Homosexual Marriage

[frankiesmithra24]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Why should the government even pass laws against Gay marriages? I think it's bull because it doesn't matter who people marry as long as their happy. Thats what I think. Being a homosexual is a way of life for those that chose to live like that. The government shouldn't pass laws against them and abortions.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Why should the government even pass laws against Gay marriages? I think it's bull because it doesn't matter who people marry as long as their happy. Thats what I think. Being a homosexual is a way of life for those that chose to live like that. The government shouldn't pass laws against them and abortions.

Er...they aren't passing laws against it, they just aren't passing laws for it. That's an entirely different -type- of issue.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Well, there's always the constitutional ammendment(s) at the state and federal level. Not technically laws, but bad (much worse actually) nonetheless. Legislation also has been both introduced and passed in a number of states.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Well, there's always the constitutional ammendment(s) at the state and federal level. Not technically laws, but bad (much worse actually) nonetheless.

Uh, why are they so much worse?

Legislation also has been both introduced and passed in a number of states.

And (here's the big problem I have with the gay marriage debate) also overturned by activist state-level judges. According to them, it doesn't matter what the people think.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Uh, why are they so much worse?

The desicrate the founding principles of our government and society and write ignorance and bigotry into the most important document we have. It's worse on so many levels. Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, but the constitution can't, which unfortunately means people are now going about rewriting the constitution to say "everyone has rights; except these people. They make us feel icky."

And (here's the big problem I have with the gay marriage debate) also overturned by activist state-level judges. According to them, it doesn't matter what the people think.

--Guido

Uh, I don't know how much you understand about the judicial system, but it was founded so that judges could make unpopular decisions. You can look up the perspectives of Jefferson on the subject if you really want to. "Activist judges"? Give me a break. The judicial system has done far more to protect civil rights across the board than legislation. In terms of our courts, yes, the will of the people is absolutely irrelevent. You're basically complaining about something because it works.

[Lamoc]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Anyone should be able to marry anyone else. And someone said about abortions earlier i'm going to put my comment of that as well. They shouldn't be able to prevent abortions. If the person REALY can't support the child or anything like that, a parent is sometimes forced to have an abortion. If the goverment is going to pay for that child to have a good life then go ahead. But some people realy can't support a child and have no way of taking care of it. Makes it cruel to both the parent and the child forcing them to take care of it.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

The desicrate the founding principles of our government

STOP!

One of the founding principles of our government was that the people can draft constitutional amendments if they do not support the actions of justices who deem laws unconstitutional. Amendments exist specifically for the people to keep the judicial branch in check, and exercising that right in no way desecrates the founding principles. In fact, it shows that they're working.

and society and write ignorance and bigotry into the most important document we have.

Ignorance? I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that I'm ignorant on this matter. You have a better argument with bigotry, but still a weak one. I don't support a constitutional amendment for the definition of marriage because I hate gays. Quite the contrary. I'd be perfectly happy whatever the result of the vote.

Remember, though, that the most important document we have was designed to be changed. Just because we've only had one amendment in the past thirty-six years doesn't mean it's written in stone. It's meant to be changed when it needs to be changed.

It's worse on so many levels. Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, but the constitution can't

Yeah, let's just pretend the twenty-first amendment never happened...

You're basically complaining about something because it works.

Which is exactly what you're doing regarding constitutional amendments.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

STOP!

Hammertime.

One of the founding principles of our government was that the people can draft constitutional amendments if they do not support the actions of justices who deem laws unconstitutional. Amendments exist specifically for the people to keep the judicial branch in check, and exercising that right in no way desecrates the founding principles. In fact, it shows that they're working.

Hardly. Our government was envisioned as "rule by law, not rule by people" by one of our founding fathers. The concept of a tyranny of the majority was in many ways anticipated and inspired by the thinking of the founders of this country as well. Checks and balances don't equal "founding principles", they simply reflect attempts to design government based on them. In this particular case, I think this check deserves to be bounced. Take your ridiculous historical revisionism and apologetics for pure Democrocy elsewhere.

The constitution was written in order to limit the role of government to a very minimalist set of duties in order to protect liberty. Most new ammendments should be distrusted in the first place purely because they seek to add to what the government can do. Ammendments like those proposed against flag burning and gay marriage also have the double effect of proposing things in opposition to the constitution. They limit freedom of speech in both, freedom of association in the latter, and this is also an act of federalizing something that according to the constitution should be left up to each individual state if it's a political issue at all (which it shouldn't be) and each individual person otherwise.

Ignorance? I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that I'm ignorant on this matter.

It depends on how honest you're willing to be with yourself, really. It's entirely possible the answer is "not at all", in which case I most certainly will have a hard time convincing you of anything.

You have a better argument with bigotry, but still a weak one. I don't support a constitutional amendment for the definition of marriage because I hate gays. Quite the contrary. I'd be perfectly happy whatever the result of the vote.

Right. It's not bigotry that leaves you advocating that bigots should be able to control the country, but rather blind faith in the justice of majority rule even when this rule by nature causes harm to a minority. I'm aware of that, and it's no less disgusting a way of thinking than homophobia in my opinion.

Remember, though, that the most important document we have was designed to be changed. Just because we've only had one amendment in the past thirty-six years doesn't mean it's written in stone. It's meant to be changed when it needs to be changed.

It doesn't need to be changed to give government more power and to restrict the people any further. The constitution is meant to protect liberty, not to let the mindless masses of our country write their opinion into official social capacity. If we're just doing that, why not rewrite the constitution to make Christianity the state religion? Why not take away all rights from certain groups? I'm sure we could find majority sponsorship for plenty of reprehensible uses for the constitution.

The constitution is meant mostly to be used to restrict government, not to restrict the people except when their actions against each other might be especially harmful. Perhaps then under this second reasoning we should adopt a constitutional ammendment to prevent idiots from abusing the constitution? Any further amendments should be made in order to preserve liberty, not to preserve popular opinion in the shrine of national authority.

Yeah, let's just pretend the twenty-first amendment never happened...

Actually it's funny, the 21st amendment wouldn't have happened if the 18th amendment hadn't been in violation of the people's rights to begin with. I don't believe the 21st amendment stated that the 18th was unconstitutional, it just reversed the decision. Regardless, I would rather have a senseless amendment not passed to begin with than repealed later. After something is on the books anywhere it tends to be excessively difficult to remove it. Alchohol prohibition was only removed because there was a very sizeable portion of the populace that continued to drink. When less than 10% of the population is harmed by something it's practically unthinkable that a constitutional prohibition that harmed them would ever be overturned.

Which is exactly what you're doing regarding constitutional amendments.

I'm not exactly sure how complaining when people manage to use the most important document in our country to further restrict essential liberty is equivalent to complaining because something works. This seems like a pretty huge flaw in process to me.

[Kamunt]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I love how this threat is now just an argument about the inner workings of the American government, the Constitution & its Amendments. Activist judges do actually exist, by the way. And last time I checked, judges are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not the majority opinion of the people. Sometimes judges have to make unpopular decisions, but that's what they have to do: it's their job. Sometimes their decisions are just plain stupid, however. Not gonna lie.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I love how this threat[sic] is now just an argument about the inner workings of the American government, the Constitution & its Amendments.

Yeah...funny how a thread that was supposed to be about the -political- ramifications of legalising gay marriage is suddenly all political. Hooray for being on-topic!

[eldrad]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

i bialive that bieng gay is wroung it goes against how man was orignally made it is unnatrul it comes from mans sinful nature that overcoimes them with lust for what is not good the book of romans says (is reson god gave them up to vile passions for evan there women exchanged the natrul use for what is agaisint nature like wise also the men leavinng the natrual use of the women burned in thier lust for one another men with men commiting what is shameful and receiving in them selves the penilty of thier errior which was due And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;being filled with with all unrighiosness sexual imoraillity wickedness covetness malliosciosness full of envy murder and strife

[psychopete]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

i bialive that bieng gay is wroung it goes against how man was orignally made it is unnatrul it comes from mans sinful nature that overcoimes them with lust for what is not good the book of romans says (is reson god gave them up to vile passions for evan there women exchanged the natrul use for what is agaisint nature like wise also the men leavinng the natrual use of the women burned in thier lust for one another men with men commiting what is shameful and receiving in them selves the penilty of thier errior which was due And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;being filled with with all unrighiosness sexual imoraillity wickedness covetness malliosciosness full of envy murder and strife

1) Learn to type/spell.
2) Present an actual arguement or GTFO CT.

Bible nonsense doesn't belong in CT, now that I think about it. Or at least in this thread.

[ToshX]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

i bialive that bieng gay is wroung it goes against how man was orignally made it is unnatrul it comes from mans sinful nature that overcoimes them with lust for what is not good

So tell me, Eldrad.

What makes it "not good"? Besides the bible, what makes it "evil"? I'm an atheist, so I'd like to hear one good reason why I should "change". Something based on a religion I don't even believe in is not going to change my mind.

[Kamunt]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

i bialive that bieng gay is wroung it goes against how man was orignally made it is unnatrul it comes from mans sinful nature that overcoimes them with lust for what is not good the book of romans says (is reson god gave them up to vile passions for evan there women exchanged the natrul use for what is agaisint nature like wise also the men leavinng the natrual use of the women burned in thier lust for one another men with men commiting what is shameful and receiving in them selves the penilty of thier errior which was due And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;being filled with with all unrighiosness sexual imoraillity wickedness covetness malliosciosness full of envy murder and strife

Reading your post, it was like trying to decipher a drunken Faulkner: all the lack of punctuation and capitalization with no sensicalness and a nearly infinite number of misspelled words. It also literally impossible to figure out what you were trying to say later in your paragraph, Benjy--that's how bad your spelling and other conventions were. Asian students just beginning to learn English speak it better than you: at least they spell the words correctly.

Since I'm pretty sure your post had something to do with the Holy Bible:

2) Present an actual arguement or GTFO CT.

Bible nonsense doesn't belong in CT, now that I think about it. Or at least in this thread.

[Bionikk7]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

So tell me, Eldrad.

What makes it "not good"? Besides the bible, what makes it "evil"? I'm an atheist, so I'd like to hear one good reason why I should "change". Something based on a religion I don't even believe in is not going to change my mind.

ok so u guys want a reason that doesnt relate to the bible. I'll give you one but im not sure you'll accept it. If your gay, then you cant reproduce. Thus, the human population will go down, and eventually we'll all die out.Sure it'll probably take a long time, but hey? If we keep doing it, it will happen....eventually