• 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

ZirconBlue said:
I'm bisexual and even I wouldn't call gays "fag".
Click to expand...

PICK A SIDE ALREADY!!

All joking aside, sometimes I think bisexuals get the sharp end of the stick more often than not.

There's a certain premise out there that you're either gay or you're not. The bisexuals, while being the "B" in the LGBA i think are a lower-case "b" still.

Should be the LGbA.
 
Praktik said:
PICK A SIDE ALREADY!!
Click to expand...

Is "in the middle" a side?;)

All joking aside, sometimes I think bisexuals get the sharp end of the stick more often than not.

There's a certain premise out there that you're either gay or you're not. The bisexuals, while being the "B" in the LGBA i think are a lower-case "b" still.

Should be the LGbA.
Click to expand...

Many people, gay and straight, don't really seem to "believe in" bisexuals.
 
ZirconBlue said:
Many people, gay and straight, don't really seem to "believe in" bisexuals.
Click to expand...
Many, gay or straight, are also weirded out by transgendered folks.

Interesting side note: all the transgendered people I know are woodwind players. Correlation or causation? hmmm...


;)
 
Skeptic has made a number of generalized statements about how courts are approaching costitutions, but has presented little to back it up. Looking only at the constitution of my own state, in which the Supreme Court quite conspicuously did not "magically" find the right to gay marriage, but did find the right to equal protection and the power of the legislature to amend laws both to satisfy the constitution and to bring the law in line with changing community standards, I note the following clauses:

Article 4th. Remedy at law secured to all

Every person within this state ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which one may receive in person, property or character; every person ought to obtain right and justice, freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely and without any denial; promptly and without delay; conformability to the laws.

Article 7th. Government for the people; they may change it

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.
Click to expand...

Article 7 is the one that the Supreme Court relied on most, both for its promise of equal protection and for its explicit provision for government to be changed according to the will of the community.

I don't know what kind of magic has occured in other states, but I think you'd need to perform some serious hocus pocus on the Vermont constitution to find a good argument against either the court's ruling or either of the legislature's subsequent actions. It's interesting to note, also, that the Supreme court ruling that led to civil unions has been cited by opponents of gay marriage as well as by its advocates, for the very reason that it did not magically find a right that was not there, but deferred to the legislature to find a way to implement the rights that are.

Of course Vermont and its constitution may be a bit unusual in the world. We can pack heat without a permit too.
 
The leap from "equal protection of the law" to "gay marriage must be recognized" is a rather large one. The same argument, you would notice, would mean that EVERYBODY'S union with EVERYBODY must be reognized as "marriage" -- including, say, homosexual incestual polygamy. So if a man wants to have a sexual union with his two (adult) twin boys, that, too, must -- not may, if the legistlature decides to recognize it, but MUST, due to the "equal protection" clause -- be recognized as marriage. Clearly this is absurd, so there must be something a bit wrong with the "equal protection gives a right to gay marriage" argument.

Which, of course, doesn't stop the courts from magically discovering such a "right". I simply deny the claim that this is due to the courts' superior knowledge and expertise, in this case. The motivation here is simply to show the benighted masses the light. The benighted masses aren't liking it, but who CARES what THEY say? We're the court! We're unelected, and therefore can do as we please.

Yes, I know there are excellent reasons why judges are unelected. Independence of public opinion is precisely one of those reasons. But this independences is a trust: it comes with the understanding that the court will not exceed its bounds, that is, it will decide existing law, not make new ones (as in this case, in effect, a law mandating gay marriage be recognized). In this case, as in many similar cases recently, the judges have disregarded this trust, and have -- as I said -- seen themselves not as interpreters of the law, but as the forefront of the "progressive" revolution.

It is no coincidence (as Marxists used to say) that the new "rights" (such as gay marriage) and "duties" (such as US' "duty" to obey other countries' laws under circumstances which keep expanding) that the courts keep discovering just happen to be what the bien pensant progressives think the USA's "rights" and "duties" should be. Any unfortunate disagreement between that ideal, and the laws the legistlature (that is, the people) actually passed (or did not pass), is of no account.

P.S.

Back to the gay marriage issue... a few months ago, we had a discussion about marriage in general. Many of the very same people who now holler in favor of gay marriage explained then that marriage is an antiquated, irrational, evil, racist/sexist/whatever institution. So now all of a sudden these folks WANT gays to have the right to join this evil, horrific institution?

To judge from the comments some people made in the marriage thread, the right to marry is no better than the right to work in the salt mines or the right to kill yourself (well, OK, that's not technically a right, but whaddaya gonna do -- sue him?). Rather pointless, don't you think?
 
Skeptic said:
The leap from "equal protection of the law" to "gay marriage must be recognized" is a rather large one. The same argument, you would notice, would mean that EVERYBODY'S union with EVERYBODY must be reognized as "marriage" -- including, say, homosexual incestual polygamy. So if a man wants to have a sexual union with his two (adult) twin boys, that, too, must -- not may, if the legistlature decides to recognize it, but MUST, due to the "equal protection" clause -- be recognized as marriage. Clearly this is absurd, so there must be something a bit wrong with the "equal protection gives a right to gay marriage" argument.

Which, of course, doesn't stop the courts from magically discovering such a "right". I simply deny the claim that this is due to the courts' superior knowledge and expertise, in this case. The motivation here is simply to show the benighted masses the light. The benighted masses aren't liking it, but who CARES what THEY say? We're the court! We're unelected, and therefore can do as we please.

Yes, I know there are excellent reasons why judges are unelected. Independence of public opinion is precisely one of those reasons. But this independences is a trust: it comes with the understanding that the court will not exceed its bounds, that is, it will decide existing law, not make new ones (as in this case, in effect, a law mandating gay marriage be recognized). In this case, as in many similar cases recently, the judges have disregarded this trust, and have -- as I said -- seen themselves not as interpreters of the law, but as the forefront of the "progressive" revolution.

It is no coincidence (as Marxists used to say) that the new "rights" (such as gay marriage) and "duties" (such as US' "duty" to obey other countries' laws under circumstances which keep expanding) that the courts keep discovering just happen to be what the bien pensant progressives think the USA's "rights" and "duties" should be. Any unfortunate disagreement between that ideal, and the laws the legistlature (that is, the people) actually passed (or did not pass), is of no account.

P.S.

Back to the gay marriage issue... a few months ago, we had a discussion about marriage in general. Many of the very same people who now holler in favor of gay marriage explained then that marriage is an antiquated, irrational, evil, racist/sexist/whatever institution. So now all of a sudden these folks WANT gays to have the right to join this evil, horrific institution?

To judge from the comments some people made in the marriage thread, the right to marry is no better than the right to work in the salt mines or the right to kill yourself (well, OK, that's not technically a right, but whaddaya gonna do -- sue him?). Rather pointless, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Slippery slope? That's the best you can do?


Here, let me give you a form.

I, Skeptic, believe that gay marriage should not be recognized because it harms (list the people harmed) _________________________ in these ways: ______________________.
 
Skeptic said:
The leap from "equal protection of the law" to "gay marriage must be recognized" is a rather large one. The same argument, you would notice, would mean that EVERYBODY'S union with EVERYBODY must be reognized as "marriage" ....<snip slippery slope argument>
Click to expand...

I know. I mean letting women vote also means we must recognize a racoon's right to vote as well..

Do you have any, i mean ANY arguments that aren't fallacious? The constitution doesn't recognize ANYONE's union, however, because of equal protection, all priviledges doled out by the government should not be based on race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. This just happens to include homosexuality. Gay marriage should be allowed based on this. Just because it's not popular doesn't mean it should be banned.

Also, what argument will you use to ban gay marriage when the majority does agree that it should be allowed? It's only a matter of time until it happens. That prediction is based on trends.

One more question. Why do you hate gay people?

To judge from the comments some people made in the marriage thread, the right to marry is no better than the right to work in the salt mines or the right to kill yourself (well, OK, that's not technically a right, but whaddaya gonna do -- sue him?). Rather pointless, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I think people should have the right to do harm to themselves. That is the purpose of freedom, for people to do what they want, as long as they don't impede upon other's freedoms. Why do you hate freedom?
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
Slippery slope? That's the best you can do?


Here, let me give you a form.

I, Skeptic, believe that gay marriage should not be recognized because it harms (list the people harmed) _________________________ in these ways: ______________________.
Click to expand...

And even if you want to persist in making a slippery slope argument, 'Skeptic', you might also like to list the harms of those types of relationship you think gay marriage may eventually lead to, and then explain how similar harms apply to homosexual unions.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Slippery slope? That's the best you can do?


Here, let me give you a form.

I, Skeptic, believe that gay marriage should not be recognized because it harms (list the people harmed) _________________________ in these ways: ______________________.
Click to expand...

As he wrote in the OP to this thread, Skeptic seems to believe that if gay marriage is legalized that he, personally, will be forced into a gay marriage, therefore the harm will be to him.
 
Skeptic said:
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).
Click to expand...

Argument to the man is all we have at the moment, because you haven't actually given us anything of substantial, logical, critical or analytical weight to discuss otherwise.
 
Traditionally, western culture has had polygamous marriage. It's all over the Bible, for instance.

Incidently, why does the slippery slope start at gay marriage and not, say, at legal straight marriage? Once you open the door to marriage via the law, why does it stop at only a certain segment of the population?

After all, next came interracial marriage. We've already gone down the slippery slope with those two, haven't we, Skeptic?
 
Upchurch said:
And the fact that I, a traditionally sinister left hander, married my my right-handed wife. Why was this not forcing a new definition of marriage onto the rest of society?
Click to expand...

Pssst. The PC term is now "differently dexterous."
 
Upchurch said:
And the fact that I, a traditionally sinister left hander, married my my right-handed wife. Why was this not forcing a new definition of marriage onto the rest of society?
Click to expand...

Go back to Leftania lefty! We don't need your kind here stealin our women!!
 
My bidexterous marriage is a beautiful thing. When my boy grows up, I will love him no matter what his orientation, right or left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom