My Position on Marriage

Yes, this is true. And the states are still the ones who regulate it.

The issue is that the courts, in the past, have held up marriage as a fundamental right. The 14th amendment says that the laws have to apply to everyone equally and that, without good reason, the states cannot deny equal protection. The states failed to make any convincing argument that they had a vested interest in denying equal protection of the law to their gay citizens, and thus, under the 14th amendment, laws that banned interracial marriage were, absolutely correctly, deemed unconstitutional. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Which case decided that "marriage" was a fundemental right? Since the government is in charge of protecting my rights....I would like a petite asian woman, double jointed, who is more cute than attractive for a wife. Can the government get on that order right away....I'm waiting on my rights.

To put in simply, there is NO RIGHT to marriage. You have certain freedoms and if marriage is what you want, then go for it but there are limits to what is recognized as marriage; brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, something we can't talk about dealing with age, and polygamy. Used to be the same sex issue but nine unelected people in robes took that power away from us.

So there we have it. A non-issue much like abortion should be.
I do not care how many babies somebody kills as long as they do not use my tax dollars to do so.
Can you tell me where it is in the Constitution that the federal government is obligated to pay for abortions? I do not want my tax money to go to eugenics via abortion. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Outside of rape/incest or danger to the mother, it's been a long time (1970s?), since federal tax dollars went to paying for abortions. So you've got nothing to worry about..

Well, if true, I would submit that polygamous marriage deserves equal protection. Originally Posted by DSK

I can't say I disagree. I have no problem with people, if all participants are willing adults, entering into polygamous marriages that are recognized by the state. I don't know, exactly, how all the logistics and legalities would work, but no skin off my back.

I would otherwise love to have equal protection of the laws but I guess there is an exception for laws that are anti white male, such as affirmative action/diversity.

You ignored the part about the state having a "compelling interest." Agree or disagree, the state can easily argue that, to counteract the long entrenched inequalities based on race and sex, giving these groups a benefit does help society as a whole, as it does help us approach what would likely more resemble "equal opportunity."

Which case decided that "marriage" was a fundemental right? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

There are a few, but the most notable is Loving.

Since the government is in charge of protecting my rights....I would like a petite asian woman, double jointed, who is more cute than attractive for a wife. Can the government get on that order right away....I'm waiting on my rights.

Just as the government doesn't have to buy you a gun to protect your right to bare arms, the government doesn't have to find you someone to marry to protect your right to get married.

To put in simply, there is NO RIGHT to marriage.

Well, the courts disagree with you and have for quite some time.

You have certain freedoms and if marriage is what you want, then go for it but there are limits to what is recognized as marriage; brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, something we can't talk about dealing with age, and polygamy.

And the courts have decided that, as with most restrictions that deny equality, the state has to present a compelling case against it. Incest increases the chance of birth defects (although, I would argue that they should be able to wed, if they want), things that deal with age include people who cannot legally consent and we have a whole set of particular protections for this group (so the state has a very well established compelling interest there). And, as I said, I don't oppose polygamy.

The states have completely failed to make any compelling case to deny equality to homosexuals, because there is none.

Used to be the same sex issue but nine unelected people in robes took that power away from us.

No, what the 9 people in robes did was stop you from denying other people's rights.

Link? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Liberalism is an ideology that believes in control, not freedom. That's why liberals love the federal government so much while they detest states' rights. It allows them to bend hundreds of millions of people to their will with one imperial edict. It's also why liberal judges don't believe in the Constitution like conservative justices do...

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...3689/page/full

Outside of rape/incest or danger to the mother, it's been a long time (1970s?), since federal tax dollars went to paying for abortions. So you've got nothing to worry about..


I can't say I disagree. I have no problem with people, if all participants are willing adults, entering into polygamous marriages that are recognized by the state. I don't know, exactly, how all the logistics and legalities would work, but no skin off my back.


You ignored the part about the state having a "compelling interest." Agree or disagree, the state can easily argue that, to counteract the long entrenched inequalities based on race and sex, giving these groups a benefit does help society as a whole, as it does help us approach what would likely more resemble "equal opportunity." Originally Posted by eatfibo

Nothing in the wording of the amendment mentions "compelling interest".

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

It is only your opinion that the GOP (really, all of them?) are on the wrong side of history. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I was talking about the current presidential pool. There are clearly some who actually support equality, but none of them is a legitimate contender for the presidency.

So there is no absolute about it except in your mind.

Fair enough. But I am very confident that history will prove me right. In 50 years, people will look back on those who opposed equality for homosexuals in the same way as the bigots who opposed interracial marriage.

Don't bring race into a discussion about gay marriage. It has no place there. People of different races have been marrying and having children for thousands of years. What? You thought it was a recent issue? Men and women of different races only look different, everything else remains the same. Gay marriage...well, show me a gay marriage that has produced a child outside of divine intervention.

Relax. I compared them only in how we will view opposition to equality in the future.

As for your last wild shot in the dark, you might go back to the second or first debate and remember what John Kasich said about gay marriage and his gay friend getting married. He is so much more supportive of gay marriage than Hillary Clinton ever thought of and he didn't try to ride it like a pony. There are republicans who have supported gay marriage before Hillary thought it was a way to get votes.

What? Hillary is currently supporting gay marriage. Kasich still says " I happen to believe in traditional marriage." He just isn't as backwards as some of the others and respects the court's decision. That's it.

Liberalism is an ideology that believes in control, not freedom. That's why liberals love the federal government so much while they detest states' rights. It allows them to bend hundreds of millions of people to their will with one imperial edict. It's also why liberal judges don't believe in the Constitution like conservative justices do... Originally Posted by DSK

The irony being that arguing for denying equal rights to someone based on their sexuality is absolutely all about control. The federal government is on the side of allowing people to do what they want, in this case.

Nothing in the wording of the amendment mentions "compelling interest". Originally Posted by DSK

I'm not even sure where to start with this. It is well known that no right is universal. There are all kinds of reasonable (or, at least they should be) exceptions: one can't shout fire in a crowded theater, one can't own a nuclear bomb, etc.

The judiciary has, since its inception, determined when violations are "reasonable" and, thus, allow the state to "violate" a right.

But the most odd part about this is, without that "compelling interest" interpretation, the state absolutely would have no right to deny marriage equality to homosexuals. It is based on that notion that they attempted to justify such bans, it is just that their "compelling interest" was never very rational.

I was talking about the current presidential pool. There are clearly some who actually support equality, but none of them is a legitimate contender for the presidency.


Fair enough. But I am very confident that history will prove me right. In 50 years, people will look back on those who opposed equality for homosexuals in the same way as the bigots who opposed interracial marriage.


Relax. I compared them only in how we will view opposition to equality in the future.


What? Hillary is currently supporting gay marriage. Kasich still says " I happen to believe in traditional marriage." He just isn't as backwards as some of the others and respects the court's decision. That's it.


The irony being that arguing for denying equal rights to someone based on their sexuality is absolutely all about control. The federal government is on the side of allowing people to do what they want, in this case.


I'm not even sure where to start with this. It is well known that no right is universal. There are all kinds of reasonable (or, at least they should be) exceptions: one can't shout fire in a crowded theater, one can't own a nuclear bomb, etc.

The judiciary has, since its inception, determined when violations are "reasonable" and, thus, allow the state to "violate" a right.

But the most odd part about this is, without that "compelling interest" interpretation, the state absolutely would have no right to deny marriage equality to homosexuals. It is based on that notion that they attempted to justify such bans, it is just that their "compelling interest" was never very rational. Originally Posted by eatfibo

You realize it was always about the definition of marriage, which is only legitimately between a man and a woman. We no longer seek to deny homosexual men the right to suck each others dicks or fuck each other in the ass.

I just don't want them to call their relationship a marriage.

You realize it was always about the definition of marriage, which is only legitimately between a man and a woman. We no longer seek to deny homosexual men the right to suck each others dicks or fuck each other in the ass.

I just don't want them to call their relationship a marriage. Originally Posted by DSK

Who cares what they call it? What "they" call their relationship has no effect on you. Why do you care?

Who cares what they call it? What "they" call their relationship has no effect on you. Why do you care? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

They shouldn't have the right to change the definition of something that has been called marriage for thousands of years.

Should my group be the one that changes Google's name to Alphabet, or do they get to change the name?

Does Mr Drumpf get to change his name, or do I?

My life is negatively impacted by their continued efforts to change everything about our once great nation - so I give them nothing now, not one inch.

Men being "married" to men, and sucking each other's dicks after they stick their dicks in each other's asses is not the same as a man and his wife having sex, and it shouldn't be called the same thing.

I'm not restricting their freedom to bukkake each other and rub their dicks in each other's faces, but I am insisting they call it what it is, which is definitely not marriage!!!!

Hell, I love lesbians, and would enjoy a wife who likes pussy, but I don't see the need for a beautiful lesbian relationship to be misnamed, either!!

Well as far as how I feel about marriage, I always say, "I was never in a big hurry to get into something so many people seem to want to get out of."
I don't understand why marriage is a "right" at all, for anyone. Fuck marriage!

Woohooooo!!

You realize it was always about the definition of marriage, which is only legitimately between a man and a woman. We no longer seek to deny homosexual men the right to suck each others dicks or fuck each other in the ass.

I just don't want them to call their relationship a marriage. Originally Posted by DSK

That's because you hate freedom.

And are alarmingly homophobic.

Hypocrite.

That's because you hate freedom.

And are alarmingly homophobic.

Hypocrite. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

COG sez you are the one who hates freedom. I'll take his word for it.

Plus, I would love to have the freedom to serve who I want in my bakery, you cocksucking faggot.

You realize it was always about the definition of marriage, which is only legitimately between a man and a woman. Originally Posted by DSK

There has not been one definition of marriage throughout time. It has constantly evolved. It used to be that polygamy was widely practice. Almost all marriages were arraigned to protect land rights and other hereditary things. The modern marriage has only been around for *maybe* 300 years. You could argue that, due to the subjugation of women in marriage, modern marriage is less than 100 years old.

The reality is that the only "legitimate" thing we know about marriage is that it has always been changing.

We no longer seek to deny homosexual men the right to suck each others dicks or fuck each other in the ass.

Well, that's nice that you decided to get out of their bedroom. But you are still arguing on behalf of using the government to deny them equality.

I just don't want them to call their relationship a marriage.

Call it whatever you want. But when you argue that they shouldn't have equal protection of the law, it is you arguing on behalf of a "controlling government," not liberals.

They shouldn't have the right to change the definition of something that has been called marriage for thousands of years. Originally Posted by DSK

Again, it is something that has been constantly changing for thousands of years. To argue that it cannot have its definition changed does not mesh with its history.

Should my group be the one that changes Google's name to Alphabet, or do they get to change the name?

Of course they do. It's their private company. Marriage is not your private institution. Even without the government recognition, I could still go out and marry two gay people and call it a marriage and there is absolutely nothing you could do about it.

My life is negatively impacted by their continued efforts to change everything about our once great nation - so I give them nothing now, not one inch.

This is nothing but an empty statement. The reality is that it doesn't harm you at all whether or not the two guys next door get married.

Men being "married" to men, and sucking each other's dicks after they stick their dicks in each other's asses is not the same as a man and his wife having sex, and it shouldn't be called the same thing.

And, again, you can call it whatever you want. However, the state has to to treat everyone equally. So the state has to call them the same thing. This isn't about you, it is about the law of the land treating everyone equally, regardless of your personal opinion.

I'm not restricting their freedom to bukkake each other and rub their dicks in each other's faces, but I am insisting they call it what it is, which is definitely not marriage!!!!

Just because you are nice enough to allow them to do what they want in their bedroom doesn't mean you aren't arguing to restrict their rights in something completely unrelated.

Hell, I love lesbians, and would enjoy a wife who likes pussy, but I don't see the need for a beautiful lesbian relationship to be misnamed, either!!

The need is exactly the same need found for heterosexual marriages.

There has not been one definition of marriage throughout time. It has constantly evolved. It used to be that polygamy was widely practice. Almost all marriages were arraigned to protect land rights and other hereditary things. The modern marriage has only been around for *maybe* 300 years. You could argue that, due to the subjugation of women in marriage, modern marriage is less than 100 years old.

The reality is that the only "legitimate" thing we know about marriage is that it has always been changing.


Well, that's nice that you decided to get out of their bedroom. But you are still arguing on behalf of using the government to deny them equality.


Call it whatever you want. But when you argue that they shouldn't have equal protection of the law, it is you arguing on behalf of a "controlling government," not liberals.


Again, it is something that has been constantly changing for thousands of years. To argue that it cannot have its definition changed does not mesh with its history.


Of course they do. It's their private company. Marriage is not your private institution. Even without the government recognition, I could still go out and marry two gay people and call it a marriage and there is absolutely nothing you could do about it.


This is nothing but an empty statement. The reality is that it doesn't harm you at all whether or not the two guys next door get married.


And, again, you can call it whatever you want. However, the state has to to treat everyone equally. So the state has to call them the same thing. This isn't about you, it is about the law of the land treating everyone equally, regardless of your personal opinion.


Just because you are nice enough to allow them to do what they want in their bedroom doesn't mean you aren't arguing to restrict their rights in something completely unrelated.


The need is exactly the same need found for heterosexual marriages. Originally Posted by eatfibo

I realize I can call it whatever I want.

I want the government to define it correctly.

I'm not controlling anyone on this issue. I maintain it was originally defined as between a man and at least one woman, it was never dreamed of for two men, and the government needs to define it differently for gays.

It cheapens the value of a proper marriage, and therefore infringes on my rights by harming the institution of marriage.

I realize I can call it whatever I want.

I want the government to define it correctly. Originally Posted by DSK

You want the government to define it the way you want, in a way that would deny equality your fellow Americans, for no good reason at all other than what amounts to nothing more than "I don't like it."

I'm not controlling anyone on this issue. I maintain it was originally defined as between a man and at least one woman, it was never dreamed of for two men, and the government needs to define it differently for gays.

You are absolutely controlling people by telling them that their relationship does not deserve the same rights and benefits as a hetero couple.

It cheapens the value of a proper marriage, and therefore infringes on my rights by harming the institution of marriage.

How does it cheapen it? How has the institution of marriage been harmed? Saying "it's changed" doesn't make this case, at all. The courts, rightfully, recognize this as a failed argument.