Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 87
  1. #71  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    Where? Show us? What part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is discriminating against gays?

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
    Amendment XIV Section I. It doesn't discriminate against gay people, it states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." That is the argument used. I'm not too big on it. People tend to get real peculiar about wording. That's why I said I would rather go with an anti-discrimination law. Not saying churches have to do it, because they don't. I'm talking about JOP marriages.
    “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Amendment XIV Section I. It doesn't discriminate against gay people, it states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." That is the argument used. I'm not too big on it. People tend to get real peculiar about wording. That's why I said I would rather go with an anti-discrimination law. Not saying churches have to do it, because they don't. I'm talking about JOP marriages.
    This 14th amendment only works if you consider marriage a civil right. If you don't, then this amendment is not applicable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Amendment XIV Section I. It doesn't discriminate against gay people, it states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." That is the argument used. I'm not too big on it. People tend to get real peculiar about wording. That's why I said I would rather go with an anti-discrimination law. Not saying churches have to do it, because they don't. I'm talking about JOP marriages.
    When was marriage of any kind ever a Constitutional right? You to and the rest of the gays rights advocates let your zealotry and propaganda get confused with what's really in the Constitution.

    Marriage is not and never was a Constitutionally protected right. Straight or gay. Marriage was and is a religious tradition dictated by the Scriptures as a union between a man and a woman and that is what pisses of gay rights advocates.

    If this was simply about being able to call yourself husband and wife then gays would be content with civil unions.

    But it's not just about that. Their agenda is to tear down every tradition and moral pillar this country was founded on.

    They want to force a Christian nation to accept their lifestyle.

    You say Churches don't have to do it but right now if a military chaplain refuses to conduct a gay wedding or refuse to allow it to happen in his chapel he faces UCMJ action.

    Civilian churches and wedding chapels live under the fear if legal action if they refuse.

    So don't try to make the ridiculous claim that churches ate free to reject conducting these unholy ceremonies.
    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    It can be supported by the Constitution, although there is a stronger case with anti-discrimination laws.
    Anti-discrimination laws are based on Constitutional rights. The 14th amendment, which you cut and pasted above, is entirely based on the idea that all peoples have the same basic civil rights. However, the 14th amendment does not cover, for example, the right of a blind person to have a driver's license. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and some people are physically unequipped to drive. However, the blind person cannot be denied the right to vote, which is a civil right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    I know she wasn't accepting. She also disagreed with the concept of laws being passed against them. Like I said, I know she was an angry, hateful woman. And I am not one for conspiracy theories.
    I'd still look up those old clips on youtube. They're a hoot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    I'd still look up those old clips on youtube. They're a hoot.
    I have watched them. Some are more interesting than others.
    Last edited by Generation Why?; 06-19-2013 at 06:43 PM.
    “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Anti-discrimination laws are based on Constitutional rights. The 14th amendment, which you cut and pasted above, is entirely based on the idea that all peoples have the same basic civil rights. However, the 14th amendment does not cover, for example, the right of a blind person to have a driver's license. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and some people are physically unequipped to drive. However, the blind person cannot be denied the right to vote, which is a civil right.
    That is why I said I didn't like the Constitutional argument.
    “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    When was marriage of any kind ever a Constitutional right? You to and the rest of the gays rights advocates let your zealotry and propaganda get confused with what's really in the Constitution.

    Marriage is not and never was a Constitutionally protected right. Straight or gay. Marriage was and is a religious tradition dictated by the Scriptures as a union between a man and a woman and that is what pisses of gay rights advocates.

    If this was simply about being able to call yourself husband and wife then gays would be content with civil unions.

    But it's not just about that. Their agenda is to tear down every tradition and moral pillar this country was founded on.
    Oh for fuck's sake, I am not supporting the Constitutional argument because I said I didn't think it was a good one. Did I not make that clear? You asked how it COULD be used. I told you what is the most commonly used Constitutional argument for same-sex marriage. Never said it was a good argument.

    They want to force a Christian nation to accept their lifestyle.
    Yeah we're not a Christian nation. We are a nation that is roughly 80% Christian. Saying we are a Christian naion would be like saying we are a White nation because white people are the majority race.

    You say Churches don't have to do it but right now if a military chaplain refuses to conduct a gay wedding or refuse to allow it to happen in his chapel he faces UCMJ action.
    Damn good question. And I don't know. I'll get back to you on that one.

    Civilian churches and wedding chapels live under the fear if legal action if they refuse.
    And that shouldn't be the case. People definitely go a little over the top when a church refuses to allow gay members or refuses to conduct gay weddings. Those people need to be educated that the church doesn't have to follow those laws, that they are for the public sector.

    So don't try to make the ridiculous claim that churches are free to reject conducting these unholy ceremonies.
    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
    Well churches are free to do so. Just have to educate the people on our current laws. Please see above. I'm off to go handle more bullshit because everyone else is on leave. It's been real. It's been fun. Take care, tx. Let's see what we can bicker about tomorrow.
    “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Oh for fuck's sake, I am not supporting the Constitutional argument because I said I didn't think it was a good one. Did I not make that clear? You asked how it COULD be used. I told you what is the most commonly used Constitutional argument for same-sex marriage. Never said it was a good argument.



    Yeah we're not a Christian nation. We are a nation that is roughly 80% Christian. Saying we are a Christian naion would be like saying we are a White nation because white people are the majority race.



    Damn good question. And I don't know. I'll get back to you on that one.



    And that shouldn't be the case. People definitely go a little over the top when a church refuses to allow gay members or refuses to conduct gay weddings. Those people need to be educated that the church doesn't have to follow those laws, that they are for the public sector.



    Well churches are free to do so. Just have to educate the people on our current laws. Please see above. I'm off to go handle more bullshit because everyone else is on leave. It's been real. It's been fun. Take care, tx. Let's see what we can bicker about tomorrow.

    If you are 80% white guess what? you're white, same goes with religion.
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    What about heterosexuals who are not physically capable of having children? Can they marry?
    Yes and no. Under current western laws, the answer is usually yes, but that was not always the case. Infertility or sterility was not, per se, a bar against marriage, depending on the culture, because the presumption was that both parties were designed to produce children, and as long as intercourse is possible, then conception is theoretically possible. OTOH, the physical or mental inability to consummate a marriage was grounds for anulment or divorce in just about every culture known to man.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •