Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

Saturday Aug 30 Full story: Townhall 907

In all the bad days that opponents of same-sex marriage have had lately, few compare with the one they had this past week in a courtroom in Chicago.

Full Story

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#248 Thursday Sep 4
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to ruffle your feathers Sheeples: You are being treated equally under the law, you can marry a woman just like I can and you can't marry a man just like I can't.
How do you like dishonest ignorance being said to you? Well no one else likes it when you say it to them. I for one certainly don't. Non one else seems to like it either. Why not stop doing it?
Correct, and I have the same right as anyone else to challenge such gender restrictions in court as being unconstitutional. And since those restrictions were found unconstitutional, I was able to marry someone of the same sex, just like anyone else can now marry someone of the same sex.

And any polygamist has the same right as anyone else to challenge the restriction on the number of partners in court as being unconstitutional. If those restrictions are found unconstitutional, then they will have the right to marry numerous partners at once, just as anyone else will be able to marry numerous partners at once.

It's why we have a judiciary.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#249 Thursday Sep 4
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't it more honest to say you support "the law" because you worship the government that made them so?
Nope, that would just be your moronic interpretation.

I don't worship anyone or anything.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#250 Thursday Sep 4
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamists are being denied the right to marry.
Nope, polygamists can marry just like monogamists can marry.

They are being denied the ability to marry multiple partners at once, just like monogamists are.

If you can establish a right to marry multiple partners at once, then EVERYONE will be able to marry multiple partners at once- whether you're a polygamist or a monogamist.

So everyone will be treated equally under the law either way.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#251 Thursday Sep 4
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wellllll....would ya listen to Sheepie.....why he sounds like someone who doesn't want those evil gay....uhhhhhh...poly folks near his family. My my....oh the eye-roh-née!
<quoted text>
Waitaminit! Isn't marriage about being able to marry the one you love, regardless of gender? So why not the ones one loves, regardless of gender? After all, if two lesbians constitute marriage, why it three. Lesbian love is lesbian love.
<quoted text>
Why? If same sex marriage, despite a few scattered historical examples, can be invented, despite its virtual non existence within Western Civilization, not to mention for most of human history, certainly polygamy, a valid form of marriage throughout history, can be legally recognized as long as all parties are consenting.
<quoted text>
No, just a few judges who ignore the constitutional authority of the states to define and regulate marriage.
States still have to define & regulate marriage within the US constitution. So far the federal judges have ruled 20-3 in favor of marriage for same-sex couples. We'll see how it all works out in about a year or so.

If you have a legal argument for polygamy or incest or bestiality, feel free to make that argument in court.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#252 Thursday Sep 4
Reverend Alan wrote:
WeTheSheeple: Nope, we're a constitutional republic- not an anarchist society.
ALAN: Please explain the difference between the two. And also tell us what a "society" is.
Sheep: When you drive down the road or walk down the street or shop in any store, that affects other people. Just about everything we do in life somehow affects other people. That's why societies formed to establish certain guidelines regarding behaviors which affect others.
ALAN: We all breath the same air, you breath my exhale and I breath yours. We both breath the "exhale" of trees. Do we need to mention that only so many people can fit in an elevator? Or that you will probably die if you jump off a tall building? This is all established, water under the bridge. Can we move on?
Sheep: That's merely YOUR OPINION that bullets entering someone else's property is violating their rights.
ALAN: No Sheep, it is a fact if you do not have permission from the property owner.
Sheep: If MY opinion is that it's NOT violating your rights, then who decides who is right?
ALAN: You are back to being intentionally obtuse asking silly questions and trying to waste my time. If you want to be intelligent and discuss something let me know, otherwise it is a waste of time to discuss such things with the likes of you.
Sheep:[Nonsense snipped'
ALAN: I wondered when you would return to being Sheepie.
Feel free to go back to ignoring my comments again.

You tend to run away when you can't refute my points.

Buh-bye

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#254 Thursday Sep 4
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you do not want to discuss anarchy and just as clear is the fact that you will continue to misrepresent what anarchy is. A lot of people have stopped posting, my latest count is over 150 fewer people are participating in the Gay/Lesbian forum now than 9 months ago. I say it is because of you picking fights and being dishonest.
Why do you refuse to discuss the issues honestly? I believe you could if you wanted to and weren't terrified of having to admit that what you believe is wrong.
I always discuss the issues honestly.

It's not my problem you don't like my answers.

In a free society, I have the right to post whatever comments I want regardless of whether you like them.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#255 Thursday Sep 4
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound just like the anti-gay bigots, why?
Because that's what you want to hear.

That's your problem.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#256 Thursday Sep 4
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Your random distribution of words is impossible to sort through.
If you can't comprehend basic English, that's your problem.

May I suggest a remedial course at your local college.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#257 Thursday Sep 4
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
And the reason you make distinctions that do not exist is what? Do you think I do not see that you are playing games here?
If that's what you see, might I suggest an appointment with your optometrist as well.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#258 Thursday Sep 4
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but how...did..he...do IT??!! The nerve of that man...ruling the states have the constitutional authority to define marriage......why....why....th at 's simply too logical.
He allowed his personal bigotry to cloud his judicial judgment.

He's a 70+y/o conservative bigot from Louisiana.

His ruling isn't exactly unexpected.

He also apparently re-wrote the 14th amendment to apply only to race.

Talk about judicial activism...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#259 Thursday Sep 4
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"ACTIVISM"? Really? If,anything he returned to the state the authority to define and regulate marriage per the 10th amendment! Odd how you have no issue with a state legislature, or voter referendum, recognizing SSM, but heaven forbid, the voters or the legislatures vote to maintain conjugal monogamist marriage. So which would you prefer, no state authority to define marriage as they see fit, high would include SSM if they so choose, or a DOMA, no SSM at all?
<quoted text>
Nor you, me, Nor Callie.....funny I had thought the same about you, and you didn't disappoint. Salud!
If states had sole authority to define & regulate marriage, then inter-racial marriages would still be banned in many states.

The SCOTUS has made it clear states don't have that authority.

If you see this as a big come from behind victory in the making, you're only going to be disappointed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#261 Thursday Sep 4
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is saying polygamy doesn't have to go through judiciary process to become legal, we are simply asking you why you think it should be illegal. So far you've told us that polygamy is legalized mass child rape. But legalizing polygamy won't legalize mass child rape you dope! So what other lame ass excuses ya got to deny people you hate marriage freedom?
Waiting for your valid argument against polygamy........
::::::::::crickets chirping::::::::::
Might I suggest you call Ortho for your cricket infestation.

Who said I think polygamy should be illegal?

I think polygamy WILL remain illegal, but I personally don't care either way.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#263 Thursday Sep 4
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
A single base run in a 21 to 0 game is hardly a win.
Well, since you say so, it must be true.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#264 Thursday Sep 4
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
The point of the 10th Amendment is to limit the *government's* reach, not to limit personal freedom, which is exactly what bans on equal protection do.
Why is it that bigots have no issue with using the legislature to limit *other* people's freedom, but heaven forbid that pesky constitution stop them from doing it??
Do you know what the point of the 3rd Amendment is? Most people haven't a clue, especially how tightly it is connected to the 2nd.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#265 Thursday Sep 4
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I prefer states regulating marriage without violating the rights of individuals under the US Constitution.
The bakers rights to refuse service AKA his right to discriminate against wanna be customers was violated and you celebrated the prospects of him being fined $10,000 and having to spend a year in prison.

You are almost as much a humanitarian as the state of Texas when they used to put young boys in prison for 35 years for having a single joint in their possession.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#266 Thursday Sep 4
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I prefer states regulating marriage without violating the rights of individuals under the US Constitution.
Can you explain how there can be "regulating" with out someone's right getting violated? I'd really like to see you try. I am sure it will be a spectacular display of mental gymnastics.

You really do not see the problem with what you are saying Sheepie. It is like saying you only like square circles. You might just as well tell us how a square circle can exist. And you think you are smarter than me. Amazing.

Oh, you can do what you usually do, which is twist my words and answer something else completely unrelated to this so as to try and make it appear you are on top of this. Oh, and call me stupid, don't forget to call me stupid. It is, after all, the only thing you are any good at.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#267 Thursday Sep 4
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm, so I can use force when a state violates my rights by refusing to recognize my legal marriage?
I guess that means I can shoot the local county clerk if she refuses to accept my marriage license from Massachusetts.
Good to know.
As always your replies are divorced from reality, non-responsive and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I guess you could be even more irrational and illogical. I guess.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#268 Thursday Sep 4
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I prefer....
No one cares what you prefer.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#270 Thursday Sep 4
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, and I have the same right as anyone else to challenge such gender restrictions in court as being unconstitutional. And since those restrictions were found unconstitutional, I was able to marry someone of the same sex, just like anyone else can now marry someone of the same sex.
And any polygamist has the same right as anyone else to challenge the restriction on the number of partners in court as being unconstitutional. If those restrictions are found unconstitutional, then they will have the right to marry numerous partners at once, just as anyone else will be able to marry numerous partners at once.
It's why we have a judiciary.
You are correct Sheepie, the baker was with in his rights to refuse to bake that gay wedding cake and if he wants to refuse to bake one with one man and 23 wives on one, he is with in his constitutional rights to refuse to bake that cake too.

The government should never violate the rights of anyone to give other people a false sense of equality. I am glad you are finally coming around to accepting and promoting this. Freedom and liberty can always use another voice in the chorus.

And finally you realize the Justices do not all agree which means the decisions coming from the US Supreme court are subjective. Just like you are.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#272 Thursday Sep 4
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that would just be your moronic interpretation.
I don't worship anyone or anything.
It is OK that you have made the Government your God Sheepie, in America you can worship any god-damned god you want. And honestly, the Government God you worship now isn't any worse than that Bible God you used to worship. They are both destructive monsters. So go ahead and keep bragging that you worship the government and have made it your God. Few liberals are willing to go public with that. Good for you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 6 min Tubal Cain 1,933
Man alleges sexual abuse as anti-gay 'conversion' 45 min The Rogue 33
Op-ed: Gay Voice Is Ruining Lives 1 hr Fa-Foxy 8
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr Jobias3890 55,946
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 459
Online sleuths aid police in gay-beating case 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 23
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 3 hr George 1,448
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 1,120
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr woodtick57 71
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 834
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••