|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,917 Year: 4,174/9,624 Month: 1,045/974 Week: 4/368 Day: 4/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Marriage is a civil right in the US | |||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
In a discussion of civil rights and gay marriage in another thread, Faith made the claim that, at least in the US, marriage was a privilage rather than a right.
After a little research, I found that this was an unfounded claim, at least according to the United States Supreme Court. The following is an excerpt from the 1963 Loving v. Virginia descision of that court: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Interestingly, the objections of the state of Virginia were expressed thusly by the Judghe who found them guilty: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Sounds familiar to Faith's and others' arguments; it isn't "natural", God never meant for marriage to be like that, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...and interracial marriage and allowing women and blacks to vote and own property, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes, that's what you and I said in the other thread. I don't believe that this thread's OP misrepresents you at all.
quote: That is a matter of interpretation, and clearly, better legal minds than you (namely, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts) have found a different one than yours.
quote: Of course, the decision says "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,", not "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of heterosexuals and not gays."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Your "sister" says that, though, and you do not oppose her, but support her, when she does. That's the same as you saying it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, what you are saying is that no culture on Earth is allowed to have gay marriage as a unique feature, nor change to include it, is that correct? And the reason for this is simply "because it's always been this way". Correct? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How so, specifically? Can you provide some likely scenarios or examples of what you predict will happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Love and committment have no place in marriage, I agree. It is a fairly recent phenomena to make love and attraction and mutual respect a factor in whom to marry. I support going back to the traditional reasons to marry; forming alliances between families and business interests, consolidating fortunes, and also for pumping out lots of offspring in order to have lots of hands to work the farm.
quote: So, is it your opinion that unassisted procreation is the main and compelling justification for any marriage? Marriage is to be about breeding only? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There is NO POTENTIAL for children if the heteros have been sterilized, or have been through menopause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Does your gay friend know that you believe hem to be "abnormal" and an "abberation"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Faith, you have done your best to hide your real reasons for opposing gay marriage by coming up with all sorts of reasons that sound fairly benign and irreligious, but you are starting to let us see your real feelings.
You oppose gay marriage because you believe homosexuality to be "sick", "abnormal", and "an abberation". It has nothing to do with "common sense" and everything to do with religious prejudice and bigotry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You are correct. It doesn't have to be religious prejudice and bigotry that Faith is expressing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: This is dire-sounding, yet very vague. I'll quote you, and my reply, from a previous message that you didn't answer:
quote: How so, specifically? Can you provide some likely scenarios or examples of what you predict will happen? In addition, you ignored several of my other questions to you, which I'll list here for your convenience:
quote: So, what you are saying is that no culture on Earth is allowed to have gay marriage as a unique feature, nor change to include it, is that correct? And the reason for this is simply "because it's always been this way". Correct? quote: Love and committment have no place in marriage, I agree. It is a fairly recent phenomena to make love and attraction and mutual respect a factor in whom to marry. I support going back to the traditional reasons to marry; forming alliances between families and business interests, consolidating fortunes, and also for pumping out lots of offspring in order to have lots of hands to work the farm. [quote]Marriage has always been for the sanctifying of heterosexual unions, with the potential of childbearing. No such thing exists between gays. The idea that two men need the protection of the state for their "relationship" is sick.[/qupte] So, is it your opinion that unassisted procreation is the main and compelling justification for any marriage? Marriage is to be about breeding only? quote: There is NO POTENTIAL for children if the heteros have been sterilized, or have been through menopause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I have several close friends who were raised by gay parents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What a ridiculous thing to think. It must be very convenient to make up imaginary enemies to rail against, but I am afraid you are, in fact, tilting at windmills. Tell me, which organizations supportive of gay marriage have also professed the desire for the terrorists to win?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024