Posted on 11/06/2004 11:29:32 PM PST by NYer
How so? Marriage is an institution that implicitly requires the union of a male and a female. That is what marriage is. Just because a person says they are a polar bear, doesn't make them one. And the constitution does not require the federal government or any state to regard them as one. There is no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to redefine the meaning of established institutions.
So you believe an individual state has a right to pass segregation laws?
ping
Every one of these arguments was made during the civil rights era and eventually dismissed.
If you would tell somebody 100 years ago that laws legalising homosexual "adoption" would be passed one century later, anyone would be able to realise what that would mean.
Brainwahsed sheeple just aren't able tor realise how important legalising homosexuality (first step) and homosexual "adoption" are, in particular their significance as part of the satanic seal.
Nonsense.
Name one case that applies.
You cannot.
You are spouting radical homosexual agenda talking points, that's all.
Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban. I don't see any difference between this issue or the racial civil rights issue.
People who want to enter into polygamous marriages are also discriminated against, and as you said, discrimination is discrimination. According to what the federal constitution says, do you think the ban on polygamous marriages should continue or has the time come to legalize polygamous marriages and end the discrimination?
It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I am vehemently opposed to gay marriage or "civil unions". I could personally care less who you sleep with. I think it is an immoral (sinful, if you like) lifestyle; but that is between the homo and God.
It is for this reason, primarily, that the butt bandits "demand" gay marriage. Their primary goal is the "mainstreaming" of their aberrant lifestyle by the indoctrination of succeeding generations; much like the liberals have done with government schools. There are also the groups such as NAMBLA that would like to sexually exploit children.
The GLBT community's other concerns; financial, succession, visitation, etc. can all be handled by joint accounts, legal contracts, and powers-of-attorney.
No, but it is NOT the same thing.
The difference is that the Constitution applies to governmental actions - not the actions of private citizens and their corporate entities.
Well corrected.
3. The analogy that "gay" is to "straight" as "black" is to "white" is completely flawed, because there is no evidence or historical precedent to indicate that a person is, so to speak, ever "born homosexual." Sure, there have always been people (and animals) who desired to copulate with members of the same sex, but prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, no one ever suggested that the desire to copulate anally might be written into a person's genetic code as an integral part of his being.
PMFJI, but couldn't your argument here apply equally as well to discrimination on the basis of religion? There are ex-Christians, ex-Jews, ex-atheists, etc.
"Every one of these arguments was made during the civil rights era and eventually dismissed."
Actually, they weren't "dismissed." They were suppressed at gunpoint.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that the constitution does not prohibit discrimination against **everything.**
It only prohibits discrimination against *some* things.
Same-sex attraction disorder is not, nor should it be, one of those things.
Constitutionally speaking, it is quite permissible to discriminate against SSAD sufferers in housing, education, employment, and access to public accomodations. And, in fact, that should be done.
If somebody wrongheadedly believes that to be improper, he needs to work for a constitutional amendment.
"PMFJI, but couldn't your argument here apply equally as well to discrimination on the basis of religion? There are ex-Christians, ex-Jews, ex-atheists, etc."
Even if it were, the free exercise of religion is constitutionally protected.
Do Mormons not have the right to have multiple partners?
Then you're both woefully ignorant of constitutional law. This doesn't mean that there aren't SC justices who would strike down the gay marriage bans for that very reason. These are activist judges, hell-bent on making law rather than interpreting law - the mind-set that resulted in abortion (the murder of a human being, remember) being decriminalized under Roe v. Wade. The architects of the Constitution have got to be spinning in their graves because of the way this noble document has been perverted. I dare say, not one of the signers would have put pen to that paper if it had actually, literally, proclaimed that women would be free to kill their babies in-utero, or protect homosexuals from social stigma.
Being gay IS a psycological problem.
Easy.
There's no "right" to marry.
I'm a heterosexual male.
Do I have a right to marry my mother? After all, we love each other. - NO.
Do I have a right to marry any of my sisters? After all, we love each other. - NO.
Do I have a right to marry either of my daughters? After all, we love each other. - NO.
We already accept many restrictions on who may marry. Marriage is not a right.
Abandonment of that claim by the Mormon church was an explicit requirement for statehood.
This is not to say there are no polygamous Mormons, but they're not legal.
(as an aside, they're generally parasites, either forcing their wives to work to feed the kids, or on welfare)
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.