The future of marriage

Come off it, NJ. You said it was specious to suggest that the fourteenth amendment was intended to allow gay marriage, since the founding fathers considered homosexuality an aberration.You fucked up. It was funny. We have got to repeal Loving v. Virginia immediately. Doesn't the Supreme Court know that the amendment isn't about the rights of married people?Go read the case. The amendment is about denying rights. The case defined marriage as a "fundamental right" of all Americans. Which means the amendment is very much about marriage, amongst many other things. 1) NJ is not a bigot. Being a homosexual really is the same as raping a corpse.2) Tell you what. The very second the dead people of the world get up and start demanding their rights, I'll be the first in line to help 'em out.In the meantime, we can go ahead and work under the assumption that a corpse is unable to enter into a marriage contract, or consent to sex. Which makes necrophilia rape, not marriage. Except for things like marriage, where they are.You can say they're not segregated all you please, but it misses a beat when you follow it up with, "now let's deny them this right that we give to other people."

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

That's just it... even something as basic as this, we haven't heard. The closest we've gotten is rhetorical nonsense like, "defending marriage." Which means, I guess, that homosexuals are in fact a secret cabal of ninjas, looking to infiltrate homes and destroy marriages across our great nation. I know. That's why I'm not going all snarked-out on you. But it's probably... oh, and hour or so before HM or NJ read your posts, and start endlessly repeating "IT'S RATIONAL BASIS, IT'S RATIONAL BASIS, IT'S RATIONAL BASIS!", and never once provide the legitimate end needed for that argument to work. Just trying to head that off at the pass.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

quote:

---

Come to think of it, Chiro, there really is nothing wrong with it, other than it is offensive to tradition.

---

Group marriage is perfectly consistent with Biblical tradition.

What I said was a commentary on the prevailing wisdom of the day, not the Founding Father's themselves. But if you think that people in that time were cool with homosexuality, I think you are obligated to substantiate your claim.I then said that we simply have to look at the Amendment itself in order to extrapolate what we can from it. Yeah, you got me pegged. Only if the bigamy charge is repealed in the case of Reynolds v. United States. I mean, pederasts and pedophiles argue the same topics as homosexuals do.

• Anti-pedophilia is discrimination against pedophiles
• I was born this way and, therefore, I can't change my innate behavior.
• Psychologists that say I'm a sexual deviant are biased by mainstream society, therefore, their testimony should be stricken.
• Children have the right of autonomy just as any adult.
• If it feels good, do it.

That's all peaches and cream and daisies swaying in the wind. Then would you inexorably be faced with permitting pederasty by the same token? See, we have a problem here about what constitutes a "right." If we are to broadly interpret the 14^th we can literally call anything a basic right. And as of now, it is up to the Supreme Court, (and I'm sure it will eventually make it there), to decide at this point. And with the way things are going, homosexuals will likely be married in the near future in the United States. And what will precipitate such a landmark decision will be pedophiles who lobby in the exact same way. And just as homosexuality to really be recognized by the populace took about 20-30 years, pedophilia will be next. I predict that it will only take 15 years for everyone, maybe even including you, to fully accept it and assimilate their "lifestyle" in to your heart and mind.So, what then constitutes a basic human right? How broadly are we to interpret the Amendments? When does it end? Where does it begin? How can we distinguish between what is our unalienable rights and what is not? Who said anything about it being the same thing? I could come up with the most ridiculous arguments in defense of necrophilia to make it appear as if it is an unalienable right of all humans to copulate with a corpse. My point is that I can manipulate the Fourteenth to mean whatever I want it to. I'm giving you examples: Necrophilia, bigamy, pederasty, pedophilia, etc. It places you in an indefensible position of denying one right while accepting another. Here's the slick-haired sycophant of an attorney defending necrophilia."Ladies and gentleman of the court. Necrophiles have been unduly characterized as these squalid people with reprobate minds. And you will hear today the Prosecution making claims that, 'when the dead rise again and speak up about their personal rights, then we'll allow necrophilia.' Well, what the prosecution doesn't know is that when we die, we have no rights. Furthermore, my defendant, this morgue attendant to my left, just so happened to find this women beautiful in life. Is he not, then, allowed to be physically attracted to her only a few hours after her death? Is our entire world view supposed to change the nanosecond someone dies? No, ladies and gentlemen, no. And lets not forget the fact that since she died, her body is just a shell-- but a beautiful shell nonetheless. And did you know that until only a few years ago, necrophilia was not a criminal act?!?! In fact, some states don't even have it on the books. California was the first to pass this law. Its true. So, why, after all this time has passed is it only now a crime to be attracted to a corpse? Somebody please tell me that." You don't give that right to all people. You don't give that right to pre-pubescents. Shouldn't that naturally apply as well?As well, pro-gay marriage supporters assert that marriage doesn't equal love. They allege that marriage is just a civil union for legal matters. If that's the case, then a form of marriage, like a Civil Union, should suffice, right? Perhaps marriage really isn't the issue. Perhaps the underlying issue is subverting the status quo.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

By going back that far into history one could argue that slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice are traditional, too. Where do you draw the line?”Hoot

I asked you this before and you had no answer for me. Where do you see in the 14th amendment the right to commit crimes, such as rape?As it stands now, of course, even a pedophile has more of a right to get married than two gay adults. As long as you can convince the child's parents to agree, the pedophile can marry their victim, as long as they're not of the same sex.So I don't understand where you're going with this. Children can't consent to sex. Pedophiles are protected under the 14th amendment; they can't be subject to harsher penalties than anybody else convicted of raping a child. (Equal protection under the law.) Society is just going to suddenly accept rape? Why? If anybody's pushing for the legitimacy of rape, it's conservatives - not liberals. Just witness the furor anytime a man is convicted of raping a woman, from the conservative camps: "she deserved it," "men can't be held responsible for their actions when a woman is dressed that way," "it was consensual sex that she later regretted."It's all nonsense that conservatives use to legitimize rape. If there's anybody who's actively pushing for the legitimacy of rape, it's the same people who oppose gay marriage - not it's supporters. Only if you can't read, I guess. How do you get the right to rape out of "equal protection under the law"?

Hey, that's right.Gosh, maybe that means the "argument from what's traditional" is a pretty piss-poor means to determine what we should or shouldn't do? You know, the argument you just made and now you're retreating from?

Then you probably shouldn't have mentioned the founding fathers to make your point. That seems like an odd, and increasingly funny, choice. Man, you're just all over the place, aren't you? Bigamy in one breath, pedophelia in the next.Either way, it's already been explained upthread why neither has any bearing on the case. But you just go ahead and keep repeating yourself. I'm sure it's fun.In the meantime, it's worth stressing, again, that you're not actually providing a legal argument against gay marriage, here. Whether those two matters should also be taken up for the same legal reasons has no bearing on whether or not there is a case against gay marriage. Marriage is, according to the US government, a fundamental right. The Supreme Court already said it; those were their words. Whether you like that fact or not is kind of irrelevant as well. Actually, I'd wager they'll have to get past that whole "sex with children is illegal" thing before they get to marriage. But heck... you already know that. Crash already pointed that out to you upthread. You. It was pretty sick. Wow. That oh-so slick attorney just sank his case in the opening statement, by acknowledging that the dead don't have the ability to petition the court for rights.What a twit. I'm not hiring that attorney, I'll tell you that much. Yeah, we limit rights on the basis of age all the time. For instance, I'm reasonably sure you didn't drink, vote, or drive when you were eight years old.We don't, however, limit rights on the basis of sexuality. Not legally, at least. That's odd. I'm a pro-gay marriage supporter, and I don't remember saying that. Nope. Seperate is not equal, blah blah blah, you already know this. Bored now.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Yes, it is really simple, Dan. It ought to be simple enough for you to dither your way into writing down what exactly it is you want here, besides just to rant and wave your arms around. Please give us something with a little substance to consider. PLEASE PUT YOUR PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE. I'll bet you can't stop jerking around long enough to post a reasonable summary of your specific model for "the future of marriage."”Hootin' for you, Dan

This is to NJ and HM.You cannot compare homosexuality to pedophilia, necrophilia, or bestiality because the there is a BIG GAPING CHASM between them called LEGAL CONSENT!Get it thought your heads.Equal protection means the right for 2 CONSENTING individuals to enter into a legal contract. BY extension this means that those individuals must be capable of legal CONSENT.In pedophilia, the child cannot legally consent. Therefore the criminalizaiton of pedophilia is NOT against equal protection.In necrophilia and bestiality, the subjects cannot possibly give consent at all. Therefore people who wish to do this are NOT afforded equal protection.Children, dead people, and animals cannot be enjoined in a legal contract. Period.So please, for the sake of rational discussion and for the sake of perserving your integrity in this discussion. Please stop using these totally invalid comparisons!!

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Sudden, intermittent, uncontrollable blindness would explain a lot of your problems, here. Is that the case? Do you sometimes go blind, and become unable to read posts?

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Gosh, why then do you suppose the gays want to get "married" according to tradition? It's "piss-poor means" to determine anything, isn't it?”Hoot

They don't. They want to be married according to the government, because there's thousands of rights and legal protections for couples and their families that the government offers to those it considers "married."Aren't you paying attention, here? The question is - if you admit that "tradition" can be used to justify all kinds of things that decent people would recoil from, why did you offer it as a justification for your bigoted views?

Maybe thats because they want to have the love of their life make decisions for them in the case they are indisposed rather than some family who may have rejected them because of their lifestyle.Maybe they simply want all the standard things that come along with marrige and to have them in a way that doesn't require them to call it something else for no reason other than to pacify bigots.Marriage is a practical matter as much as it is a social matter. There are good reasons to get married in this society and these people want to take advantage of that.

Why wouldn't polygamists also want to?