• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is why the Constitution Might be Amended to ban Gay Marriage

Skeptic said:
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Click to expand...

No member of the public will be forced to marry a gay person.If gays want to get married,good luckto them.Live and let live.
 
Skeptic said:
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Click to expand...
You're poorly informed. Even here in Vermont, the courts did not find a constitutional right to anything but equal protection. When the original suit that led to the civil union law was settled, the court said only that gay couples and families should not be denied the possibility of obtaining the civil benefits of marriage, under the equal protection clause. The court left the question of how that might be accomplished entirely up to the legislature, which passed the civil union law, and some years later, the marriage law. Civil union satisfied the court. No judicial magic here. The magic here was in the will of the people, expressed through their representatives.
 
I am so sick and tired of the gay marriage debate. Let the fags get married. Who cares??? Let them discover the joys of divorce.





























Fags is not used in a derogatory fashion, it is a term of endearment.
 
I am so sick and tired of the gay marriage debate. Let the fags get married. Who cares??? Let them discover the joys of divorce.
Click to expand...


While your phrasing -regardless of that pithy disingenuous disclaimer at the bottom of your page - is crap, I agree with the sentiment.
 
Last edited:
Edited and infracted for civility.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited to remove continuation and reply to modded post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZirconBlue said:
As alluded to above, I think it's a little like tne N-word, in that the in-group uses it amongst themselves, but that doesn't give outsiders carte blanch to use it. I'm bisexual and even I wouldn't call gays "fag".
Click to expand...

Quite. It depends on the group as well, but it is part of that whole "reclaiming" thing.

Only British hets get away with using fag.
 
The Painter said:
Fags is not used in a derogatory fashion, it is a term of endearment.
Click to expand...

lol_wut.jpg
 
Most of my gay friends use "fag" all the time. Usually accompanied by "raging" or "dirty". They're kinda weird like that.
 
Most homosexuals I know do use the word "fag" however, they don't appreciate the term being used about them by non-homosexuals. Yes, it's not logical, but since they find it offensive, I don't use the word myself.
 
Skeptic stopped posting here because he has no rational argument. Every argument he's made has been fallacy and fabrication. I suspect he's against gay marriage because of the reason most anti-gaymarriage people are against it.
Click to expand...

Oh, nonsense. I can't say I'm surpised -- this sort of ad hominem is the usual sort of "psychoanalysis" of those who disagree with the "progressive" left about someting: they don't agree with ME, so they must be evil or stupid, or mentally unstable (e.g., in this case, "homophobe" or "closet homosexual" or "in denial" or something).

To the point, and ignoring the usual ad hominem, the problem is that it is obvious that the pro-gay-marriage will not stop at having the people decide if to recognize gay marriage or not. It will be invented as a "Constitutional right" and these folks will go directly to the courts, the people be damned.

Since the courts recently see themselves, not as upholders of the law, but as maverick leaders who need to show the benighted masses what magical "rights" the Constitution REALLY has in it -- such as the "right" to abortion, to gay marriage, etc. (these are special clothes, I mean Constitutional rights: only wise men can see them), the only way to stop such a thing is to amend the Constitution itself to explicitly disallow such nonsense.
 
Skeptic said:
Since the courts recently see themselves, not as upholders of the law, but as maverick leaders who need to show the benighted masses what magical "rights" the Constitution REALLY has in it -- such as the "right" to abortion, to gay marriage, etc. (these are special clothes, I mean Constitutional rights: only wise men can see them), the only way to stop such a thing is to amend the Constitution itself to explicitly disallow such nonsense.
Click to expand...

So you are for unfair discrimination against a group that has no benefit to anyone, as long as it is sufficiently popular? You can strip any group of rights as long as there is no specific constitutional protection for them having those rights with a simple majority vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom