Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

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.

Funny thing, it says in the end times that people will outlaw marriage. Didn't say who that marriage would be between. How can man outlaw a relationship? What if the government decided that marriage between a man and a woman was illegal, would that mean that those relationships were not marriages? Marriage laws are state laws, my reference to the federal law was also true; but, it applied to people who were not married to each other. It was called the Mann Act, I just remembered the name.Wikipedia - Mann Act. Peace.

Originally posted by Theimp
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

Is the camel a consenting adult?

Yes, he's met the parents and everything, they're fine with it.

Yuri tells the truth about Cultural Marxism



He says the very people who were involved in the demoralization and bringing about lack of moral standards will be sacrificed and they will even be very unhappy by the reality of the "society of equality" it brings in practice.

reply to post by AQuestion

Funny thing, it says in the end times that people will outlaw marriage

hmmm, are you referring to some passage in Revelation?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Funny thing, it says in the end times that people will outlaw marriage

hmmm, are you referring to some passage in Revelation?

Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

I Timothy 4:1-3 "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 a rule I choose not to quote chapter and verse and discuss issues; but, you asked me. The statement is actually from Timothy. It is ironic in that the bible also says that the end times will be the same as the time of Noah with men and women marrying.

Marriage is a Union between opposite sexes and must be physically consummated to be valid. A homosexual couple can never consummate a heterosexual union....ergo, gays are only entitled to be recognized as having civil unions with the benefits of being considered family (ie, for hospital visitations) and for passing on property and other marriage like benefits BUT society can not be forced to recognize such unions as a "marriage" per se while at the same time decriminalizing heretofore illegal behavior (ie, sodomy). A church; therefore, can not be coerced to conduct said unions and recognize them. I have gays in my extended family and my network of friends and they will disagree with me but those are my thoughts and I have thought about this at length. Ultimately the purpose of marriage is to form nuclear family bonds and to propagate the species (admittedly elderly couples cannot procreate but late in life marriages do support the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman).


if we allow same sex unions to be recognized as marriage then why not plural heterosexual marriage (among consenting adults) and why not extend that sanction to incest as long as the couples take measures not to reproduce and if we get used to those unions for a generation or two then why not allow plural homosexual or incestual "marriages".....where does one draw the line?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
.....where does one draw the line?

Obviously with the consenting adult camel that's met the parents (and they're okay with it) of the schizophrenic lesbian.

reply to post by SamaraTen


Lets just call off marriage all together !!!! What does it really matter anyway ? Does a certificate and GOVERNMENT benefits make you

A. More committed ?
B. Less likely to cheat?
C. Less likely to fight?
D. less likely to split up ?
E. Less likely to to abuse?
F. less likely to have kids you don't want and can abuse ?

Let's get real here. Just knock it off. The only exception here is question F. Straight people get knocked up with kids they don't want and abuse the # out of them. I guarantee 98% of all abuse cases were kids conceived heterosexually ......go look it up.

Your worried about gay people adopting kids???? Or oohhhh they might make tax breaks to gay married couples . GET over yourselves.

Marriage is a Union between opposite sexes and must be physically consummated to be valid.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


That is purely objective as anyone can have sex: I'm pretty sure you have religious doctrine to tell you; which makes this null and void.

gays are only entitled to be recognized as having civil unions with the benefits of being considered family (ie, for hospital visitations) and for passing on property and other marriage like benefits BUT society can not be forced to recognize such unions as a "marriage" per se while at the same time decriminalizing heretofore illegal behavior (ie, sodomy)

What? So a different vocabulary under the law and the same rights? Sodomy is a sin???? There is a whole lot of heterosexual couples in trouble here. What about lesbians?

A church; therefore, can not be coerced to conduct said unions and recognize them

Oh no . You Should be relieved that you aren't the only religion out there and many people of many faiths can be ordained and witness marriage. So sorry.

f we allow same sex unions to be recognized as marriage then why not plural heterosexual marriage (among consenting adults) and why not extend that sanction to incest as long as the couples take measures not to reproduce and if we get used to those unions for a generation or two then why not allow plural homosexual or incestual "marriages".....where does one draw the line?

Nice one ! Is this not the thesis of your entire charade? Because if we legalize gay marriage, everyone is going to wanna marry their cousin!

If homosexuals need the 'right'to marry, then so do those who want to marry their pet, those who want multiple wives and those who want to marry their daughter.

Why do I say this? because homosexuals say it's all about 'LOVE'.

So are they saying that only homosexuals love their partners and that other heterosexual people don't love their sheep, multiple partners, cousins, mothers or daughters?

Homosexuals are bigots and intolerant of anything else but what THEY want. They are not for 'human rights' just for whats rights suits them.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Christian Voice

 

So... you're equating gay people with animals?

Well, they like to say that animals do it...animals also eat their young.

I do love it whenever somebody quotes Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....

Yes you do have the right to Pursue Happiness.....you do not have the Right to AUTOMATICALLY BE MADE HAPPY.

You can pursue happiness until you are blue in the face, no one will stop you.

Will you ever find it? Do you have the right to find it? Should Happiness be bestowed upon everyone by the government?

Or is it more reasonable to say you can pursue it as much as you like. Your chances of finding it are equal to that of everyone else.

reply to post by pacifier2012


No, and as any person with a rational cognitive process will understand, they want to be able to have a marriage between two consenting adults within the bounds of the law and benefit from the same rights as any other married couple.

Currently it is LEGAL to be homosexual, it is ILLEGAL to copulate with an animal / child / family member.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Actually, it is very much on topic and not ignorant. If we allow and promote homosexual marriage, then shouldn't we also allow and promote polygamy, polyandry, brothers and sisters getting married, pedophiliacs marrying children, and adults marrying animals?

If not, why not?

Because if you can't answer the "why not" question then the stance is inadiquate. However, if you can, then the same logic could be used against homosexuals redefining marrage.

reply to post by Truth_Hz


Oh because they WANT it...well, i want 1 million dollars tax free in small unmarked bills dumped in my living room...I have the right to want it, the right to pursue getting it, i have the right to speak freely about it, ....but I have no actual right to have it just because i WANT it. I'm no more entitled to it than they are. And until things change through the system we have (however faulty at times) thats the way it is.

They can pursue this endeavor as much as they will, that is their right.
And I would never stand in their way to exercise those rights.
But no one has the right to be given success.

reply to post by Instructoralpha


They are not after a right to success, they are after a right to EQUALITY! Are you saying these people are not your equals? Are you saying that they should not have the same rights in life as you? Because that is how it comes across. Just because you don't agree with homosexuality does that therefore mean that you are better than them?

Typical knee jerk reaction from someone who doesn't have a clue about any of the issues but is inherently homophobic (but let me guess, you have a friend who is gay right?)

This thread is getting silly can you all stop comparing homosexuality to pedos and animal sex?
If you can not see that marrying children and animals have nothing to do with the subject you are fools, an animal and a child are not consenting adults and that is what we are talking about consenting adults wanting to be treated equally.
The bigotry in this thread is sickening.

reply to post by Truth_Hz


The issue is not the legality of the behavior, because that can be changed. The issue is changing what it means to be married. Now, if homosexuals can change that definition based on lifestyle, why can't other groups do the same?

Its not about legal rights at this point, if it were we would be talking about civil unions. Because civil unions are not enough. The agenda wishes to mold society to its will and change what it means to be married. To redefine the meaning of marrage.

reply to post by Siberbat


No again, it does not matter, Civil unions do not afford the rights that people who are married benefit from. It is as simple as that.

It is purely about equality not the institution of marriage. Why should someone who is married be treated differently from someone who is in a Civil Partnership because they are not allowed to marry?

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by Truth_Hz

 

The issue is not the legality of the behavior, because that can be changed. The issue is changing what it means to be married. Now, if homosexuals can change that definition based on lifestyle, why can't other groups do the same?

Its not about legal rights at this point, if it were we would be talking about civil unions. Because civil unions are not enough. The agenda wishes to mold society to its will and change what it means to be married. To redefine the meaning of marrage.

So you mean exactly what was done for interracial marriages? It was once illegal for them to marry too... based on the same bigotry and hypocrisy.