Skip to comments.
Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)
Posted on 12/01/2003 8:29:13 PM PST by panther33
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 521-540 next last
Comment #221 Removed by Moderator
To: Darkbloom
"Let me ask you a question. If my partner of 22 years and I were granted a marriage license tomorrow, how would your own marriage suffer in real, concrete terms, other than some abstract "it has been demeaned"."
I wish you and your partner the best wishes & hope that you live in a state that will allow you to marry. My marriage of over 33 years will in no way be threatened or demeaned in any way, shape, or form if you are allowed to marry.
To: CougarGA7
"..I think homosexuality is a mental disease, no different from someone who has bipolar disorder or manic depression."
Do you support the right of those with mental disease (bipolar disorder or manic depressive) to marry? Their offspring may also be mentally defective through the wonders of genetics.
To: farmfriend
How about answering some of the questions that I posed to you. Or are you just going to ignore them? thanks
224
posted on
12/02/2003 11:35:42 AM PST
by
sasafras
(sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
To: BSunday; steve-b
The constitution protects you based on your race and religion. -BSunday, 208The constitution does not address equal protection for persons of deviant sexual behavior. If it does, please show me where.
We agree (I assume) the First Amendment protects you specifically on the basis of your religion. The Fourteenth Amendment protects you on the basis of your race, but it does not mention race: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There are those who would apply the liberal interpretion of equal protection to apply it to homosexuals. The loophole in your argument is that it does not protect marriage against the liberal interpretation of equal protection.
Here's a related example: the Equal Rights Amendment failed and therefore men and women are not required to be treated equally. Yet Title IX has wrought unfair damage upon university athletic programs.
I am all for equality, but it has its dangers.
Marriage is protected by government (yes, steve-b) for the sake of the children. These protections are wasted on homosexual couples and so we must make that distinction even if in other areas we treat homosexuals as having equal rights.
To: sasafras
I've answered them in other posts.
226
posted on
12/02/2003 11:46:59 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: panther33
If they don't believe in the Book, how can I use it in my argument? Don't use it, it's futile. Work from the definition of "marriage" -- the government can declare two men to be married to each other. It can also declare someone who is dead to be alive. In neither case does the declaration change their real state. Marriage is necessarily a relationship between a man and a woman. No semantic manipulation can change that.
Some will accuse you of wanting to "legislate morality" -- agree that this is exactly what you want to do. It is also exactly what THEY want to do. ALL laws -- tax policy, littering, parking violations, the Clean Water Act, etc. -- ALL of them are based on some kind of moral judgment. The only question is, whose moral judgment will prevail? This is determined by the democratic process. The Constitution guarantees certain rights, acknowledges the existence of other unspecified rights, and leaves other matters up to Congress, legislatures & local governments to decide. Unless someone wants to make a 9th Amendment case for homosexual marriage (and nobody arguing with you will even know what the Ninth says), there's no evidence of a Constitutional right to it. Even if they did use the Ninth, it shifts the burden of proof from you to them -- i.e., not 'why should gay marriage be illegal' but 'why should it be the government's job to approve of homosexual relationships?'
In general, the question defaults to what the people as a whole are willing to accept.
227
posted on
12/02/2003 11:49:00 AM PST
by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
Comment #228 Removed by Moderator
To: farmfriend
Re: # 220, Carbolic Soda vs Coca-Cola. How would you rule?
To: Eastbound
Your talking names, I'm talking rights.
230
posted on
12/02/2003 11:54:22 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: cyborg
It doesn't affect me and my lifeYou better wake up! You sound like a 16 year old, apathetic, idiot! Everything we do affects others and has an impact on society. Every action you take has an impact on your family, friends, and neighbors.
To: farmfriend
Vermont recognizes the right to civil unions between same-sex couples. That's not the argument. The argument is whether or not the court can re-define the word, 'marriage,' to include same-sex unions.
Do you think the court is empowered to do that? Thanks.
To: bt_dooftlook
Every argument you present applies equally to birth control.
233
posted on
12/02/2003 12:09:38 PM PST
by
lugsoul
(And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
Comment #234 Removed by Moderator
Comment #235 Removed by Moderator
To: Eastbound
Do you think the court is empowered to do that? Thanks. Now that is a whole different question than what you asked me before. Those who know me on this forum would tell you that I am staunchly against the judiciary making law. So in relation to the legal definition of marriage including gays, it needs to be change in the state legislature according to the wishes of the populous of the state in question. People are really hung up on the name marriage. I'm talking about denying them the right to civil unions, as opposed to religious ones, as being discriminatory. People insist on reading more into what I have said than what is there.
236
posted on
12/02/2003 12:28:07 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: mcg1969
None of your examples are at all relevant. All of them are violations of the parent's status as trustee guardian of the child, which is not at issue here.
237
posted on
12/02/2003 12:28:34 PM PST
by
steve-b
To: Darkbloom
Not sure where you are headed with this, but all I can say is that the Bible itself says this:
1 Timothy 4:1-4--
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth."
As I read it, then, to forbid marriage (assumed to be between and man and a woman, of course) is a doctrine of demons. So the Catholic doctrine for priests not to marry is, at best, unscriptural and, at worst, a doctrine of demons. As for the state mandating that Catholic priests marry, it is not the state that has a problem here...it is the Catholic church.
238
posted on
12/02/2003 12:32:47 PM PST
by
DennisR
Comment #239 Removed by Moderator
To: familyofman
My wife has bipolar disorder. She takes medication to keep it under control. Society does not try to promote bipolar disorder as a "good thing" like they do with homosexuality. I do not support homosexual marrage anymore than I support manic depressives to commit suicide.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 521-540 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson