to recognize the nature of our metal and the permanence of the bed-rock on which our we and principles are founded...

Let me just throw this out there. How about this concept:

No right is maintained except at the expense of another.

Tech, I gotta say, that is patently: Absurd...

If this were not true, there would be no need for "rights." The concept of rights exist at the edge of a political divide.

True human rights are few; each stems from the endowment of life, from one's creator, to each individual... on the reasoning that had the Creator not intended a right to one's life, they would not have provided that life... thus the premise extends that had the Creator not intended for one to be free to pursue the happiness of one's life, he would not have endowed the right, which stems from the life he endowed...

Now given that the Creator provided these rights to each individual, each RIGHT possessed by each individual, exist at equity with one another, NO individual having realized a right of superiority over another... reason is served that there exist a responsibility which sustains these rights, which is inherent in these rights;a responsibility which must be observed and maintained to recognize that one's right to life, thus one's right to pursue the fulfillment of that life can not be exercised to the detriment of ANOTHER'S life, or the rights on which the AUTHORITY for that life rests and to defend, not only ONE'S OWN LIFE and it's intrinsic rights, but those of one's neighbor...

Now that is perfection... that is the natural order of balance and such perfection is ONLY disturbed where it is affected by the inherent imperfection of humanity...

Where a right is perceived and the exercising of that right comes to infringe upon the perceived right of another... a discussion ensues where these points are brought to a bench; each individual laying out their reasoning... without regard to the specific issues... it is the reasoning which must prevail... and that reasoning must begin at the beginning and flow to the end... for either to prevail in reason... there must be continuity; one cannot simply claim that I am rightfully entitled to X because I say so... or because Y says so... or because A-X says so and that out votes Y and Z... and all those people can't be wrong... the reasoning must consistently flow continually, with each measured step resting within a valid logical construct, which carries it's substantial reason from each step…

Of course, the imperfection of the species requires that such is not always the case; that often such is rarely the case... and THAT is the function of the governance... and THAT is the basis which requires that the leadership of a free culture must be comprised of virtuous individuals, who possess the means to reason soundly and who represent the best interests of liberty and who FULLY understand and thoroughly comprehend the principles of valid human rights and the sustaining responsibilities... and who understand the immutable nature of the equality with which EACH individuals rights are vested and to judge those circumstances of POLITICS against that equality; FAIRLY...

Which is NEVER to be confused with the deceptive misnomer which resides in the understanding wherein the immutable nature of the FAIRNESS is said to be that with which each right is vested... as reason requires that fairness is born of equality... and it does not translate to the inverse... and THAT is the corrupting element of this and every point of contest since this corrosive deception came to being in US Governance a century ago.

That is, politics is the art and science of determining who gets what and how in the division of scarce resources.

Again... you've jumped to conclude that government, which is the embodiment of politics... is the purveyor of rights... 'who gets what'...

REASON is the purveyor of who gets what; and all politics is, is the means by which that reason is explored and debated.

A right is claimed, by some or all, against the contestant for that same space that the right subsumes.

This calculation erroneously assumes that it is possible for all of the parties to correctly come to a point where a valid right exists which runs counter to the interests of two or more individuals... such is not the case... Such is an example of the above noted misnomer... where FAIRNESS is set before equality... where two or more individuals assume a right to which they are NOT entitled, through invalid, unsound reason... and push their position over specious ground... advancing it through deceptive reasoning and I'd say that this reasoning is, more often than not, believe by them to be valid and sound, thus it is up to virtuous leadership to apply the immutable principles noted above and correct this error in judgment, without regard to how the misguided individual or individuals 'feel' about it, in terms of fairness...

In the instant case, if gay people wish to maintain a right to same sex marriage

And it is HERE that the reasoning fails... wishing to maintain a right, does not a RIGHT MAKE... what is the basis of this right?

I wish to maintain a right to suit up as a starting Running back for the Dolphins next season and further to maintain a right to set new yardage records which will stand for a decade. Of course, my wish for such a right is set aside by the reasoning that I simply do not meet the NUMEROUS, WELL FOUNDED STANDARDS FOR SUCH... And I may feel VERY STRONGLY that it's not FAIR that the Dolphins do not recognize my STRONG DESIRE to be a record breaking Running-back... and that its NOT FAIR that the crowds of fans will not stand and applaud the greatness inherent in my WISH...

But, sadly, the reality is, that these days my 40 yard times are measured by a calander, my agility is equaled by a refrigerator and my general athletic skills are surpassed in most Girlscout camps on a regular basis... thus, I decidely do not meet the standard that is required by everything from COMMON SENSE to the Miami Dolphin coaching staff... and this despite my being a team player, with a positive attitude and strong leadership skills; with the added bonus of presenting a delightful stage presents for the camera...

...

the new right (for it must be a new right if it does not currently exist) is created in the space currently occupied by societies current conception of marriage.

there are no new rights... at least not "Human Rights', there are only new protections which may have been previously ignored... but for such to be valid, they must serve justice... and to serve justice they must defend and maintain a valid human right... and such is NOT the case with regard to this erroneous notion that homosexuals have a right to CHANGE the standard to suit their abnormality, which that standard was specifically designed to EXCLUDE... and that they feel that it is NOT FAIR, is as irrelevant as it is erroneous...


As the relevance is EQUALITY, which in and of itself bears FAIRNESS... FAIRNESS cannot bear EQAULITY...

Homosexuality stands at diametric opposition to the standard of Marriage... thus they are not suitable for such. But they are in possession of equal rights, and what's more Marriage does NOT EXCLUDE HOMOSEXUALS from participation... ANY homosexual can make application, WITH ANOTHER HOMOSEXUAL... WHERE THE TWO APPLICANTS are representative of the distinct genders.

What's more, homosexuals are NOT being denied the just and valid right to cohabitate, to love one another, to commit to one another... they are not being denied economic equity... and where they feel that they are, they are entitled to pursue a remedy to that injustice through the SAME MEANS by which they are presently attempting to infringe upon the rights of those who understand and defend the standard of Marriage... Homosexuals have a clear and uncontested right to join as one legal entity, to establish their specific entity as they see fit, to determine their best interest, to pursue their common aspirations and to meet the exact same goals as that which THEY PERCEIVE the bi-gender couples who enjoy Marriage realize... they simply cannot do so through Marriage as MARRIAGE IS A UNION OF TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO REPRESENT BOTH DISTINCT GENDERS.

Therefore, the new right to marry burdens the current right to marry. While it does not take it away, it modifies marriage and what it means to be married to some extent.

Yes, and it is THAT burden, which demonstrates the infringement of another's right... which demonstrates their failure to observe their responsibility to NOT INFRINGE UPON THOSE RIGHTS POSSESSED BY THE OTHERS, IN THE EXERCISING OF THEIR RIGHTS...

Whether the burden on the current concept of marriage is too great, is the question we are discussing.

The burden itself, sustains the valid and sound determination that their plea is invalid and unsound.

In contrast to circumstances where homosexuals were being treated inequitably... they'd have a case... where a homosexual came to apply for marriage with a member of the opposite gender and was denied the application based upon their sexual orientation... they'd have a case... where the Homosexual was being denied the right to cohabitate with other homosexuals, to join in a committed relationship with other homosexuals and to form a distinct, legal singular entity comprised of both homosexuals... they'd have a case...

As in every facet, they would realize a circumstance where valid rights were being infringed... valid rights which stem from their right to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their lives; which stems from their right to their lives, which stem from the endowment by their Creator, that provided those lives; all of which resting upon the immutable authority OF the Creator... which is sustained at every level, by their uncontested freedom to exercise their rights in every facet of those circumstances...

They simply argue that it is not FAIR that they should be prevented from claiming the status of MARRIAGE... because the standards of such necessarily EXCLUDE THEM. But such is the nature of standards... and it is THAT which is at risk and THAT which is at play...

The left; the homosexual lobby is interested in only ONE THING... They aspire to the legitimacy which crossing those thresholds represent...they simply want to cross those thresholds without having to meet the standard...

Imagine if we, the fat assed fans of football... took that SAME tact in challenging the standards required for participation in such as the Left is taking in this circumstance...

WE Carry the day... the 9th circuit finds for our plea and the NFL folds and we're IN!

There was are, all suited up... the crowds, the smell of the grass... the flip of the coin and BLUHhhhhhhhh..... what we won throughthe absurd reasoning accepted by a civil authority enforcing an invalid plea... was the invalid RIGHT TO DESTROY THE NFL... As being a STARTING Running back NO LONGER MEANS that you're a massive, fleet-footed finely tuned althete... who can test himself against the rest of the best athletes in the world and succeed...

Being a Starting running back as revised by the invalid decision of the civil authority now simply means that Starting Running backs for the NFL are just below average fat guys, of sub-standard athletic ability who infringed upon the rights of the true athletes to exercise their rests... to pursue the fulfillment of their lives and to become to best at what they do... put out by idiots who managed to find a sympathetic civil authority, who failed to sustain their requirement for virtuous leadership and in so doing implemented a twisted, irrational, invalid notion of fairness... over and above the critical, sustaining function of equality.

Ya see, I have the RIGHT to pursue my 'wish' to be a Starting NFL Running back... but the standards of such are simply such that without regard to the time and effort I put into being such... it is never going to happen. PERIOD. I don't have the goods... that may not seem fair to some; but that I HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE MEANS TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT TO PURSUE THAT GOAL... provides that I have the SAME OPPORTUNITY as thosse who have earned their starting status...

It's plain and simple... nothing complex about it; it simply provides the simple conclusion that those so heavily invested in their advocacy to normalize deviancy are simply not prepared, or possibly not sufficiently intellectually equipped, to accept.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The homosexual lobby comes to redefine the standards of Marriage... they want to insert something which is NOT marriage and turn Marriage into THAT. It is the same thing that they did when they re-named homosexuals: Gay... when they revided perversion to reflect a 'sexual orientation'... when they declared that deviation from baseline norm, no longer reflects abnormality... but 'in reality' reflects normality... and this on the grounds that it 'exists in nature', ergo... it's normal...

Marriage is a Union between TWO people who represent BOTH distinct GENDERS... THAT is what Marriage is... Homosexuals will tell you that they are being DENIED the RIGHT to BE MARRIED... when in TRUTH... IN REALITY... NO, NONE, NADA ZERO homosexuals who make application for Marrriage is, are or HAVE BEEN denied the license to marry...

What homosexuals want to to, is to REDEFINE what Marriage IS... and this is because they seek the LEGITIMACY which the DEFINING STANDARD OF MARRIAGE PROVIDES... and what DOES that standard provide? From what does this Legitimacy come?
.
.
.
.
.
.
NORMALCY....

That is what this entire issue is about; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Economic privilege; it has absolutely NOTHING to do with their means to cohabitate with the person who 'they love'... to set up house, live, love and support one another... and to do with the means to receive the Lion's share of evonomic privilege as any other member of this culture and those prvileges or benefits which they are not PRESENTLY able to realize, can be sought through the SAME processes which they are presently using to turn Marriage into something that it is not, but with vastly less trouble and without undermining infringing upon the rights of those who recognize and defend the valid scope of marriage.

And they can do that RIGHT NOW without interference, without fear of reprisal, without concern that they will be denied housing, employment, healthcare... or membership in the Book of the month...

They want to turn Marriage into something that it is NOT... a union between two individuals of the SAME GENDER; THIS IS NOT MARRIAGE; There is no right to turn something to which you've NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM, into something which you NEED IT TO BE... as a means to a deceitful end.

And THAT is the basis of my position that there is NO RIGHT which is being infringed or usurped with regard to Homosexuals, PERIOD.

Nope. Wrongo.

ROFL... Well there ya have it kids... A determination of 'wrongness'...

Unmarried couples (or couples without “civil union” status) must jump through a few extra hoops to get the same things that married couples receive. Members of a class may want the same thing for different reasons.

Golly... that's so WRONG! People have to do something DIFFERENT TO GET THE SAME RESULTS THAT PEOPLE WHO DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT GET!

THE HORROR!

Also the term “marriage” has practically, if not officially, redefined throughout time.

Ahhh... Yet another PROGRESSIVE Advocating for REGRESSION! That is SO COOL! See how they did that? They use one word to project ONE IDEA and they demonstrate through their actions a whollyantithetical idea from that which they formerly projected....

It's almost like deception and trickery... I think we should really follow these folks... What's the worst that could happen by letting people who openly deceive you take the lead?

 

[Ravi]

Well, here we have yet another EPIC FAIL by Pubic.

He was asked a question three times and three times he was too much of a coward to answer it.

 

[mattskramer]

The homosexual lobby comes to redefine the standards of Marriage... they want to insert something which is NOT marriage and turn Marriage into THAT. It is the same thing that they did when they re-named homosexuals: Gay... when they revided perversion to reflect a 'sexual orientation'... when they declared that deviation from baseline norm, no longer reflects abnormality... but 'in reality' reflects normality... and this on the grounds that it 'exists in nature', ergo... it's normal...

Marriage is a Union between TWO people who represent BOTH distinct GENDERS... THAT is what Marriage is... Homosexuals will tell you that they are being DENIED the RIGHT to BE MARRIED... when in TRUTH... IN REALITY... NO, NONE, NADA ZERO homosexuals who make application for Marrriage is, are or HAVE BEEN denied the license to marry...

What homosexuals want to to, is to REDEFINE what Marriage IS... and this is because they seek the LEGITIMACY which the DEFINING STANDARD OF MARRIAGE PROVIDES... and what DOES that standard provide? From what does this Legitimacy come?
.
.
.
.
.
.
NORMALCY....

That is what this entire issue is about; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Economic privilege; it has absolutely NOTHING to do with their means to cohabitate with the person who 'they love'... to set up house, live, love and support one another... and to do with the means to receive the Lion's share of evonomic privilege as any other member of this culture and those prvileges or benefits which they are not PRESENTLY able to realize, can be sought through the SAME processes which they are presently using to turn Marriage into something that it is not, but with vastly less trouble and without undermining infringing upon the rights of those who recognize and defend the valid scope of marriage.

And they can do that RIGHT NOW without interference, without fear of reprisal, without concern that they will be denied housing, employment, healthcare... or membership in the Book of the month...

They want to turn Marriage into something that it is NOT... a union between two individuals of the SAME GENDER; THIS IS NOT MARRIAGE; There is no right to turn something to which you've NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM, into something which you NEED IT TO BE... as a means to a deceitful end.

And THAT is the basis of my position that there is NO RIGHT which is being infringed or usurped with regard to Homosexuals, PERIOD.

Nope. Wrongo.

ROFL... Well there ya have it kids... A determination of 'wrongness'...

Yep.

Golly... that's so WRONG! People have to do something DIFFERENT TO GET THE SAME RESULTS THAT PEOPLE WHO DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT GET!

If they were allowed to do the same thing - get married - as the homosexual couples that they are - then they would not have to jump through the extra hoops. Now, do you have any reply to the story about the lesbian who was not allowed to visit her ill partner at a hospital?

 

[xotoxi]

... MARRIAGE IS A UNION OF TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO REPRESENT BOTH DISTINCT GENDERS.

Pubes...if a male has gender reassignment surgery, who would you allow them to marry?

Since they are legally now a female, would they only be allowed to marry a man?

Or, since they are genetically male, would they only be allowed to marry a woman, knowing that they externally appear female, with breasts and a reconstructed vagina?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ya can't fathom? Well now... whatta shame... what must life me in the absence of the means to fathom... but such is the nature of left-think...

Well, no valid right can be taken away from anyone, by another of equitable power.

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards... Specifically wherein certain idiots use the color of science; thus the inherent authority of science, which is derived by the objective nature of true science... but in actuality is the subjective nature of pseudo-science... in particular the pseudo-science which pretends to 'study' sexuality...

Such is a machine which perpetuates myth, lies and colors such in empty platitudes, which portray the deception of reasonless conclusions of the vacuous variety, for the purposes of stripping the American culture of its VALUES...

It's rather frustrating...

We're a civilized people, who tend towards enduring the burden until it becomes unbearable... the long pause, wherein our endurance is being tested, tends to lead those who would rob us of our means to exercise our rights, into a false sense of security... in which they erroneously conclude that there is no point at which we will rise up... and inevitably, demand what we know is right, in terms from which there is negotiation; and through a level of determination, which they've no means to comprehend.

Such has proven to be a cultural ending mistake, in the past; for those who have failed to recognize the nature of our metal and the permenance of the bed-rock on which our we and principles are founded...

Let me just throw this out there. How about this concept:

No right is maintained except at the expense of another. If this were not true, there would be no need for "rights." The concept of rights exist at the edge of a political divide. That is, politics is the art and science of determining who gets what and how in the division of scarce resources. A right is claimed, by some or all, against the contestant for that same space that the right subsumes.

In the instant case, if gay people wish to maintain a right to same sex marriage, the new right (for it must be a new right if it does not currently exist) is created in the space currently occupied by societies current conception of marriage. Therefore, the new right to marry burdens the current right to marry. While it does not take it away, it modifies marriage and what it means to be married to some extent.

Whether the burden on the current concept of marriage is too great, is the question we are discussing.

Except...we are all born with inherent rights. The government cannot give us rights, it can only deny us rights.

We have inalienable rights, as noted in the Declaration, but that is a bare minimum not a maximum. Governments may recognize additional rights above the minimum. For instance, it is not an inalienable right for women to vote or have fair representation when charged with a crime. We have instituted these rights in our foundational documents.

Are those not rights? Did government not provide those rights?

 

[Tech_Esq]

PI, it would have been sufficient to say you didn't understand my post and ask for clarification rather than post a wall of text to explain in detail that you didn't understand it.

There is no way in hell I'm going to read your novel. I've skimmed the first and last of it for any intelligible bits. It appears that you decided to jump to the position that the only rights available to people are their inalienable rights and no other rights are either available or legitimate.

Is that your position?

 

[Ravi]

Let me just throw this out there. How about this concept:

No right is maintained except at the expense of another. If this were not true, there would be no need for "rights." The concept of rights exist at the edge of a political divide. That is, politics is the art and science of determining who gets what and how in the division of scarce resources. A right is claimed, by some or all, against the contestant for that same space that the right subsumes.

In the instant case, if gay people wish to maintain a right to same sex marriage, the new right (for it must be a new right if it does not currently exist) is created in the space currently occupied by societies current conception of marriage. Therefore, the new right to marry burdens the current right to marry. While it does not take it away, it modifies marriage and what it means to be married to some extent.

Whether the burden on the current concept of marriage is too great, is the question we are discussing.

Except...we are all born with inherent rights. The government cannot give us rights, it can only deny us rights.

We have inalienable rights, as noted in the Declaration, but that is a bare minimum not a maximum. Governments may recognize additional rights above the minimum. For instance, it is not an inalienable right for women to vote or have fair representation when charged with a crime. We have instituted these rights in our foundational documents.

Are those not rights? Did government not provide those rights?

I totally disagree. Women have always had the same rights to vote and have representation. Those rights were withheld for years. The government did not provide those rights, the government stopped withholding them.

 

[xotoxi]

Well, here we have yet another EPIC FAIL by Pubic.

He was asked a question three times and three times he was too much of a coward to answer it.

What's new.

 

[Gurdari]

PI, you like to type (or paste) but your actual argument leaves much to be desired.

You really fail to supprt your claims, which is unsurprising considering the illogic of your passion.


Regardless, prohibiting polygamy would not stand up to any logical court challenge, neither would prohibition of same-sex marriage. Attempting to legislate the kinds of consensual relationships adults can engage in is fruitless and arrogant.

If everyone on this board decided they wanted to sleep with each other, live together, spend time together in various couplings, groups, trysts, etc. then they likely would. Passing a law that says who you can be with (again, we're talking about consensual adults) is not going to do anything, and the onus of proving any legitamacy to these laws is on the 'authority' that tries.

Cultures often evolve - don't be so afraid.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Except...we are all born with inherent rights. The government cannot give us rights, it can only deny us rights.

We have inalienable rights, as noted in the Declaration, but that is a bare minimum not a maximum. Governments may recognize additional rights above the minimum. For instance, it is not an inalienable right for women to vote or have fair representation when charged with a crime. We have instituted these rights in our foundational documents.

Are those not rights? Did government not provide those rights?

I totally disagree. Women have always had the same rights to vote and have representation. Those rights were withheld for years. The government did not provide those rights, the government stopped withholding them.

I see. So in your version of rights, all possible rights are inalienable and governments are established to thwart them. The more enlightened governments thwart fewer rights than less enlightened governments.

However, if we had no governments then the fullness of rights could be had by all individuals? Like a Lockean state of nature, right?

 

[Ravi]

We have inalienable rights, as noted in the Declaration, but that is a bare minimum not a maximum. Governments may recognize additional rights above the minimum. For instance, it is not an inalienable right for women to vote or have fair representation when charged with a crime. We have instituted these rights in our foundational documents.

Are those not rights? Did government not provide those rights?

I totally disagree. Women have always had the same rights to vote and have representation. Those rights were withheld for years. The government did not provide those rights, the government stopped withholding them.

I see. So in your version of rights, all possible rights are inalienable and governments are established to thwart them. The more enlightened governments thwart fewer rights than less enlightened governments.

However, if we had no governments then the fullness of rights could be had by all individuals? Like a Lockean state of nature, right?

All rights that don't infringe on the rights of others are inalienable. That is how I read the constitution.

The government isn't established to thwart rights...it is established to guarantee that everyone's rights are protected.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I totally disagree. Women have always had the same rights to vote and have representation. Those rights were withheld for years. The government did not provide those rights, the government stopped withholding them.

I see. So in your version of rights, all possible rights are inalienable and governments are established to thwart them. The more enlightened governments thwart fewer rights than less enlightened governments.

However, if we had no governments then the fullness of rights could be had by all individuals? Like a Lockean state of nature, right?

All rights that don't infringe on the rights of others are inalienable. That is how I read the constitution.

The government isn't established to thwart rights...it is established to guarantee that everyone's rights are protected.

I don't find a discussion of "unalienable rights" in the Constitution. I do find one in the Declaration of Independence. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." True, the language is "among these" indicating there is more than just the three.

I must admit to being confused by the interplay of government in your concept though. Initially, it sounded like you were saying that the rights, later guaranteed by government, always existed. That would mean that contrary to the language in the Declaration, "that to preserve these rights Governments are instituted among men....," up until the passage of the 19th amendment, the Government thwarted that right.

But you said that Government doesn't thwart rights, they guarantee rights. So now I'm adrift again. Prior to the passage of the 19th amendment, how was government not thwarting the right of women to vote that you say is an inalienable right granted by their Creator?

 

[Ravi]

I see. So in your version of rights, all possible rights are inalienable and governments are established to thwart them. The more enlightened governments thwart fewer rights than less enlightened governments.

However, if we had no governments then the fullness of rights could be had by all individuals? Like a Lockean state of nature, right?

All rights that don't infringe on the rights of others are inalienable. That is how I read the constitution.

The government isn't established to thwart rights...it is established to guarantee that everyone's rights are protected.

I don't find a discussion of "unalienable rights" in the Constitution. I do find one in the Declaration of Independence. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." True, the language is "among these" indicating there is more than just the three.

I must admit to being confused by the interplay of government in your concept though. Initially, it sounded like you were saying that the rights, later guaranteed by government, always existed. That would mean that contrary to the language in the Declaration, "that to preserve these rights Governments are instituted among men....," up until the passage of the 19th amendment, the Government thwarted that right.

But you said that Government doesn't thwart rights, they guarantee rights. So now I'm adrift again. Prior to the passage of the 19th amendment, how was government not thwarting the right of women to vote that you say is an inalienable right granted by their Creator?

They were thwarting the rights of women. But that doesn't mean that thwarting was the function of the government. It simply means the government acted wrongly.

btw, I didn't say the government doesn't ever thwart rights...hell, it does it all the time. But that is not the purpose of the government, at least not our government. In reality the 19th amendment should not have been necessary.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, here we have yet another EPIC FAIL by Pubic.

He was asked a question three times and three times he was too much of a coward to answer it.

LOL... What I love about these obtuse little farces, that the least amongst us seem incapable of resisting is just how easy they are to refute...

Ravi... you claim that I've been asked a question three times and that due to a lack of courage, that I've failed to respond to that thrice prosed query...

Would you be so kind as to post, through a specific citation of the posts wherein that question was posed? I'm not aware of such being the case; perhaps I missed those questions... or perhaps you're just lying to project a deception upon this board.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nope. Wrongo.

ROFL... Well there ya have it kids... A determination of 'wrongness'...

Yep.

Golly... that's so WRONG! People have to do something DIFFERENT TO GET THE SAME RESULTS THAT PEOPLE WHO DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT GET!

If they were allowed to do the same thing - get married - as the homosexual couples that they are - then they would not have to jump through the extra hoops. Now, do you have any reply to the story about the lesbian who was not allowed to visit her ill partner at a hospital?

Oh... we're doing "IFs" Great!

I love that defense...

"IF" they weren't sexual deviants... then they would meet the standard maintained by Marriage... But of course they ARE; which means that their special circumstance precludes their viability, their suitability. for marriage... and its not for the standard to change to meet them; it is for THEM to change to meet the standard; you see Skippy... that is the function of standards... they establish MINIMUM thresholds of performance, behavior or what have you, which determines who will and who will NOT participate; and that someone feels that the standard is not FAIR... is IRRELEVANT.

But again... Homoseuxals aren't interested in loving, committed relationships, where they cohabitate, set us a house-hold, love and support one another... and forming a single, distinct LEGAL entity, which provides economic privileges... because they don't have to be married to do ANY of that.

What they want is the LEGITIMACY which marriage provides... which Marriage will NOT provide, when the standard of Marriage is redefined to include anything...


With regard to the Carpet muncher who couldn't visit her 'significant other'... what's your point? She's not married to her 'most special friend'... and she apparently didn't bother to incorporate, establishing clear and unambiguous, legally binding interests between the two of them, which carries with it the same legally binding element as a marriage license.

I'm the CEO of several corporations... I DARE for the hospital or anyone else to challenge the umbrella of ANY of those entities... prohibiting me from from access to those with whom I have a clear and present legal interests and to whom I am obligated.

You people need to get your head out of your asses and SEE the solution. You're NOT going to be getting married... until and unless you're prepared to make application and meet the standards required of Marriage.

Incorporation is your solution... Its a simply business deal... Nothing special, it's not marirage, but it's LEGALLY BINDING.