Cajunluvie Posted November 28, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 221 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 28, 2012 In other words, you didnt or cannot refute anything that I had said that was inaccurate. You admit you didnt like them because they were weak. You brought up the issue of consent. You brought up animals and minors cant consent. Your own rebuttals were weak. I just spun it around to instances that have already occurred because you argued for the sake of consent to show your own objection was rather shortsighted and may I say weak. It doesnt matter where the incident occurred, the fact is marriage doesnt mean a consent is required to recognize it. Basically, you havent proven to me in a compelling manner what I said was inaccurate or why none of what I said couldnt legally be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajunluvie Posted November 28, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 221 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 28, 2012 I There are some people who scoff at these things as arguments of futility but at one time... Gay marriage was one of them. Unthinkable until some bold people started pushing for it and others infilirated other areas of society to make it more palatable and accepting to the point. Interracial marriage was a no-no at one time and not under legal protection. Both the North and South balked at the thought of miscegnation. Some feminist abolitionists approved of ending slavery but refused to recognize interracial marriages. Separate but equal. Sound familiar? Few supported the mixing of races through marital relationships and families... pushing the racial barrier to its collapse. It only took what how many decades before that issue came up before in court? And we're talking only several decades ago. We are now just coming to grips that it is now becoming the norm. I cannot tell from this post if you are for or against Interracial marriage. based on your view of Same-sex marriage it seems you are also against Interracial marriage. is that correct? I havent given my personal view on either topic in this thread but because you asked.... My daughter is biracial...as in Caucasian and Ghanian. That should clear it up for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajunluvie Posted November 28, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 221 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 28, 2012 Fyi, I had to go off the laptop to fix dinner so now I'm only using my phone so I wont be going into detailed, torturous commentary after commentary to deal with each point. I think you are making my case for me in regards to changing the laws. Sorry, there are marriages that are not fully consentual in the U.S. Someone else like family relative does the arranging of future spouse or religious leader does it for you. Yes, there are some laws regarding consent but your point was incomplete in claiming animals and children cant consent therefore that sort of invalidated my comments? No, it didnt. If one demands constitutional right wheras the Constitution is silent on such topic then an argument must be found elsewhere depending on the angle of the legal argument. Gays have the same basic rights. They can marry the other sex because the traditional understanding of recognized marriage institution is between men and women. In order to say they are discriminated, they need to change the principle. Consent is not the point for anything. If they want to change the status quo or anyone in favor for it then sexual preference is very a subjective basis to rest a legal argument for constitional right. We go full circle back to what I said originally if one was able to get the implication is it will become harder to not deny others when their turn comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajunluvie Posted November 28, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 221 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 28, 2012 I havent given my personal view on either topic in this thread but because you asked.... My daughter is biracial...as in Caucasian and Ghanian. That should clear it up for you. I didnt realize that Ghanian was a race, but I do seem to be getting what you are saying. but it does confuse me at to your point in the post about interacial marriage. I am not sure now what you were getting at. What do you call interracial then? Ghana is a West African country. I said Caucasian because my ancestors from European countries and I dont feel like listing them all. Bascially, she is white and black. My point is the laws were changed regarding miscegnation. People had different definition on what or how equality should be recognized legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted November 28, 2012 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted November 28, 2012 The constitution is clearly silent on this subject. If you have to start making non-implied inferences in order to provide this "right" to a group of people then you have judicial activism. The constitution being silent on a matter means that the matter is not constitutionally protected, I think that's basic legal principle. Judicial activism of the sort that would be required to impart a basic right of marriage to homosexuals is no different than the judicial activism required to give a woman the "right" to murder her unborn child. There's a very simple way to provide this group of people with the right to have their marriages recognized on the federal level and that's by passing a federal law doing so. The constitution clearly doesn't prohibit homosexual matrimony anymore than it condones it (though I'm 100 percent positive that the vast majority of the founders would've never foreseen this specific question being raised and, had they done so, would've almost certainly fallen on the side of it being banned, if for no other reason than the time in which they lived, but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand). I'm a free citizen of the United States of America. People forget that this is a representative republic and that our privilege of voting gives us the right to elect officials that are afforded the ability to restrict practices through legislation. I, personally, believe that there's a clear Biblical track record of judgement upon nations that accept this sort of thing. It's my fundamental right to believe this and it's my fundamental right to vote for someone who is going to represent that belief on the congressional level and on the executive level. Being that this is clearly not a delineated constitutional right, then the congress and executive is free to legally restrict the practice as they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted November 28, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 28, 2012 Are these sufficient good non-religious reasons for stopping same sex marriage? Yet we are on a Christian forum and we are Christians... So more importantly... Bottom line RunningGator: Is homosexuality sin from a Biblical perspective? Please use Scripture to support your answer. God bless, GE Thank you for the links, I will look into them when I have the time. On the surface the biggest issue I see with them is that they compare two unlike things...children of two parent families and those of a single parent (who happens to be gay). I wonder how similar the numbers for kids growing up in single parent household are to the numbers sited for kids of a gay parent. as for your bottom line...yes, homosexuality is a sin..Exodus 20:14 and I Cor. 6:9, 10 cover it. I have never denied this. But in this country we do not base our laws on what the bible tells us are sins, if we did we would all be in jail. Interesting dismissal of the facts calling out a failed argument. But not so fast. The facts are that even with single parent homosexuals as compared to different sex families the results are horrendous for the children. Would you agree? See more information below... From: http://www.frc.org/i...evious-research Pro-homosexual activists respond, "Ah, but most of those studies compared children raised by a married couple with those raised by divorced or single parents--not with homosexual parents." (This is also true--in large part because the homosexual population, and especially the population of homosexuals raising children, is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample.) In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA). Marks debunks the APA's claim that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children." To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive. I'd love to get your thoughts once you take 15-20 minutes to read the article. I'm glad we agree homosexuality is a sin. Then why as a Christian where marriage in the Bible is defined as between one man and one woman would you support the change to marriage to be defined in different terms contrary to the Bible? Why are you siding with pro-homosexual activists? Curious. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 The constitution is clearly silent on this subject. If you have to start making non-implied inferences in order to provide this "right" to a group of people then you have judicial activism. The constitution being silent on a matter means that the matter is not constitutionally protected, I think that's basic legal principle. Judicial activism of the sort that would be required to impart a basic right of marriage to homosexuals is no different than the judicial activism required to give a woman the "right" to murder her unborn child. There's a very simple way to provide this group of people with the right to have their marriages recognized on the federal level and that's by passing a federal law doing so. The constitution clearly doesn't prohibit homosexual matrimony anymore than it condones it (though I'm 100 percent positive that the vast majority of the founders would've never foreseen this specific question being raised and, had they done so, would've almost certainly fallen on the side of it being banned, if for no other reason than the time in which they lived, but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand). I'm a free citizen of the United States of America. People forget that this is a representative republic and that our privilege of voting gives us the right to elect officials that are afforded the ability to restrict practices through legislation. I, personally, believe that there's a clear Biblical track record of judgement upon nations that accept this sort of thing. It's my fundamental right to believe this and it's my fundamental right to vote for someone who is going to represent that belief on the congressional level and on the executive level. Being that this is clearly not a delineated constitutional right, then the congress and executive is free to legally restrict the practice as they see fit. the constitution is silent on marriage, not on equal treatment. But I do agree with the part on bold...this is very true. It is your right and duty to vote how you see fit on the issue. But the same hold true for everone in the country. And if the people vote to include same sex couples in marraige, then that is the way that it will be. No different than when couple of different races were included in to the definition As has been proven already. But I don't equate equal treatment with marriage recognition. Equality, as constitutionally delineated, is already present in the United States. Equal treatment can't extend beyond the constitutional definition of that equality and currently that is basically confined to basic civil rights. Marriage has always been defined through legislation in this country and primarily on a state level. That fact in and of itself shows that jurisprudence hasn't seen fit to include it as an unmentioned constitutional right and doing so now would clearly be taking a politically judicial stance rather than an impartial judicial stance, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 The constitution is clearly silent on this subject. If you have to start making non-implied inferences in order to provide this "right" to a group of people then you have judicial activism. The constitution being silent on a matter means that the matter is not constitutionally protected, I think that's basic legal principle. Judicial activism of the sort that would be required to impart a basic right of marriage to homosexuals is no different than the judicial activism required to give a woman the "right" to murder her unborn child. There's a very simple way to provide this group of people with the right to have their marriages recognized on the federal level and that's by passing a federal law doing so. The constitution clearly doesn't prohibit homosexual matrimony anymore than it condones it (though I'm 100 percent positive that the vast majority of the founders would've never foreseen this specific question being raised and, had they done so, would've almost certainly fallen on the side of it being banned, if for no other reason than the time in which they lived, but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand). I'm a free citizen of the United States of America. People forget that this is a representative republic and that our privilege of voting gives us the right to elect officials that are afforded the ability to restrict practices through legislation. I, personally, believe that there's a clear Biblical track record of judgement upon nations that accept this sort of thing. It's my fundamental right to believe this and it's my fundamental right to vote for someone who is going to represent that belief on the congressional level and on the executive level. Being that this is clearly not a delineated constitutional right, then the congress and executive is free to legally restrict the practice as they see fit. the constitution is silent on marriage, not on equal treatment. But I do agree with the part on bold...this is very true. It is your right and duty to vote how you see fit on the issue. But the same hold true for everone in the country. And if the people vote to include same sex couples in marraige, then that is the way that it will be. No different than when couple of different races were included in to the definition Entirely different than racial equality and it is what I have been stating. You are talking about discrimination and in so doing upholding my earlier statements. You are making a case for eqaul ttreatment under the law for a basic human right that does not exist especially when homosexuality is a choice, as you have admitted. No one is being denied any right by denying homosexual marriage because no is forced by birth to live in that minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 Entirely different than racial equality and it is what I have been stating. You are talking about discrimination and in so doing upholding my earlier statements. You are making a case for eqaul ttreatment under the law for a basic human right that does not exist especially when homosexuality is a choice, as you have admitted. No one is being denied any right by denying homosexual marriage because no is forced by birth to live in that minority. for the 10th time or so, I am not and never have been talking about discrimination. I am making the case that if the Govt is going to deny benefits to one group they give to another there needs to be a compelling reason. However, you just said this; No different than when couple of different races were included in to the definition There's a huge difference between denying an interacial couple and denying a Homosexual one. The interacial couple did not choose their race and thus deserve basic human rights afforded in the Constitution. The Homosexual has those same rights a s a human being. However, They do no have extra rights afforded their lifestyle choice. That is the argument that you are making. That all people have to be treated equal under the law and what I am saying is that they currently are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 Entirely different than racial equality and it is what I have been stating. You are talking about discrimination and in so doing upholding my earlier statements. You are making a case for eqaul ttreatment under the law for a basic human right that does not exist especially when homosexuality is a choice, as you have admitted. No one is being denied any right by denying homosexual marriage because no is forced by birth to live in that minority. for the 10th time or so, I am not and never have been talking about discrimination. I am making the case that if the Govt is going to deny benefits to one group they give to another there needs to be a compelling reason. However, you just said this; No different than when couple of different races were included in to the definition There's a huge difference between denying an interacial couple and denying a Homosexual one. The interacial couple did not choose their race and thus deserve basic human rights afforded in the Constitution. The Homosexual has those same rights a s a human being. However, They do no have extra rights afforded their lifestyle choice. That is the argument that you are making. That all people have to be treated equal under the law and what I am saying is that they currently are. and this is what SCOTUS will determine Unfortunately and in accords with their Leftist trend of late they will likely create a special class of protection for the Homosexual that will open the floodgates that Cajun mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts