Gay Marriage

None of the laws have the definition of marriage within them. The definition of marriage had been implicit until DOMA.

They coulda had a pre-nup.

Actually, I've posted multiple times now that I don't care if gay people get married.What I've been arguing against is the notion that the Constitution grants a right to gay people to have marriages and that gay marriage must be allowed due to constitutionality.I've been called a bigot because I didn't agree with the liberal position and spoke out against it.It doesn't matter what I actually think or how I actually act, its all about whether or not you agree, whether your opinion is the same or not. If not, then you are a fucking bigot.

Right, I don't care. I think DOMA accurately defines the word "marrige" as it was understood to be when the 1000+ laws were written that explicitly use the word "marriage".I'm not against it. They're not REdefining it If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative. Nope. I've done absolutely nothing.

I'm not actively trying to prevent gay people from getting married, but ZOMFG!!! I'm arguing on them Internets!1! IMMA horriblez fucking bigot... O NOES!

Nope, they’re not mutually exclusive. Supporting DOMA doesn’t necessitate that I not be fine with two guys getting married and being fine with two guys getting married doesn’t necessitate that I oppose DOMA. Except, they couldn’t. They needed legislation and/or judicial interpretation in order to get married. They’re not necessarily afraid of gays. What they feared was one state being forced to recognize the marriage from another. What it says now is the same as what it previously meant. Maybe by your interpretation but not by mine. Its up to the SCOTUS. I don’t think its homophobic discrimination. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, that’s what it is. A guy can’t marry a toaster because it’s impossible. That isn’t discrimination against toastersexuals. Now, if some state wants to change their definition of marriage so that a guy can marry a toaster, then I don’t really care. But the Constitution doesn’t demand that all the other states have to allow toastersexual marriages as well. You’re just misunderstanding me. I have no desire to allow gay marriage. Doing nothing is not doing something. States wouldn’t be ignoring it.

Right. A person could consider murder something that should be illegal all the while having no moral opposition to it. No, there never was an explicit definition of marriage before DOMA. They didn’t need a definition until people started trying to include things as marriages that weren’t marriage according to the implicit definition that was understood. Right. I lack a desire to allow gay marriage and I also lack the care for whether or not they are allowed to marry. States courts, where it should be decided.

You failed to notice one of the premises...

quote:

---

Now, if some state wants to change their definition of marriage so that a guy can marry a toaster,

---

That change would have to be that consent is no longer required Hell, one day the libs will probably find the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

Other than making your response pointless. Not in the slightest. It doesn't have anything to do with sex.I'm making the comparison between different definitions of the word "marriage".You guys are teh ones who run and cry anytime someone exposes the slippery slope of an ambiguous definition of the word "marriage" because, since there's no good response all you can do is slander your opponent by claiming that their comparing things that they aren't.So basically, you want us to want to compare gay sex to ridiculous sex. Its too bad I wasn't. No, how dare you purposely wear your shit colored glasses and make everything out to be something its not just so you can vilify your opponents.

Yes, real close. I was sorta comming at it from a different angle though.People were trying to say that the Constitution grants gays a right to gay marriages and to disallow them it is unconstitutional so therefore gay marriage must be allowed.I think that is bullshit.So since I was arguing against gay marriage, I was a "fucking homophobic bigot", when the core of the issue isn't really even the gayness.Plus, I think that marriage has always been understood to be between one man and one woman. That's just what it is. It was never explicitly defined because people knew what it meant So, I think DOMA isn't a bad law because of is accuracy in defining. Also, the second part of it that allow states their right's is just a good thing in general. I'd hate for the people in California and New York to run the Midwest too.So there you have it, the opinion of a "fucking homophobic bigot". And I don't even fear or hate gays!They've pretty much turned "bigot" into a meaningless word. Well, it could just mean a person who disagrees with a liberal I can understand that in order to be tolerant, then you have to be intolerant of intolerance, but the libs are so quick to jump on people for having even a slight variance from their own status quo that they, themselves, are exemplifying the same behavior they oppose. I think there's a word for that....... hypocracy.

The point is that the definition of "marriage" needs to tight. It can't be a general definiton like "a contract between people" because it opens up the 1000+ laws that mention the word marriage to exploitation. 'Consent' needs to be in there, 'adult' needs to be in there, 'one' person needs to be in there.My argument was that sense the 1000+ laws were written with the understanding that marriage was between one man and one woman, then that is the way that marriage should be explicitly defined when the need for the explicit definition arrose.Alos, if somebody found a way to personal gain from marrying a toaster, I don't doubt that they would do it. Yeah, but yall are saying that people are comparing things that they're not (in an effort to slander and villify them). They are based on what marriage actually is. Its not about sexual orientation at all. It dosen't matter if they are hetero, homo, bi, or tostersexual, marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.Now, people could certainly change the definition of marriage if they want too. And that should be done on a state by state basis.

quote:

---

Nope, all the states. Those that joined the Union after it's {the 14th amendment} passage had to adopt it as a condition of becoming a state.

---

This would make a great new topic and is getting fairly off-topic for this thread...Some quotes from wiki on the 14th amendment: Wow. That could be an interesting thread.Perhaps someone could propose a new topic on the 14th Amendment's ratification. Its too late for me to do it now. Besides, I don't shit about that shit and my OP would probably be shitty

---

ABE:It does seem that the crux of Subbie's argument relies on the 14th amendment and the opposing argument suggests that State's rights could be violated come Federal legislation in a case like this one.Someone start a new thread...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : SEE ABE:

quote:

---

Do you have any substantive response?

---

Pardon my ignorance, but what does happen if a State decides to not acknowledge a gay marriage in lieu of a SCOTUS decision that it is unconstitutional?..if the State thinks its rights are being violated through the 14th?Just a crap-load of lawsuits? Then somebody gets paid?