Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[genocide roach]

What part of the Constitution are you referring to? If it's the First Amendment, I don't think that actually has any bearing on what states do.

it should. states do have the ability to make laws independently, but they still have to follow the US constitution. after all, California is still apart of the US.

the constitution leaves enough wiggle room for a lot of things to be decided independently, but this isn't one of them.
~gR~

 

[AchrisK]

you're trying to get us to say the original definition is between a man and woman, something found IN THE BIBLE. not the constitution. our country bases its laws off the constitution, not a fairy tale.

and btw, the constitution also says that religion has no place in law or politics. that's something the church has a hard time with. according to the church, the only laws that should apply are the laws in the bible. luckily/unfortunately that isn't the case in this country. we cannot base laws on religion, our constitution says so, and the only argument for banning gay marriage is a religious one.
~gR~

Actually this whole thing has quieted down, but when it was active, I was arguing from a biological, societal and even evolutionary point of view. You can look back if you are so inclined.

I don't have a problem with married couples receiving some benefits in society to encourage the traditional family. Instead of thinking of it as something taken away from gays, think of it as an incentive to traditional marriages. But if gays make up a whole new thing with equal rights granted, so be it. But marriage between a man and a woman is the essence of the traditional family unit, which is the basis of a strong society.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

it should. states do have the ability to make laws independently, but they still have to follow the US constitution. after all, California is still apart of the US.

the constitution leaves enough wiggle room for a lot of things to be decided independently, but this isn't one of them.
~gR~

I'm no expert on the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure you aren't either, and I really don't believe your claim; so why don't you actually cite this part of the Constitution which you think supports what you're saying?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't have a problem with married couples receiving some benefits in society to encourage the traditional family. Instead of thinking of it as something taken away from gays, think of it as an incentive to traditional marriages. But if gays make up a whole new thing with equal rights granted, so be it. But marriage between a man and a woman is the essence of the traditional family unit, which is the basis of a strong society.

This again?

As you may recall, you never actually explained how gay marriage is a threat to the traditional family unit, so this emphasis of yours on "encouraging the traditional family unit" is meaningless until you do.

 

[AchrisK]

Marriage has also been around for longer than Judaism.

I know that.

Yes, during the age of the Roman Empire and most likely earlier, and there are ancient writings that mention it specifically. I'd be willing to wager that it existed in other societies that also accepted homosexuality, since there's no evidence that it didn't and logic dictates that something accepted as normal would not be restricted in the way it is now that it isn't considered normal.

Mention what specifically? I am not talking about homosexuality being accepted. I am wondering if it was ever even considered as being "the same" as heterosexual relationships which led to marriage.

 

[Omni]

Mention what specifically? I am not talking about homosexuality being accepted. I am wondering if it was ever even considered as being "the same" as heterosexual relationships which led to marriage.

Same-sex marriage. You know, since my post was a reply to you asking if same-sex marriage existed, it should have been pretty obvious.

I realize I'm now being very condescending, but I feel you deserve it after seriously asking me this.

 

[AchrisK]

This again?

As you may recall, you never actually explained how gay marriage is a threat to the traditional family unit, so this claim of yours is invalid until you do.

Not a threat to the traditional family unit, but more like, "not optimal for a strong society". Taking it to it's logical end, homosexuality could destroy a society simply based on procreation.

 

[Omni]

A condition where homosexuals are able to marry won't keep straight couples from being able to have children.

 

[genocide roach]

Actually this whole thing has quieted down, but when it was active, I was arguing from a biological, societal and even evolutionary point of view. You can look back if you are so inclined.

I don't have a problem with married couples receiving some benefits in society to encourage the traditional family. Instead of thinking of it as something taken away from gays, think of it as an incentive to traditional marriages. But if gays make up a whole new thing with equal rights granted, so be it. But marriage between a man and a woman is the essence of the traditional family unit, which is the basis of a strong society.

do people really need incentives to marry? if you ask me, the answer is no. but I'm a hopeless romantic

I'm no expert on the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure you aren't either, and I really don't believe your claim; so why don't you actually cite this part of the Constitution which you think supports what you're saying?

it's more just a basic understanding that we both have. while there is no specific article that states it, i think its inherent. just like some crimes committed in one state can be tried as federal crimes. the US has laws that apply in every state, and the constitution is basically a list of federal laws. that's my argument. I'd love to hear your argument.
~gR~

 

[genocide roach]

Not a threat to the traditional family unit, but more like, "not optimal for a strong society". Taking it to it's logical end, homosexuality could destroy a society simply based on procreation.

so what you're basically saying is that non christian values are not optimal for a strong society...
~gR~

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Not a threat to the traditional family unit, but more like, "not optimal for a strong society". Taking it to it's logical end, homosexuality could destroy a society simply based on procreation.

20% of a society's population not having babies could destroy society? I think you're delusional.

 

[Omni]

Allowing homosexuals to marry won't stop straight couples from procreating any more than the existence of homosexuals already does, and there's no logic to support a counter-argument to this.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

it's more just a basic understanding that we both have. while there is no specific article that states it, i think its inherent. just like some crimes committed in one state can be tried as federal crimes. the US has laws that apply in every state, and the constitution is basically a list of federal laws. that's my argument. I'd love to hear your argument.
~gR~

"A basic understanding" is not how laws are created. Federal laws come from the Constitution plus the interpretations of it given in Supreme Court cases. You didn't present any evidence that state-level religion-based laws violate the Constitution, and given how many religion-based laws already exist, I kind of doubt that the Constitution really does shit to keep the States from making such laws.

 

[The Butt]

20% of a society's population not having babies could destroy society? I think you're delusional.

^ Even if that is true, we're overpopulated (or getting there) as it is. Let it happen, I say.

Edit: Double-fucking post jumped. Fuck it, added the quote.

 

[genocide roach]

yeah, i see your point. what do you think the constitutions purpose is?

although, lets face it. all those laws based on religion should be removed anyways, and im sure an argument can be made for each laws removal. we like to think the US is a forward thinking nation, but we really arent.
~gR~

 

[viewerfromnihil]

civil unions are alright, but i don't think that the term "marriage" should be used for same sex couples

 

[zabu of nΩd]

yeah, i see your point. what do you think the constitutions purpose is?

To provide federal laws, ldo. We just happen to have a system that's fraught with ambiguity, and nearly fucking impossible to understand due to the role of courts in establishing legal precedent.

civil unions are alright, but i don't think that the term "marriage" should be used for same sex couples

If you take marriage to mean a strictly religious ceremony, then marriage is whatever a church decides it is. Not all churches reject homosexuality, so not all churches should be prohibited from marrying homosexual couples.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

have you read the thread?

 

[AchrisK]

A condition where homosexuals are able to marry won't keep straight couples from being able to have children.

I didn't say it would.

do people really need incentives to marry? if you ask me, the answer is no. but I'm a hopeless romantic

But aren't benefits given to married couples already in place as a sort of "incentive" to continue in the tradition of the family?

so what you're basically saying is that non christian values are not optimal for a strong society...
~gR~

No, just that the traditional family is optimal for a strong society. Man + woman raising kids. Families taking care of each other, as it should be. Not relying on the government. Yeah, that's all effed up these days anyway, but it's still a good thing.

20% of a society's population not having babies could destroy society? I think you're delusional.

No, I am just saying that I can see the logic in there being additional benefits to traditional families.

Allowing homosexuals to marry won't stop straight couples from procreating any more than the existence of homosexuals already does, and there's no logic to support a counter-argument to this.

I know this.

 

[genocide roach]

To provide federal laws, ldo. We just happen to have a system that's fraught with ambiguity, and nearly fucking impossible to understand due to the role of courts in establishing legal precedent.

i agree. another part of the problem is that there are plenty of people taking advantage of that ambiguity, and i honestly think thats what the church is doing now with gay rights, abortion rights, etc.
~gR~