Gay Couples:Marriage is Not a Right

@farmerman,

Yeah. My pie in the sky assumption that lawmakers have a concern for anything but their own skins.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im thinking of what they did with AMish until the USSC actually had to create special language that included these separatists sects.
Whew,

You mean the case Wisconsin vs. Yoder where the state was overruled and Amish children were allowed to leave high school after 8th grade?

Yes, it's inclusive to their religion - if it's better is on another topic.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

Yep, Yoder set up some new issues of contrl, free expression and rights, as well as the school year and education length. It also had some doings with the requirements to pay certain taxes .
Yoder v Wisc started some other associated cases in several district court that have Amish , Mennonite, Hutterite, and other AnaBaptist sepratist religions.

Im thinking that, the "free epression" clause will be severely tested with several separatist Islamic sects that choose to govern themselves wrt their religion.
It could be interesting times in the future.
Nothing to do with gay marriages but Anus forgets how conoluted and all encompassing our USSC decisions try to be.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Im feeling kind of stupid, I didn't realize that the anabaptists were still practicing. Time to so some brushing up on history and religions.

0 Replies

The sad part is that the young Amish who wish to leave their religion, have such limited knowledge of just about everything that they're doomed to fail,
unless they go back to school.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

by the fact that to NOT ALLOW gay couples to forma legal union (marrige0, they DO NOT ENJOY CERTAIN CIVIL RIGHTS

There are alternate procedures in place for legal purposes but they don't work . You are assuming marriage is the only solution despite the large number of people that will upset . You just want to be fashionable and follow a cause .

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CJ wrote :

Quote:

That's what we're talking about - the right of equality!

From the OP ref .

Quote:

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

Quote:

please do tell me why you are against gay marriage?

Its all in a name . Marriage Theft is going to upset at least 45% of the population so that 5% of homosexuals who make up 7% of the population can have what they want which I see as a denial of who they are...they are queer . They are not normal and indulging in fantasy will not change anything . All we have to do is give them the equivalent of marriage with a different name out of respect for the joining of a man and a woman who invented it and have owned it for the last 75,000 years at least .

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Look at the assumptions in that post . It is not a right yet because it was called Marriage Rights many fools just went for it hook line and sinker . No one wants to be thought of as not green and this fits in perfectly with protecting and saving whales for example .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Well, Anus is not good with women nd hes too ugly to be gay

Whereas FM will have it off with ugly old women and think he is doing well . As for gay, he cant spell it but he tried it once and it was a pain in the arse .

0 Replies

I agree with the OP, THe collective majority has the right to decide what marriage is, they can if they want decide that it means one man and one woman. I have never taken a position on if this should be the case but I have given reasons why the collective might reasonably and rationally decide to do thus. It appears however that the decline in the health of the institution of marriage might make the point largely moot however.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

So the bridge is weak lets drive a heavy truck over it .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Gomer you have no idea of just what a Pandora's box you are opening . Muslim countries will have to no longer recognise marriages in Ireland . ALL marriages . Anyone visiting a Muslim country that so declares can face punishment under Shari'a Law . Just wait till a plane has to make a forced stop at one of the Muslim countries and your same sex marriage couple have to overnight .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

So the bridge is weak lets drive a heavy truck over it .

Marriage has been neglected since the 60's. Then the Feminist/state cooperative decided in the 80's that they had the right to control what families do and marriage has been in a death spiral ever since. I am not exactly sure how we would go about reviving it at this point if we wanted to. For sure though we would need to start educating and resourcing rather than as we do now handing down dictates. And I am pretty sure that we need to make marriage harder to start and harder to end.... it has to mean something.

0 Replies

There are built-in mechanisms to prevent a tyranny (or was that 'tranny'?) of the majority from trouncing the rights of the minorities. This seems to be such an example.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Otherwise known as stealing the country from the rightful owners. Liberals seem to forget the end cost of the courts doing what the people dont want done. Listen to the Tea Party for awhile and you might get a clue.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Sure. Let's vote slavery back. Forced sterilization of those with mental illnesses. Since the majority of Americans are Christian, let's just vote to have Christianity as the national religion and have a theocracy, then. Woohoo! What could possibly go wrong?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Don't exaggerate because you haven't a real leg to stand on, will you..
Lets allow marriage between multiple couples...0ne woman many men, one man many women, or loose arrangements between many men and women . Otherwise you are interfering with their rights .

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I only showed up here to rant in favor of civil unions. If legislators recoil at the term marriage because of pressure from constituents or personal belief, the civil union idea would relieve them of the difficulty.

Might bring relief a lot sooner

It's a stopgap at best. We did it, civil unions had exactly the same legal status as marriages, but they still weren't marriages. That's why Elton John decided to marry his civil union partner. Equality is just that, and if something is called a different name it's viewed differently regardless of legal status.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

No matter what your idiotic take on our various realities are, you cannot succesfully argue the fact that , without an institution like marriage to assure certain rights among gay partners, we have the continuation of some degree of despotism in which only the real bigots like you are satisfied.

Tough **** Anus, you can argue with whatever passion you can muster but youre still losing in the courts.

1 Reply

Gay Couples:Marriage is Not a Right

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know