Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

reply to post by SamaraTen


Dear SamaraTen,

Marriage is an act before God. I'm not sure how God can honor same sex marriage, when He considers it an ABOMINATION. If HE didn't detest it, why would it have been written? Why did the author use it as an example? Maybe because it goes against God's will?

We are not talking about what God approve of, we are talking about what contracts governments will enforce. I do not need the government's blessing to me married in the eyes of God. I also do not need a churches blessing to be married. Do you believe Adam and Ever were married? People did not go to the government to get married in the Old Testament. The government enforces contracts, it does not prove God blesses something.

Now as for your use of the word abomination, that is an incorrect translation. A better translation is repulsed, it is used to also describe eating shellfish. So, go and check the words being translated with a nice Concordance and see other places it was used. In either case, why should non-believers have to live by the rules that apply to believers, the gentiles did not have live by Jewish law.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Theimp
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Gays are not being assaulted and killed.

Bull. Utter nonsense. Ive posted plenty of links in the past in response to this ridiculous claim.

I dont even know how to response to such a lie...as it shows that the person who holds this belief either has not been paying attention, or is a flat out liar...

I like how you ignore the entire post and use the last line out of context. You should work for MSM.

reply to post by Theimp


Off topic but Isn't Dinklage the best looking small dude ever

Originally posted by Theimp

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Theimp
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Gays are not being assaulted and killed.

Bull. Utter nonsense. Ive posted plenty of links in the past in response to this ridiculous claim.

I dont even know how to response to such a lie...as it shows that the person who holds this belief either has not been paying attention, or is a flat out liar...

I like how you ignore the entire post and use the last line out of context. You should work for MSM.

Out of context? How so? It was not out of context when you defended the statement to another poster.

The truth is, if this is your view, there is no point in discussing the topic any further than that. Gay people, teens especially, are bullied and assaulted at a much higher rate than any group other than black people.

Here is what passed while everyone was busy with gay marriage:

'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

reply to post by captaintyinknots


It was taken out of context because I was comparing deaths and assaults to that of the civil rights movement not saying that there aren't hate crimes committed. You would know this because you read both the statement which I was responding to and my statement directly after the one that we're discussing.

reply to post by AQuestion

The government enforces contracts, it does not prove God blesses something.

True. And the contract of marriage came about for a reason, n'est ce pas? Exclusivity, birthright of children, preservation of material wealth, etc...

reply to post by boymonkey74


He's an amazing actor

reply to post by Theimp


You are right It is such a none issue, simply put people should just accept equality for gay people but people are not so others are trying to fight that.

reply to post by Theimp

Not taken out of context at all. I quoted exactly what you said. You had to come back and clarify the statement because you knew that it was a poor statement.

You're implying that, since its not on the scale of the civil rights movement, its not important enough of an issue to do something about. Since all the opponents of gay marriage like to bring up the 5% of the population statistic, lets think about this for a second....if gay people make up only 5% of the population, OF COURSE there arent as many gay people getting beaten or killed a there were blacks during the civil rights movement.

Simple percentages dictate that there HAS to be less, as there is a smaller number of them overall.

That does not, in any way, negate the fact that they are targeted at an alarming rate, and one that should not be as easily swept under the rug as you would seem to like to do.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Theimp

 

You are right It is such a none issue, simply put people should just accept equality for gay people but people are not so others are trying to fight that.

I agree with your point, but the question that I ask is: why now? America is in the middle of 3 wars, 16 trillion dollars in debt, double-digit unemployment, a housing crisis, a failing education system, failing infrastructure, complete loss of manufacturing, all while illegals rush into the country with insane drug cartels behind them. And the top priority in America? GAY MARRIAGE!

Do you understand how insane that is? The American people refuse to have a voice on any of the issues I've listed above, but they will come out in droves to support GAY MARRIAGE! The nation is literally falling apart in front of our eyes and Americans continue to sit there like a bloated zombie waving their stupid flag. All I ask is some sense of priority here.

Originally posted by Theimp
Here is what passed while everyone was busy with gay marriage:

'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

TheImp-lication ( see what i did there) being that if one is concerned with equal rights for gay people, they have to be ignoring all other news at that time?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I want to see where these people are being targeted at an alarming rate to the point where crosses are being burned on their lawn or their entire families are being tortured and killed. Where is the segregation? I don't see schools or for "gays only". I don't see restaurants refusing service to gays. I don't see gays having to walk around the back of the store to pick up scraps. I don't see entire sections of town dedicated to housing gays to keep them away from the rest of the people.

No, what I do see is kids doing what kids have always done. That less than 5% number? It's because it's not normal. And kids make fun of things that aren't normal. It's called bullying and it's always been there. This isn't a new thing targeted solely at gays. Aside from that, where is the alarming rates? Where is the business that refuses to hire gays? Where is the discrimination other than on this single issue?

The gay community is not being denied life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. They are being denied marriage, and while I don't agree with it, NOW IS NOT THE TIME!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Theimp
Here is what passed while everyone was busy with gay marriage:

'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

TheImp-lication ( see what i did there) being that if one is concerned with equal rights for gay people, they have to be ignoring all other news at that time?

The msm has been showing nothing but gay marriage the past 3 days while this slips through quietly.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by AQuestion

 

The government enforces contracts, it does not prove God blesses something.

True. And the contract of marriage came about for a reason, n'est ce pas? Exclusivity, birthright of children, preservation of material wealth, etc...

Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

Actually, I will disagree in part. The government regulates marriage so that if people divorce, the government can avoid having to help one of the parties (in the past it was the woman, they didn't want to pay her welfare if she had stayed at home and was not employable). Having a government approved marriage does not ensure exclusivity, that the children are yours or that wealth is preserved anymore. We have no fault divorce in all the states now. Government sanctioned marriage really only means that the government gets a say in the divorce.

I have said it before, I think gays that want to get married by the government are crazy. The truth is that the ones that did get married have a higher divorce then anyone else. In California, if you have been married ten years then for the rest of your life you can be held responsible for paying alimony. I do not promote government sanctioned marriage, I actually think it is a mistake to involve the government in the bedroom in any way.

As for "marriage" itself. It is a commitment to be together for life. It is made before God, not man. In many places they have "common law" marriage where if you live with a member of the opposite sex, it is presumed that you are married even if you have taken no vows.There was once a federal law that made it a felony to travel to another state and have sex with a woman you were not married to, even if you were both over 18 and single. Now, if people wish the benefits of government sanctioned marriage (tax deductions, right of inheritance), it is just a contract and all people should be allowed to benefit from that contract regardless if they are gay or straight, in my opinion.

reply to post by AQuestion


Interesting post. I said the "contract" came about for various reasons, but it wasn't always government mandated.

Having a government approved marriage does not ensure exclusivity, that the children are yours or that wealth is preserved anymore.

True, marriage has not kept people from having affairs. However, the institution of marriage still exists for the preservation of such on some level. There really is no guarantee of anything, and certainly not by government, which is why I don't buy into the nanny state concept of government taking care of us all cradle to grave. Constitutionally speaking, individual states had laws on the books rather than the Constitution delineating the rights of marriage. States instead delineated what people could or couldn't do.

In the United States, civil marriage is governed by state law. Each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state's own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Traditionally, a marriage was considered valid if the requirements of the marriage law of the state where the marriage took place were fulfilled. (First Restatement of Conflicts on Marriage and Legitimacy s.121 (1934)). However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. (Restatement (Second) Of Conflict of Laws § 283(2) (1971).) States historically exercised this "public policy exception" by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages, incestuous marriages, and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws against same-sex marriage can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed elsewhere.

en.wikipedia.org...

People are correct in that marriage itself as an institution isn't delineated as a Constitutional right in the sense that the Constitution may declare it a right, but rather, the lack of laws against marriage would be protected by the Constitution, just as the execution of individual state laws are Constitutionally allowable.
I'm guessing that traditional marriages as an institution was not challenged when the Constitution was ratified and set in motion, nor when the Bill of Rights was set in motion.
Here's some more interesting legal stuff

Federal courts have interpreted the U.S. Constitution to place some limits on states' ability to restrict access to marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court overturned state marriage laws that barred interracial marriages on the basis that marriage is a "basic civil right..." and that "...the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." The Supreme Court struck down a 1992 Colorado constitutional amendment that barred legislative and judicial remedies to protect homosexuals from discrimination solely on the basis of their sexual orientation in Romer v. Evans.

en.wikipedia.org...


I think our Founding Fathers were somewhat libertarian/liberal in regards to what they felt the Constitution should or should not allow or disallow, but I think that gay rights may not have been in the forefront of their minds.

reply to post by Theimp

I want to see where these people are being targeted at an alarming rate to the point where crosses are being burned on their lawn

Like this?
www.theindychannel.com...

"Even as a straight person... if I saw those things I would be appalled," said student Jenn Harmless.

Or this?
www.kvue.com...

EVERMAN, Texas — A gay couple who spoke out about discrimination has become the target of what police are labeling a hate crime, after threatening vandalism was found at their home.

or maybe you should just look at this:
www.google.com... w=1054&bih=592

or their entire families are being tortured and killed.

So lack of enitre families being tortured means its ok? No, the bigots dont usually torture and kill the whole family, they just do it to singular targets like Mathew Shepard

Matthew Wayne Shepard (December 1, 1976 – October 12, 1998) was an American student at the University of Wyoming who was tortured and murdered near Laramie, Wyoming in October 1998. He was attacked on the night of October 6–7, and died a few days later at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado, on October 12 from severe head injuries.

en.wikipedia.org...

Where is the segregation? I don't see schools or for "gays only". I don't see restaurants refusing service to gays.

Like this?
mynorthwest.com...

Aaron Klein, who runs the bakery with his wife, says same-sex marriage goes against his Christian faith so he would not make a wedding cake for the couple.

or this?
voices.yahoo.com...

In recent news actress Leisha Hailey was kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight after kissing her girlfriend.

or this?
www.peacock-panache.com...

Arlene's Flowers - a florist in Richland, WA - is facing national scrutiny after refusing service to a gay couple. Barronelle Stuzman, the owner of Arelene's Flowers, says she believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and expresses those beliefs through her business practices. In referencing the discriminatory refusal of service, she said, "And I just took his hands and I said I'm sorry I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ."

I don't see gays having to walk around the back of the store to pick up scraps. I don't see entire sections of town dedicated to housing gays to keep them away from the rest of the people.

No, but many, MANY gays have to hide who they are so as to avoid negative attention. And again, are THESE the litmus tests on whether or not it deserves attention?

No, what I do see is kids doing what kids have always done. That less than 5% number? It's because it's not normal.

If it occurs in NATURE, is it not normal? ANd are you really saying that EVERY gay person who wants to be treated equally is a 'kid'?

And kids make fun of things that aren't normal. It's called bullying and it's always been there. This isn't a new thing targeted solely at gays.

Kids make fun of lots of things. Does that mean you condone a child singling someone out because he doesnt understand the other kid? You CONDONE bullying?

Aside from that, where is the alarming rates? Where is the business that refuses to hire gays? Where is the discrimination other than on this single issue?

www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org...
Nearly 9 out of 10 gay teens is bullies. 44% are physically harassed. 22% are assaulted. But they arent targeted....right?

I think with just a couple of quick google searches its been thoroughly shown that your claims of "no discrimination" are utter nonsense.

The gay community is not being denied life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

So they are FREE to get married? So they are FREE to be joined in a loving and HAPPY marriage?

They are being denied marriage, and while I don't agree with it, NOW IS NOT THE TIME!

If not now, when? Or should they sit around until YOU think the time is right, and ignore the fact that they are treated as lesser people in this country until then?

Originally posted by Theimp

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Theimp
Here is what passed while everyone was busy with gay marriage:

'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

TheImp-lication ( see what i did there) being that if one is concerned with equal rights for gay people, they have to be ignoring all other news at that time?

The msm has been showing nothing but gay marriage the past 3 days while this slips through quietly.

You rely on the MSM to fill you in?

...I'm sorry.....

I believe homosexuality to be an illness, in that it is a kind of maladjustment.

Not sure of the cause....genetic, chromosomal, familial, psychological, take your pick, it's not important.

But I think the sensible view is to recognise that it is an illness, because obviously people, and animals in general, are not designed to mate with same-sex members.

And just because a lot of people have this illness (for which, presently at any rate, there exists no cure) doesn't mean we have to pretend otherwise and kowtow to their demands.

If a schizophrenic wants to marry a camel because God told him it's the only way of saving humanity from Martian invasion, do we let him do that?

Or do we try to suppress this urge by way of chemotherapy and rehabilitation?

After all, there's no cure for schizophrenia yet either.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Is the camel a consenting adult?