[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I’m confused. What exactly is the problem with gays and lesbians being joined till death do them part.[/quote]
If they want to exchange rings and work out arrangements. with no more privilege or recognition than Joe Bob and his buddy, fine. The government treating their relationship as something so absolutely special and critical, recognizing it and privileging it, above Joe Bob and his pal, is uncalled for discrimination. [/quote]
It’s no more discrimination against Joe Bob and his pal than is a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.[/quote]
State recognized heterosexual marriage (don’t forget limited to two people, too) is discrimination. State recognized hetero and homo marriage would still be discriminatory. However, traditional state-recognized marriage is rational, justifiable discrimination.
One man and one woman provide the model for the smallest reproductive unit, capable of propagating the citizenry (future parents in turn, future labor, future taxpayers) in intact households, with both biological parents present. The ordering of the reproductive sexes IS a general welfare issue. Take a drive through a ghetto. Visit a prison. Look at the welfare/food stamp/entitlement rolls. Visit a graduating high school or college class. Big time general welfare issue.
If the above wasn’t inherent to the ordering of men and women together, I wouldn’t support state recognition of marriage. It would be pointless. It would deserve no more recognition than Joe Bob and his pal. I’d recognize what relationships I wanted to or didn’t want to.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I’m confused. What exactly is the problem with gays and lesbians being joined till death do them part.[/quote]
If they want to exchange rings and work out arrangements. with no more privilege or recognition than Joe Bob and his buddy, fine. The government treating their relationship as something so absolutely special and critical, recognizing it and privileging it, above Joe Bob and his pal, is uncalled for discrimination. [/quote]
It’s no more discrimination against Joe Bob and his pal than is a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.[/quote]
State recognized heterosexual marriage (don’t forget limited to two people, too) is discrimination. Rational, justifiable discrimination. One man and one woman provide the model for the smallest reproductive unit, capable of propagating the citizenry (future parents in turn, future labor, future taxpayers) in intact households, with both biological parents present. The ordering of the reproductive sexes IS a general welfare issue. Take a drive through a ghetto. Visit a prison. Look at the welfare/food stamp/entitlement rolls. Visit a graduating high school or college class. Big time general welfare issue. If the above wasn’t part and parcel, if it wasn’t inherent to the ordering of men and women together, I wouldn’t support recognition of marriage. It would be pointless. It would deserve no more recognition than Joe Bob and his pal. [/quote]
As has already been pointed out, there’s a great number of heterosexual people who get married who are unable, and / or unwilling to reproduce themselves, and there aren’t any laws against that. Should there be? Are these senior citizens, barren women, impotent men, driven proffessionals, and adoptive hippys just jumping through loop holes and cheating the system?
Which is worse? 2 heterosexual people who marry and don’t have children, or 2 homosexual people who marry and do have children. Which one is more deserving of the special treatment you’re talking about? Do you think 2 homosexuals are less capable of raising productive members of society than a “single mother”? Do you think 2 homosexuals raising a child are worse for that child than an abortion? There’s a big difference between “reproducing” and raising a child.
As has already been pointed out, there’s a great number of heterosexual people who get married who are unable, and / or unwilling to reproduce themselves…[/quote]
And they still provide the model. One man, one woman, committed.
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. Stop saying homosexual relationships are special, above simple friendships and other forms of association. That is subjective, and personal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. [/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
*TN’s virtually worthless Edit function insists on leaving this off my post:
You could even theoretically conjure up a cult of several million people all joining together in matrimony. All married to each other for whatever reason thereby annihilating any concept of what marriage has always been.
And like Sloth said, if the state can decide it has the power to limit it to two then the state also can decide to limit it to a man and a woman. After all who do you or the state think you are restricting Adam, Steve and Evelyn from joining together in marital bliss?[/quote]
This is nonsense.
His whole argument is that if two heterosexual people are allowed to marry, two homosexual people must be allowed to marry too.
That might be a slippery slope, there might be reasons for it, but there is no real legal leg to stand on.
OMGDZ, society will implode is not a legal argument.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. [/quote]
You still haven’t answered my questions.[/quote]
I did. The relationship still provides the model, through increased frequency in the population. Sheer numbers, if the model is secure and honored, will ensure the results. Now answer mine. Why do you unjustifiably discriminate in favor of homosexual relationships to the exclusion of any all forms of consenting human relationship imaginative adults could come up with? Regardless of number, sexual or non-sexual.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. Stop saying homosexual relationships are special, above simple friendships and other forms of association. That is subjective, and personal.[/quote]
Friends don’t suck each others dicks. Atleast mine don’t. Maybe you’ve got better friends than mine. ):
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. Stop saying homosexual relationships are special, above simple friendships and other forms of association. That is subjective, and personal.[/quote]
Friends don’t suck each others dicks. Atleast mine don’t. Maybe you’ve got better friends than mine. ):[/quote]
As, so the purpose of putting homosexual relationships above other forms of human relationships is because they provide each other oral sex.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. [/quote]
You still haven’t answered my questions.[/quote]
I did. The relationship still provides the model, through increased frequency in the population. Sheer numbers, if the model is secure and honored, will ensure the results. Now answer mine. Why do you unjustifiably discriminate in favor of homosexual relationships to the exclusion of any all forms of consenting human relationship imaginative adults could come up with? Regardless of number, sexual or non-sexual.
[/quote]
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Which is worse? 2 heterosexual people who marry and don’t have children, or 2 homosexual people who marry and do have children. Which one is more deserving of the special treatment you’re talking about? Do you think 2 homosexuals are less capable of raising productive members of society than a “single mother”? Do you think 2 homosexuals raising a child are worse for that child than an abortion? There’s a big difference between “reproducing” and raising a child.[/quote]
“An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[34][35] More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.[36][37]”
Owned.
[/quote]
Wow! Another victory for logic. Now, as I remember Magpies eat their siblings in the nest so maybe we should encourage our eldest children to murder and eat their siblings right?[/quote]
Sigh. Sometimes I wonder why I deal with these dipshits.
Listen, moron -read this carefully, kay sweetheart? Here, I’ll make it nice and big for ya:
MY POINT WAS NOT THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE ITS NATURAL.
Yes, (a) homosexuality is morally acceptable. And, yes, (b) homosexuality is natural. Now, read the sentence above again – just because I say that (a) and (b) are both true, does not mean that I am saying (a) is true because of (b) or that (b) is true because of (a). I’m simply saying that both are true.
So, pointing out something else that is natural, but morally unacceptable, does not address any point I made, at all.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. [/quote]
You still haven’t answered my questions.[/quote]
I did. The relationship still provides the model, through increased frequency in the population. Sheer numbers, if the model is secure and honored, will ensure the results. Now answer mine. Why do you unjustifiably discriminate in favor of homosexual relationships to the exclusion of any all forms of consenting human relationship imaginative adults could come up with? Regardless of number, sexual or non-sexual.
[/quote]
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Which is worse? 2 heterosexual people who marry and don’t have children, or 2 homosexual people who marry and do have children. Which one is more deserving of the special treatment you’re talking about? Do you think 2 homosexuals are less capable of raising productive members of society than a “single mother”? Do you think 2 homosexuals raising a child are worse for that child than an abortion? There’s a big difference between “reproducing” and raising a child.[/quote]
No you haven’t.[/quote]
I did. I answered you twice. This will be the third time. One man, one woman, full fill the model I described. Homosexuals, or the polyamorous, Joe Bob and his pal, or a social network of single mothers, or whatever else, doesn’t.
…But of course, the big knock on the Model One approach is that it is an end run around the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause…
[/quote]
No. No. No. No. No. If anything the EP and DP Clauses are THE genesis of the Model Two approach.
I don’t think ANY language in the Constitution, save the reference to “militia” in the 2 Amendment, has been more tortured than those.
Why have those “hallowed” clauses been so elevated when the 9th and 10 Amendments have essentially been dropped overboard in the Marianna Trench? Why? The answer is the Model Two campaign demands it.
[/quote]
Well, that’s not exactly true. Many Model Two-type Justices have invoked the 9th Amendment as a sort of precedent when interpreting the 14th Amendment. Basically, the 9th Amendment states that there are many inherent, fundamental rights not listed within the first 8 Amendments that the Federal govt cannot deny or abridge. It simply exists as a way to ensure that the Federal govt cannot curtail these unenumerated rights. The 14th Amendment pertains to the states, meaning that the states cannot use legislation or other such means to abridge the enumerated rights within the first 8 Amendments. It’s actually the Model One Justices that have curtailed the meaning of the 9th Amendment and the Model Two Justices who have invoked it in an expansive way in their judicial opinions (Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton; Griswold v. CT.)
Don’t quote me on this, but I do believe it was in Griswold v. Connecticut (where the right to privacy was established) that Chief Justice Warren tried to use the example of the 9th Amendment and its application at the federal level to demonstrate that the 14th Amendment has the same application, only at the state level. He further went on to point out that just like the 9th Amendment acknowledges there are other rights inherent to U.S. citizens not enumerated in the first 8, the 14th Amendment carries the same implication regarding unenumerated rights as they pertain to states and their legislatures.
As far as the 10th Amendment goes, it usually is just used to force states to comply with federal statutes. I may be wrong here, but I do believe that, technically, the federal govt could invoke the 10th Amendment if it sought to bring, say, California to court regarding medicinal marijuana, since the state statute legalizing it is in conflict with federal laws that make it illegal.
