The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I love this line: "Government already has taken too much control in our families."  Wouldn't the government tightening the reigns on marriage be MORE government control on families? 

It's all spin.

None of the reasons listed in this video are good reasons for making this illegal.  Should we not legalize black/white marriage because tolerance of interracial marriage may be taught in school?  At one time, people would be upset if their kids were taught that blacks and whites can marry...and that wasn't so long ago.

This is just another long line of civil rights issues.

I love this line: "Government already has taken too much control in our families."  Wouldn't the government tightening the reigns on marriage be MORE government control on families? 

Be very careful with how you vote on Amendment 2.  Whether you're for gay marriage or against it, Amendment 2 is NOT about that.  Amendment 2 encompasses MORE than just gay marriage, and would have a SEVERE impact on MY life if passed. 

If you are against gay marriage, fine, you have your opinion, but Amendment 2 is NOT the vehicle to voice your vote. 

I can't view this link right now because I'm at work. I'll view it later though and respond.

Taking what Brian said, I don't think that a law should be passed restricting the rights of unmarried couples to cohabitate. (That's what I got from your post, and an earlier post by either you or Phishfan. If I'm wrong in this interpretation, I apologize.)

Black white marriages do not require a book to explain.  There should be no explanation at all.

Because of the law that was passed in Mass allowing same sex marriages,  schools are teaching kids about same sex relationships starting in Kindergarden ... complete with books. They are teaching them it is acceptable and normal.  They have no duty to notify parents or to limit conversations because the topic is a legal law.  Parents have no choice to opt out of this learning so all kids are taught his regardless of how the parent wants to raise their child.

If your daughters read about it in a book at school, they're not going to be licking pussies tomorrow.  They'll be fine.

This was not a sentiment shared by much of the country 50 years ago.

Gay marriage is the same thing as black/white marriage.  Socially, certain people aren't ready for it, but it's happening, so get on bored, or grow old and die bitter and angry.

Anti-gay marriage = hate.   Let people who love either other get married and be happy, and take care of your own.  If your daughters read about it in a book at school, they're not going to be licking pussies tomorrow.  They'll be fine.

I also don't want teachers teaching my kids that partying and orgies are ok even though it is legal. Having my kids learn that gay marriages are to be accepted as normal is like your kids being taught Jesus is Lord in school.  It's a moral issue and doesn't need to be discussed at school.

There isn't a single argument that the anti-gay marriage folks are making today that wasn't made to defend the anti-miscegenation statutes at the time of and before Loving v. Virginia. 

No it's not.  More government means that the government has more power, whether that's socially or fiscally.  You can spin to justify whether it's worth it or just in either case, but it's still more government.

I'm not against more government in all cases, but to complain about how the government already controls families too much, and then talk about how they should enforce controls on marriage is totally counter-intuitive.

Whether or not the same arguments are made does not mean that both positions are constitutionally invalid.  Furthermore, I would like you to find me where in Loving it talks about "redefining" marriage, like anti-gay marriage folks claim the courts are doing today.

One more thing: you know that race is a suspect class in equal protection jurisprduence. Not so with sexual orientation laws.

I'll tell you the truth ... I really have no issue with it but according to the God I follow, it is absolutley as wrong as any other sin and I couldn't ever accept other sins to be "normal" either.  With that said I do take issue with them teaching about it in school.

No it is spin because I bet you are not against more government in ALL cases.

If we sat down and talked I am sure I could find some type of program that you personally don't consider more government, but someone else would. That is my point. Everyone considers the programs & policies they are against as forcing more government, but they don't see it that way for programs & policies they do support.

Taking what Brian said, I don't think that a law should be passed restricting the ability of unmarried couples to cohabitate. (That's what I got from your post, and an earlier post by either you or Phishfan. If I'm wrong in this interpretation, I apologize.)

Of course it redefined marriage.  Virginia did not allow the inferior and superior races to interbreed. As to allow such as act was an abomination against god. 

"Allowing a white and negro to marry would be no different than allowing a man and horse to marry."

But I will agree with you that sexual orientation is not nor can become a suspect class.  Nor do I advocate extending Loving to homosexual marriages. 

I believe states should continue to define who can get married in their state.  Some states allow cousins to marry some don't.  That is a state decision.  I do not believe the federal gov't should be involved.  Meaning that if Mass or CA issue a marriage license than the person should be considered married for the purposes of social security, taxes etc. 

Also just as is the case where one state allows cousins to marry and another state doesn't the contracts clause requires all states to recognize the marriage. 

So while I don't want the S.Ct to extend Loving and rule all states must allow homosexual marriages to be preformed in their state, I do believe all states must accept the marriages of anyone who is lawfully married in another.
 
That is my legalistic point of view. 

My pointing out that the same arguments were made is to explain that the hate has not changed. 

Prop 2 doesn't really restrict cohabitation. It is worded in such a way as it could allow organizations to retract things such as hospital visitations, insurance, etc. It leaves a very large loophole that can be exploited to take things away from any unmarried couple, straight or gay. Think of how many our senior citizens who have built a relationship in these assisted living facilities.

I don't buy that last sentence at all. Trying to invalidate arguments by associating them with other bogus arguments is a very easy and quite efffective way to undermine your opponent's position. And you're too smart not to know that.

As for hate... well, I don't know. I mean, I have no doubt there may be some people out there that hate homosexuals because they're dumb. All I can say is that I don't. Back in the day, I was part of the GSA on College of Charleston's campus. What's the GSA? The Gay-Straight Alliance. I was a card-carrying member. I still carry around the CofC's GSA's former president's business card in my pocket every day. I stuck with that group even after my conversion. But I can't advocate for their political positions to become settled law. That, in my opinion, would destroy the family moreso than it has already been destroyed by a half century of assaults.

Now, I'd like to say one thing as to redefining marriage: the Loving court never said it was redefining marriage. The word "redefine" does not appear in the Loving opinion. The fact is, there is a long history, to time immemorial, of interracial marriages happening. Not only here in the states, but back in England too. People were not just English, after all, they were french-english, scottish-english, irish-english, hungarian-english, Italian-Irish (like me), and on and on. It is right out impossible when looking at the history of anglo-american law to say that interracial marriage hasn't always had tacit legal acceptance for all time except in the 80 or so years following the american Civil War. The antipathy towards interracial marriage is the anomaly there. But try finding the same historical pedigree for gay marriage. It's nowhere to be found. Even abortion has a better pedigree than that.

In short, the difference is clear. Courts are fundamentally altering marriage here. The Supreme Court was not doing so in Loving. Case closed.

If your daughters read about it in a book at school, they're not going to be licking pussies tomorrow.  They'll be fine.

Whether the S. Ct. said in their opinion they were redefining marriage or not, they were redefining the defining of marriage in the state of VA and many other states.

And you are the one moving the goal posts. The question before us here today is not should the S. Ct. extend Loving. 

It is about voting on particular state referendums.  And the arguments one why one should vote to be homophobic are the exact same arguments made against Loving.    They were based on hate, and pushing ones own religious views on other then as they are now. 

I see. I think it'd be unconstitutional the same as Moore v. City of East Cleveland was then.

http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/moorecity.shtml

the briefs on 4lawschool.com are horrible.  don't trust that site.  most are written by first term law students and ones that I really wonder if they made it to second term. 

I see. I think it'd be unconstitutional the same as Moore v. City of East Cleveland was then.

http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/moorecity.shtml

Do you not think voting on the opposite side can be construed as hatred of some religion's ban on homosexual sodomy, and the pushing of one's religious views about sex on another group?

No, not at all.  The law doesn't require anyone to engage in homosexual activity. 

My religion bans the mixing of meat and milk.  I would oppose making it federal law that one can not mix meat and milk.  Cause although mixing meat and milk in my religion is a sin, I am not going to try and impose that restriction on others.

Is anyone proposing a federal law here? No. Look, if there was any valid interest besides egregious religious freedom in your example, then I'd argue for it, but there's not.

That is not the case w/ gay marriage. In the Prop. 8 thread, I believe I came up w/ some good reasons why people desire not to enshine gay marriage as a constitutional right. If you disagree with those reasons, fine. But if you're going to say that all that lies behind those reasons is "irrational religion" then you're being  hardheaded, dogmatic, and disingenuous. I don't doubt there are good, valid reasons for wanting gay marriage to be so enshrined, but I think, in the wash, the interests balance out to the other side. That you do not is fine, but let's not act like rationality is only on one side here.

Name one reason why gay marriage should be banned that isn't the equivalent of "God hates the gays"

If you want to marry your father, go right ahead.

Because it is bigottedly underinclusive. If we are going to say that marriage should be defined as two adults who consent to marry, then we should not merely be considering adding a constitutional right for homosexuals, but also for those adults who would like to marry their brothers, mothers, fathers, and sisters. It is intellectually impossible (and dishonest) to say "I think the constitution requires that marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults" and then to still restrict individuals related that closely by blood from marriage. But no one is talking about them...

Why not?

Indeed, if there is bigotry here (which I concede there is), it is not just on my side, but on yours also.

Every nation that God has blessed started out following Him and slowly became more liberal and hip turning their back on Him.  Once they passed a certain point He allowed their enemies to destroy them. Obviously our country is no different.

Explain to me how you'd do retain such laws (or exclude those those unions from being constitutionally required), without referencing some ancient, irrational religious taboo, and I'll be quite impressed.

Marriage is between to consenting adults that are not related to each other by 3 degrees of sanguinary.

Nice short definitions.

It is not a slippery slope. I am saying you are intellectually compelled to strike down laws against (or in this case enshrine as constitutionally required) unions between blood related family members if you do the same for same-sex couples.

The argument to differentiate homosexual marriage between incestuous marriage is based on the concepts of child abuse, primarily.  ...That incest leads to children that are largely retarded in some fashion.  So, the laws would be similar to those that prevent mothers from consuming mass amounts of alcohol while pregnant.

Incestuous sex is already outlawed.
Gay sex is constitutionally protected.

Ok, well, why that exception? You can't constitutionally enshrine religious bigotry, as you've said. So why still ban incestuous unions from marrying?

Almost all incestuous relationships come about from an abuse by one family member on another and state has an compelling interest in protecting children from child abuse and rape.
   

Neither gay marriage nor incestuous marriage are, as of yet, federally constitutionally protected. Your logic is fine, but irrelelvant in this context.

The sames reasons that constitution protects homosexual activity but doesn't protect incest, apply to why we can have marriages for one and not the other. 

But not all. A lot of gay relationships come from the domination of a minor by an older man. But that is not a good reason for banning them.

Your religion is showing, hoodie.

Well, if they do, go ahead and state what those reasons are then.

Not sure why you are playing dumb on this, but I guess I'll spell it out:

The Supreme Court has determined that homosexual activity is protected under the Constitution.  They have made no such finding with regard to incestuous sexual activity.  Therefore, any comparison between homosexual marriage and incestuous marriage is inherently flawed; one is the expression of a constitutionally-protected relationship, while the other is an expression of one that is outlawed.

Marriage remains an open question. Marriage is what we're talking about here. Not sex in a vacuum. What I am saying is quite simple. If your state constitution is going to define marriage as "between two consenting adults" and nothing more, you've just imploded whatever defense you had against allowing incestuous unions from marrying.

For example, consider the following.

1. State A has no law against incest between adults.
2. But no constitutional enshrinement of incestuous marriages.
3. State A defines marriage as between two consenting adults.
4. An incestuous couple apply for marriage.

What then?

1. Marriage is between 2 consenting adults.
2. But not incestuous adults.

Without giving a reason why, other than "the Court's fiat."

Sure, the states can still criminalize it, but before long, this will get brought before the Court. What will the Court do? Are they going to strike down incest laws? Or are they going to strike down common sense?

Neither is a very desirable predicament. I suggest we stop heading in that direction by sticking with civil unions and nothing more.

It's really interesting to me that this thread showed up on the day I explained what "gay" meant to my 7 and 4 year old daughters and that it was wrong to hate or be mean to someone because of it.

Government already has taken too much control in our families. This is an example of how something seemingly harmless on the surface spills over into everyone's life. Once something becomes law it opens Pandora's box.   Legalizing same sex marriages affects every child and every family and this is what bothers Christians ... and not what goes on behind closed doors.


http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

It's really interesting to me that this thread showed up on the day I explained what "gay" meant to my 7 and 4 year old daughters and that it was wrong to hate or be mean to someone because of it.

Good for you!

Tis the season where kids also get confused that the word "gay" has more than one meaning.... "Deck the Halls"  I recall giggling about that song in middle school. 

You mean like when the Roman Empire enjoyed centuries of domination, then fell under the blade shortly after the emperor converted to Christianity?

Saying something funny doesn't make you right but I guess it gives you and your cronies the feeling of victory.  Congrats to you.

Laughter is the voice of God

Don't use the word God on this board.  You use the correct term "omnipotent being" 

MyOmnipotentBeingWearsAHoodie doesn't have the same ring to it.  Sorry.   

Be very careful with how you vote on Amendment 2.  Whether you're for gay marriage or against it, Amendment 2 is NOT about that.  Amendment 2 encompasses MORE than just gay marriage, and would have a SEVERE impact on MY life if passed. 

Don't use the word God on this board.  You use the correct term "omnipotent being" 

I can use the word unicorn in a sentence without believing in them as well...and please feel free to extract the wadded panties out of the crack of your self-righteous ass at any time.

Have a pleasant day! ;D

I can use the word unicorn in a sentence without believing in them as well...and please feel free to extract the wadded panties out of the crack of your self-righteous ass at any time.

Have a pleasant day! ;D

Given that marriage has involved family members for longer than it hasn't (should we even mention the Bible?), I don't think the whole "redefinining marriage" schtick really even applies here, anyway.
1. It is legal to own a plant.
2. But not certain plants.

To borrow your argument:  if gay sex is legal, then why shouldn't incestuous sex be?  So instead of bothering with outlawing homosexual marriage, we should be working on outlawing homosexuality itself, which would not only necessarily eliminate the problem of gay marriage, but also take us off of the slippery slope that inevitably must lead to fathers marrying their daughters (or sons, for that matter).

Of course, the pesky Constitution has already thrown a wrench into that plan... which explains why we are here today, trying to outlaw gay marriage instead.

I want to point out something that Brian said that's absolutely right.  Even if you oppose gay marriage, the Constitution (state or national) isn't the proper place for that.

The constitution should grant rights to the citizens or limit the state.  If you want to ban gay marriage, just make a law about it.  Don't put it in the constitution, no matter how you feel about it.

I want to point out something that Brian said that's absolutely right.  Even if you oppose gay marriage, the Constitution (state or national) isn't the proper place for that.

The constitution should grant rights to the citizens or limit the state.  If you want to ban gay marriage, just make a law about it.  Don't put it in the constitution, no matter how you feel about it.

Trivia question:  name the only amendment to the US constitution that took away rights?   

Prohibition. The 18th.

^^ Yeah, and it was repealed because it was:

1) stupid
2) not the place for it

----


It doesn't matter anyway.  This amendment is only temporary, if it does pass.  Nationally, whatever the decision is will override the states.  You can't have some states recognizing them and others not, I don't think.  We'll all have to be on the same page eventually.

I think even the conservatives realize gay marriage will become a reality eventually.  The only question is it going to be this decade or if they can stall it for 25 years. 

I think that more people in the country support a ban on gay marriage than don't.  So, I think they'll be successful in stalling it, but the trend is overwhelmingly towards pro gay-marriage.  It might take a 25 years...but it'll happen.

Both of y'all hold on a minute. Temperment towards homosexuals ebbs and flows in this country. In the 70's, homosexuals were quickly gaining acceptance, and many of teh adoption laws were re-written. In the 1980s, along with the AIDS crisis and other cultural shifts, all those gained rights were swept away. From the mid-90s onward, we've been shifting back towards granting homosexuals greater rights.

As it stands, history will continuously shift back and forth. What we are in favor of today we will desecrate tomorrow. They may very well gain marriage rights. But they will eventually lose them again.

I would like to also point out that when you push democracy too hard, when you force change too quickly (i.e. through a quick court decision, rather than generations of education) all you're going to get is anger and dissention. Abortion, for example, rips this country in two. I would be very careful, were I a court, before granting anyone anymore rights until I was sure the country was flaccid enough not to protest them.

I want to point out something that Brian said that's absolutely right.  Even if you oppose gay marriage, the Constitution (state or national) isn't the proper place for that.

The constitution should grant rights to the citizens or limit the state.  If you want to ban gay marriage, just make a law about it.  Don't put it in the constitution, no matter how you feel about it.

Absolutely there will be ebbs and flows that certainly has been the case with the civil rights movement and the women's movement. 

ERA failed in the 70s but for the most part either through S. Ct case, federal law, and state law it has pretty much become the law of the land.   

The KKK and Jim Crow laws were a backlash against blacks getting more rights.  Affirmative action has resulted in both steps forward in some case and increased racism and discrimination in other cases. 

And I do think that in some cases courts going to far to fast has resulted in more backlash than if things went slower.  And sometimes the wrong test case is brought. 

So no, I don't think it will be a straight line to gay equality.  But I do expect that 50 years from now we will look back and view those who opposed gay marriage the same way most of us look on Virginia's law banning interracial marriage today and wonder what was the big deal.  Will the road to get there be pretty?  Hell no, it will be ugly with violence and hate on both sides.  But if history is any sort of judge we will get there, for the same reason why we have seen success in the women's movement and civil rights movement.   

We passed that dumb ass Amendment about caging pigs a few years ago.

We passed that dumb ass Amendment about caging pigs a few years ago.

Yes, of course. But explain to me the reason behind it, as you must be able to when the law gets facially challenged as unconstitutional. You'll be able to give me a host of reasons for the law you list above. But as for outlawing incest, there are none you can give that aren't demonstrably unusable in every situation.

My contention is this: sure, the Court can, and probably will not extend marriage rights to incestuous couples, but not for long. They can't. It's pure dishonesty to try to say that there is any compelling secular reason out there to deny marriage rights to incestuous couples if you're going to extend them to homosexuals. This is a point I believe you missed.

Because as I said before, privacy concerns override in the area of sexual activity. The police shouldn't be able to peep in your windows, no matter who you are.

Don't use the word God on this board.  You use the correct term "omnipotent being"