I'm not gonna respond to most of your comment because i'd just be repeating myself. I do know what your opinions on both issues are because i've read most of the two threads.There are plenty of people who are just flat out intolerant of gays, but there are also people who disagree with the matter on faith and other grounds. The reason i keep mentioning Americans is because you come on this site and judge them for their views as well as telling them how they should lead their everyday lives, but somehow i doubt your on the streets in Iran lecturing people with alot worse views and behaviour.

I'll say one more thing before i go back to not commenting on these political threads, because they suck you into pointless debates. It should tell you something about the manner in which you post when people who basically agree with you on these matters like me and 123joeschmo are mentioning it.

Yes, which is why I don't watch Fox News or listen to water-carriers for the Republican Party like Rush Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity. The media is supposed to simply report the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. It hasn't been that way for a long, long time.



That's just it. You talk as if these so called "rights" are somehow inherent to them. Says who? God sure didn't give gays the right to marry. And even if you discount all that, we sure as hell know that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to allow gay marriage. Just like the Fourth Amendment was never intended to allow abortion. But this is what happens when corrupt liberal and overreaching judges twist the Constitution in order to make their own laws.

You are laughable, now your saying that I happen to be anywhere you post.. You don't stop do you. You think to much of yourself.
If you noticed I wasn't even in this debate once again. I just agreed when you were taken to task on it.

I don't care what you say towards me, but you have to be a bit thick if all the posters had told you the same thing, over and over again when you spew your opinions in that matter.

I have watched you over and over go rounds in the same maner, so don't blame me for your problems with others.

I do admit that I enjoy it when others think the same way I do, but that is just human nature

BTW I have always tried to be civil and use facts to make my points, not spew crap just to spew at anyone. Well almost never.

You make a comment about me calling the other debaters intolerant in the gun control thread and then you are not gonna respond when I asked where? That's rich. And me coming to this site, posting a philosophical opinion about gays is judging Americans as you say and needs me being on the streets of Iran, lecturing people? And you are sure that I don't do that? Again what sort of logic is that? If people like joe jump in here to agree with you, it's because they have failed to debate the issues in the past, and then have resorted to attack the poster rather than debating the view.

They are born this way, and that makes it their inherent rights to marry the way they please, just as you are born straight and it is your inherent right to marry the way you please. Just because people don't share your religious views, they aren't corrupt.

First, just because somebody is born a certain way doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to certain things. I don't know where you get that idea. Second, if we go by exactly what you said above, people who are born with attraction to kids should be allowed that act on that "right" as well.

First, it does. Second, the extend of their entitlements goes as far as not harming others. So how does gay marriage harm you?

According to who? See, this is my whole point. You and others attribute certain "rights," as well as reasons for those "rights," that you make up out of thin air. Where do rights come from if not either from God or government? Certainly not ourselves or people could just make up whatever rights for themselves they wanted. There is nothing in religion that gives gays the "right" to marry. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that gives them the "right" to marry.



Well, for one thing, it reinforces the liberal, secular lie that there is no inherent difference between the sexes. And so there is no inherent difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and that of two men or two women. And, therefore, they are all equal. It's the government recognizing and giving ascent to a perverted and unnatural lifestyle and giving it equal status as that of the natural family, which is the only true, and most fundamental, building block of society.

According to the gay people. It's called inherent. It's inborn. We don't need an imaginary being, backing up certain rights for certain people. More importantly, when that imaginary being has no problem with slavery. I wonder why God even is considered a pillar of human rights to begin with, when he has no problem with such atrocities.



How could it have no difference? If it didn't, then you shouldn't have a problem marrying a man. But you do, since it makes a difference for you. And these family units are already blocks of the society. The fact that government has put its head in the sand, doesn't make them go away.

afs, you raise a good point about rights not being subjected to popular vote. One of the primary motivations of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. They knew that there would be times where highly unpopular religious beliefs, speech and opinions, vilified criminals, and controversial associations (among other things) would be silenced by legislation or popular vote. Those were the rights, deemed most important to protect.

While the US Supreme Court will not likely take the step in the pending cases to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the issue of gay marriage, the day will inevitably come when that decision will be made. While the Court has issued recent decisions supporting gay rights, like ruling that Texas' anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional, it has not yet clearly determined a standard for review applicable to gay rights even though past decisions declared laws unconstitutional without even considering heightened scrutiny.

Thanks for your input in this matter Kly. I'm looking forward to that day when one of those cases finally makes it to the Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers never intended gay marriage to be legalized. You know that as much as I do. There is no Constitutional basis for gays to have the "right" to marry.

Admittedly, the Founding Fathers did not advocate same-sex marriage-it wasn't an issue in 1776. Being a product of their times, when they wrote "All men are created equal," they meant all land-owning white males. But the Founding Fathers did believe in the equality of all citizens. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “I desire above all things to see the equality of political rights exclusive of all hereditary distinction firmly established by a practical demonstration of its being consistent with the order and happiness of society.” Now that being a land-owning white male isn't necessary in order to enjoy all of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers' precepts apply to LGBT citizens as well.

It applies to LGBT citizens individually. Not that their relationships are in any way equal to that of same sex couples, or that they have a right to be recognized by society as married. Don't mistake the two.

Why is it people can't bring up The Founding Fathers without mentioning slavery? If they had not owned slaves, would that then make gay rights unconstitutional? There is no tie in.

Well said.

It's what liberals do. They twist and misconstrue the intention of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution, to their own purposes. It's how killing unborn babies became legal on the ridiculous basis of a "right to privacy." And how gay marriage may well be legalized, or DOMA at least struck down, based on the "equal protection" clause. Going this direction, which liberals mistake as "progress," our country will and Constitution will look nothing like it was originally intended.

It's how killing unborn babies became legal on the ridiculous basis of a "right to privacy."

What is this? I haven't heard of this, i apologize could you post a link please?

I don't know how abortion came up, I am not in agreement with Ivy on that. I will not get into my position on abortion, that is for another thread. It just seems way off topic.

Well, first of all the Founding Fathers -all of them- were dead before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, so your reliance on them for the question of the constitutionality of gay marriage is clearly misplaced.

Eventually, laws forbidding homosexuals the right to marry (a fundamental freedom) will be challenged on the basis of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and probably the Ninth Amendment. It wasn't until 1967 when the Court recognized a constitutional right for biracial marriages. Opponents of the court's ruling used similar insipid arguments that there is nothing in the constitution allowing such an unnatural union and that it would bring about the ruination of civilization.

The right to privacy was first protected as a constitutional right in a case called Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme court found that a state law that made contraception was a crime. It was classified as a penumbral right as it originated from the I, III, IV, V amendments, which embody privacy values. The right was also viewed as being part of the IX Amendment, which recognizes that the rights, enumerated in the bill of Rights, are not an exhaustive list of protected rights.

Also, the Due Process Clause of the XIV Amendment prevents legislative efforts to deny the people of life, liberty and property. The concept of liberty within this context has been interpreted as encompassing individual privacy rights. This was the basis for Roe v. Wade, and while I may disagree with the outcome of the decision, I feel the application of the privacy right was appropriate for the test of the constitutionality of abortion.

The privacy right, found in the Fourteenth Amendment, was the basis for declaring statutes criminalizing sodomy as unconstitutional ten years ago.

Excuse me were you there in 1787? You don't know how the founding fathers thought or what their intents and purposes were

Saw this and thought of this thread:

Polygamy Advocate: Gay Marriage Blazing Trail for Us

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like there is a slippery slope after all and gay marriage really could lead to polygamy. According to U.S. News and World Report, polyamory advocate Anita Wagner Illig said that gay marriage is setting the standard to make polygamy and polyamory legal.

“We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,” said Illig, who is the head of polyamory advocacy group called Practical Polyamory.

Anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage this week, US New’s reporter Steven Nelson interviewed Illig to see how polyamorists and polygamists feel about the possibility of redefining marriage. Nelson reported that Illig admitted “the polyamory community has expressed little desire for legal marriage” until now, but that in light of gay marriage gaining wider acceptance, “more options seem possible in the future.”

Illig insisted that the legalization of gay marriage would set an undeniable precedent for polyamorists seeking legal “multi-partner marriage.”

“A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage,” she argued, because gay marriage would then provide “precedent” for “other forms of non-traditional relationships.”

Illig, whose husband has a girlfriend, believes that the legal acceptance for polygamy would “eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face,” and would be more likely to happen should the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage this week.

Despite denials from left-wingers like CNN’s Piers Morgan and MSNBC’s Luke Russert, it’s getting harder and harder for liberals to ignore reality: legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy. Lefty newspaper Slate’s writer Jillian Keenan openly advocated legalizing polygamy earlier this year, and Huffington Post’s Abby Huntsman admitted that legalizing gay marriage would “open the door” to polygamy “and other things.”

Not to mention, of course, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry who asserted that “We do want to change marriage.” With gay couples and now “multi-partner” marriage on the horizon, one wonders whether marriage will even be recognizable by the time the left is done changing it.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lauren-...#ixzz2XF8W59uh

Nope - no slippery slope at all!

I'm aware of that but the Founding Fathers were brought up in relation to same-sex marriage agove.



Since when is marriage a "fundamental freedom?" As I've pointed out many times before, the country had no problem making polygamous marriages illegal (despite the 1st Amendment grounds). And you and other current gay-marriage proponents never had a problem with that. But now gays suddenly have a "right" to be married and have that marriage recognized by society? What a steaming pile of phony, hypocritical, cherry-picking, bullshit.



You can recite all the legalize mumbo jumbo and case precedent you want. Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. Even many liberal, pro-abortionists admit as much. It should have been left up to the states. To pass that law, via stretching the meaning of "right to privacy," was ridiculous.



Give me a break. Are we being willfully ignorant now? You know damn well all of them would have looked at such a thing with disgust and never would have even considered such a thing seriously.

I am not mistaking them, re-read my original comment and pay attention to the particular words I used cause you obviously didnt the first time around.

Its obvious in your "utopian" world we would be living in the 1950s (probably even in the 1800s) given your extremely socially conservative viewpoints on gay marriage, voting rights, religion,capital punishment, quite frankly some of the comments you have made over the yrs on these forums on race as well. Frankly, I dont recall you being a progressive on a single issue that comes to mind.

I brought up slavery because it is the classic example of civil and frankly human right that was denied for so many yrs to a great segment of our population. It is ultimately about equality of all citizens.

First, generally speaking, the 1950's would be much more preferable than today's world. We, as a society, have generally declined between then and now.

Second, what comments about race are you referring to?

Third, let's dispense with the latest word games, huh? "Progressive" is just a new, shiny word for "liberal." And, while I'm generally quite conservative, there are some issues I may differ with others on. Treatment of animals is one. Also, I take a less harsh approach on the immigration issue.

As for gay marriage, I did read your words. The precepts of the Founding Fathers does not apply to gays in the context of marriage. That's you (a lib) stretching and twisting things to suit your opinion.

The Constitution was drawn up by men who were residents of their own time, which meant they were willing to compromise on things like slavery. However, they recognized that they were fallible and put in a process through which the Constitution could be changed. Some more words by Alexander Hamilton: "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things." I think most people would agree that abolishing slavery and offering equal rights for all men and women were positive changes to a flawed Constitution.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison considered the possibility that a majority of citizens could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." If that is not an accurate depiction of the current state of gay marriage in America, since the most recent polling data have slight majorities approving of gay marriage, it certainly is its story for most of our history.

Madison proposed a two-part solution to prevent the possibility of a "tyranny of the majority." First, rather than have the people themselves vote on issues, elected representatives should decide these matters because their "wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and [their] patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

Madison also argued that a diverse population would "make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens." While this works for a number of issues, unfortunately with gay marriage the widely shared Christian belief made it too easy for citizens to have a collective basis for denying rights to behavior that contradicts this teaching.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect human rights. Every active amendment to the U.S. Constitution, without fail, was written to protect some specific or nonspecific group of people-the press, religious sects, racial minority groups, and so forth. It empowers people. The only amendment that didn't empower people was the Eighteenth Amendment, mandating Prohibition-and we repealed that one.

States regulate. Laws regulate. The Constitution deregulates. It untangles. It liberates. It takes power away from the government and gives it to the people, not the other way around. And it must do so in order to honor the words of the Declaration of Independence, which stated the purpose of government quite clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... [and] that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

If we amend the Constitution to restrict rights, rather than to protect them, we set an ominous precedent.

In terms of my race comment, I recall a number of comments/"jokes" you made about Trayvon Martin (not on here cause you would have been sent on vacation/banned) on the other forum. Referencing a number of African American stereotypes particularly about young black males, which you ultimately absolved GZ of any blame in the case. You even posted some "gangster" photos of Trayvon to show the forum "who he really was" and then when it came out that wasnt even him you never bothered to amend your comment or correct your post, others noted it. I would post these but I have no access to the other forum. Thre was also a comment you made about a black mother and a child abuse case, something to the effect of "she better be careful what she does with her daughter, thats her monthly check". I am paraphrasing here obviously. More recently, one just needs to read your affirmative action "joke" about the black guy who did the home invasion in the other thread.

It is refrshing and encouraging to know that some Board members do, indeed, read the Federalist Papers and other tomes about the Constitution's formulation. As an addition to your bibliography I suggest Akhil Amar's The Bill of Rights. It is a challenging, but rewarding read; I managed to wade through it.

First, I object to you using the term "rights" in relation to gays being married, as if it's already a forgone conclusion. While I believe it to be extremely misguided, not to mention evil, if invidiual states wants to enact laws to allow gay marriage, that's one thing. But to argue there is any Constitutional basis for it is, yet again, twisting the words and stretching the intent of the Founders to justify yourself.

Second, if you recall, I said I thought Zimmerman probably overstepped his bounds and should never have approached Martin to begin with. Of course, I also don't necessarily believe Martin was just an innocent kid minding his own business either.

When you talk about African-American stereotypes, particularly young black males, I was likely simply stating the cold, hard facts that we all know are true. It's just these certain facts you and other liberals are uneasy with and choose to ignore or sweep under the rug.

The black mother and her kid on the bus? Well, she actually looked either mulatto or Hispanic. In any event, if that wasn't a welfare momma, I don't what is. But you, as a typical lib, were probably more alarmed at my joke than her tossing her baby aside in order to fight that other woman, huh? Much like my affirmative action comment about that piece of shit who attacked that woman in that home invasion.