Civil Rights for Gays, Women, Blacks

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Both. How is it constitutional to say one group of consenting adults can marry and the other can’t. [/quote]

Because the Equal Protection Clause permits rational discrimination of this kind. I get the distinct impression you simply have no knowledge of this topic, and I don’t have the time to bring you up to speed.

Just because the “the law says so” doesn’t legitimize it. I can bring up numerous laws of the past that were discriminatory, unfair, unjust, or whatever.

Nearly every law is discriminatory in some way. Our voting laws discriminate against people under 18. OUr tax laws discriminate against rich people. “Discrimination” is not and has never been the determinant as to whether something is “unconstitutional”.

And, whether or not it is “fair” is a separate question.

Which is why I asked the original question and I highlighted it in my previous post. Kansas does not have the right to discriminate against one group, but not the other. You think they do because of some laws that were written in the 19th Century. How did anyone alive today consent to that?

Then the people of today can reform that 19th century law that is outdated by passing a new law, if they want - or they can leave the law the way it is if they think the 19th century version meets their needs. They consent in the meantime because law maintains its force in perpetuity unless provided otherwise or changed.

Classic statist nonsense. Might makes right. It is written so you must obey.

Correct - it is written, so you must obey. It’s called Law for a reason.

Um yeah, back in the 19th Century. The state government acts as its own agent. As with any government, it could care less about the people.

Nope - the people are still sovereign. Don’t believe me? Look at the number of constitutional amendments proposed and ratified protecting traditional marriage that originated from direct democracy/referenda. Also, look at the states that changed the 19th century law and now permit gay marriage.

This is the “slippery slope” line that is always used and makes no sense. Gay marriage will not lead to the end of civilization, or people marrying animals or paint brushes or anything else. It effects your marriage not one iota. It also won’t prevent half of all marriages from ending in divorce.

Hard to know which straw man to start with, but let’s see: I never said it was result in people marrying animals, etc. I said it would do away with marriage completely - i.e., there would be no state-recognized version of marriage for any relationship. That would be a loss to society, and I’d rather keep it around.

A[quote]nd to think Fighting Irish once said you could “out logic” people.[/quote]

You’ll have to ask Irish about that, but I do know this: it’s painful to see you try and act haughty and superior in this regard. Your arguments are uninformed and terrible, and you just aren’t all that impressive. I’d avoid attempting being so smug - it makes you look even sillier.

Oh heavens no, the state would not be involved in marriage anymore? That’s one less facet of life that the government could keep its greasy paws off of. I know you would hate this.

And to make my point - you aren’t disagreeing with me. You aren’t refuting my point that the state would wind up getting out of marriage. You simply believe that it would be a good thing when it finally happened as I have explained it would, and as such, are changing the subject to “is it a good thing or a bad thing that the government would be out of the marriage business?” - which assumes that it would be getting out of it due to the enactment of very more “alternative” marriages.

Get sharp, cupcake.

And why is “brainless” to think healthy, competent, consenting adults should be allowed to marry?

Already asked and answered.

[MaximusB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
The creation of this nation had both God and law connected, and removing that is what I think most people are not comfortable with.

Which “god” would that be? I’m pretty sure the “god” that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. believed in is very, very, different from the “god” that you believe in.

Which is why the separation of church and state is a good idea. Most believers would love church and state to be the same, as long as it is their church…god forbid that the state be joined with someone else’s church instead.[/quote]

I really don’t know or care if their God is the same as my God. But at that time, there is no question that religion played a huge part in the development of our government. The Pledge of Allegiance has God in it. Not sure if this still happens, but if you went to court and were put on the stand, you had to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God. Do you really think it would be so easy to remove the idea of a God within our political structure when it is at the very core of it to start with?

My point is, is that that was the influence at that time. I personally don’t care if people’s God is the same as mine or not. I respect other religions as long as they don’t try to harm other people.

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I vote for it, because the evidence I hold in my hand from peer reviewed journals of science say that gay marriage would destroy the institute of marriage and the American family[/quote]

ahahahahaha

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
forlife wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
The creation of this nation had both God and law connected, and removing that is what I think most people are not comfortable with.

Which “god” would that be? I’m pretty sure the “god” that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. believed in is very, very, different from the “god” that you believe in.

Which is why the separation of church and state is a good idea. Most believers would love church and state to be the same, as long as it is their church…god forbid that the state be joined with someone else’s church instead.

I really don’t know or care if their God is the same as my God. But at that time, there is no question that religion played a huge part in the development of our government. The Pledge of Allegiance has God in it. Not sure if this still happens, but if you went to court and were put on the stand, you had to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God. Do you really think it would be so easy to remove the idea of a God within our political structure when it is at the very core of it to start with?

My point is, is that that was the influence at that time. I personally don’t care if people’s God is the same as mine or not. I respect other religions as long as they don’t try to harm other people. [/quote]

Word, even if it was not the same God, or it was not originally an input as you say, forlife. Explain why there is nowadays traces of huge influence of God in our government.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I vote for it, because the evidence I hold in my hand from peer reviewed journals of science say that gay marriage would destroy the institute of marriage and the American family

ahahahahaha[/quote]

Exactly when do you plan on moving to the U.S?

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I vote for it, because the evidence I hold in my hand from peer reviewed journals of science say that gay marriage would destroy the institute of marriage and the American family

ahahahahaha

Exactly when do you plan on moving to the U.S?[/quote]

Fuck yeah man, I hate them damn foreigners too.

Let’s see the “evidence”, and books written by ancient bank managers don’t count.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I vote for it, because the evidence I hold in my hand from peer reviewed journals of science say that gay marriage would destroy the institute of marriage and the American family

ahahahahaha

Exactly when do you plan on moving to the U.S?

Fuck yeah man, I hate them damn foreigners too.

Let’s see the “evidence”, and books written by ancient bank managers don’t count.[/quote]

I am going to assume you assume that I do not like foreigners. However, besides my grandma, the prettiest women I have seen are foreigners. Plus, they got sexy accents to go along.

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I am going to assume you assume that I do not like foreigners. However, besides my grandma, the prettiest women I have seen are foreigners. Plus, they got sexy accents to go along.[/quote]

I’m sure a 2 year old would have understood what I was trying to say.

Bringing up the fact I live in NZ isn’t really a strong argument.

As for foreign women being hot, I would do unspeakable tings to Lela Star.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I am going to assume you assume that I do not like foreigners. However, besides my grandma, the prettiest women I have seen are foreigners. Plus, they got sexy accents to go along.

I’m sure a 2 year old would have understood what I was trying to say.

Bringing up the fact I live in NZ isn’t really a strong argument.

As for foreign women being hot, I would do unspeakable tings to Lela Star.[/quote]

Word on Lela Star, but I was talking about that America is a little bit different culture than NZ. Nothing against NZ, just different.

[forlife]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I really don’t know or care if their God is the same as my God. But at that time, there is no question that religion played a huge part in the development of our government. The Pledge of Allegiance has God in it. Not sure if this still happens, but if you went to court and were put on the stand, you had to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God. Do you really think it would be so easy to remove the idea of a God within our political structure when it is at the very core of it to start with?

My point is, is that that was the influence at that time. I personally don’t care if people’s God is the same as mine or not. I respect other religions as long as they don’t try to harm other people. [/quote]

I can understand respecting other religions, but that is different from making laws based on a particular religion. What is your understanding of separation of church and state, and the reasons behind it?

On the Pledge of Allegiance, the words “Under God” were not part of the original Pledge. They were added by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954. In the cases where “So Help Me God” is included in an oath, the officer has the option to omit these words as an “affirmation” rather than an “oath”.

[lucasa]

[quote]forlife wrote:

By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.[/quote]

Bigger insult ‘gay’ or ‘motherfucker’?

Gay Pride Months and parades vs. Father’s Day?

More Fathers are killed every year than homosexuals.

Fathers are routinely prevented from being present at the birth of their children. Many more times over than homosexuals are excluded from any part of the hospital.

Fathers everywhere are taunted and attacked and denied their rights.

Who speaks for them?

[Dustin]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:

Both. How is it constitutional to say one group of consenting adults can marry and the other can’t.

Because the Equal Protection Clause permits rational discrimination of this kind. I get the distinct impression you simply have no knowledge of this topic, and I don’t have the time to bring you up to speed.
[/quote]

Because homosexuality (sexual preference) is not protected under the clause like race, gender, etc? I get all that but it is still discrimination, which you seem to agree apparently. These laws need to be amended.

Just because the “the law says so” doesn’t legitimize it. I can bring up numerous laws of the past that were discriminatory, unfair, unjust, or whatever.

Nearly every law is discriminatory in some way. Our voting laws discriminate against people under 18. OUr tax laws discriminate against rich people. “Discrimination” is not and has never been the determinant as to whether something is “unconstitutional”.

Yeah, and the law use to say that adults couldn’t consume alcohol and that slaves were recognized as property and not human beings.

Great argument thunderbolt.

Correct - it is written, so you must obey. It’s called Law for a reason.

Tell that to slave in the American South. “Sorry guy, you are a slave, you can’t be free. It’s called a law for a reason.”

[quote]
Nope - the people are still sovereign. Don’t believe me? Look at the number of constitutional amendments proposed and ratified protecting traditional marriage that originated from direct democracy/referenda. Also, look at the states that changed the 19th century law and now permit gay marriage.[/quote]

So in some states, the mob went out and voted in different ways. Awesome. Sounds like freedom to me. I guess if you are gay you had better not live in a place were the mob consists of individuals like yourself or Brother Chris.

This is the “slippery slope” line that is always used and makes no sense. Gay marriage will not lead to the end of civilization, or people marrying animals or paint brushes or anything else. It effects your marriage not one iota. It also won’t prevent half of all marriages from ending in divorce.

Hard to know which straw man to start with, but let’s see: I never said it was result in people marrying animals, etc. I said it would do away with marriage completely - i.e., there would be no state-recognized version of marriage for any relationship. That would be a loss to society, and I’d rather keep it around.

It wouldn’t be a loss to society. Individuals would actually have the freedom to make their own decisions without the government deciding for them.

It’s a win all around.

You’ll have to ask Irish about that, but I do know this: it’s painful to see you try and act haughty and superior in this regard. Your arguments are uninformed and terrible, and you just aren’t all that impressive. I’d avoid attempting being so smug - it makes you look even sillier.

Just doing my thunderbolt impression when he thinks he has “won” a debate.

And as for my argument, it has been consistent throughout this thread.

1. How does/will gay marriage effect you?

No one has given a reasonable answer and they won’t be able to because gay marriage won’t effect them.

2. The individual states have no right to deny consenting adults marriage.

Under this system we live in, I understand the mind of the mob must be altered so they can vote to change the laws within the states. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s still discrimination.

Oh heavens no, the state would not be involved in marriage anymore? That’s one less facet of life that the government could keep its greasy paws off of. I know you would hate this.

And to make my point - you aren’t disagreeing with me. You aren’t refuting my point that the state would wind up getting out of marriage. You simply believe that it would be a good thing when it finally happened as I have explained it would, and as such, are changing the subject to “is it a good thing or a bad thing that the government would be out of the marriage business?” - which assumes that it would be getting out of it due to the enactment of very more “alternative” marriages.

I asked the question (look up a few sentences for the question mark), albeit sarcastically, that the state would not be involved in marriage. I don’t see it as bad thing. I really doubt, however, that allowing gay marriage would take the state(s) involvement out of marriage. And it’s not like we are talking about people marrying dogs. It’s two individuals that just happened to be of the same sex.

[Dustin]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Hey Dustin…this is one of the biggest Internet ass kickings that I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. You’ve been beaten on every single point!

Do me a favor Dusty…respond to TB and continue to entertain me.

Oh…and thanks for the many laughs that you’ve already given me.[/quote]

Coming from anyone else that would be a compliment, but from you, not so much.

Since you decided to emerge from under your pretty rock, why don’t you answer the same question I posed to Brother Chris and Thunderbolt.

How will gay marriage effect you and your life?

Being the troll you are, living in isolation under your rock, it shouldn’t effect you at all.

[forlife]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
blah, blah…[/quote]

Far more people are discriminated against and die from smoking compared to skin color, so blacks have no civil rights and it is ok to discriminate against them! Lucasa Logic 101 FTW!

[Dustin]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

I’ve answered this question a multitude of times and have no desire to engage you on this level…You’re an ass clown junior. Now as to your debate with TB are you going to answer his latest response or are you going to be smart and let it go?

Let’s all find out if little Dusty has enough intelligence to know when he’s beaten?

[/quote]

That is too bad. I’m sure your answer was rational and well thought out. My loss I guess.

And I did answer thunderbolt at the end of page 7.

In all seriousness Mick, I have faith in you. One day, you will progress to the point that you can move out from under your rock and move under a bridge like all other trolls.

[Dustin]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

That’s why I never understood why anyone cares about this. It will not affect anyone outside of the people getting married. It truly is a “victimless” issue.
[/quote]

Apparently not if you talk to Troll28, Brother Chris, or thunderbolt. Gay marriage signals the end of western civilization.

[forlife]

The trick with Mick is realizing that he isn’t worth engaging on a serious level, but that he does provide value to the gay rights cause in his own way. I kinda like having a pet troll

[super_saiyan]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Hey Dustin…this is one of the biggest Internet ass kickings that I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. You’ve been beaten on every single point!

Do me a favor Dusty…respond to TB and continue to entertain me.

Oh…and thanks for the many laughs that you’ve already given me.

Coming from anyone else that would be a compliment, but from you, not so much.

Since you decided to emerge from under your pretty rock, why don’t you answer the same question I posed to Brother Chris and Thunderbolt.

How will gay marriage effect you and your life?

Being the troll you are, living in isolation under your rock, it shouldn’t effect you at all.

That’s why I never understood why anyone cares about this. It will not affect anyone outside of the people getting married. It truly is a “victimless” issue.
[/quote]

Many things we do have an effect on others whether we realize it or not. The Family Research Council has done a good job of explaining the effects of same-sex marriage on society. Here’s a link:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&f=PG03I03