What's your view on "gay rights"

[Friendindeed]

Allowing a black man and a white woman and vise versa to marry does not constitute a special right based on sexual preference. I am curious to learn how you believe race effects sexual preference.

Loving v. Virginia affirms the right of everyone to marry whom they see fit.

 

[palerider]

I've summed it up quite easily actually. The right to marry any person you choose is not a special right. defining marriage between a man and a woman makes marriage a special right for heterosexuals.

A sanctioned union between a man and a woman (or women) is not defining marriage, it is what marriage is, and has been since the institution was first concieved. Calling it anyting else, is changing what is for whatever reason and in the case of gays, it would be changing because of their sexual preference which would constitute granting a special right based on sexual preference.

 

[palerider]

Loving v. Virginia affirms the right of everyone to marry whom they see fit.

And once again, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Refer to your history books. Allowing two gays to form a legal union no more constitutes a marriage, than allowing one to check out a book from the library constitutes purchasing the book. Borrowing is what it is and marriage is wht it is and it is not a union between two people of the same sex.

 

[The_Giver]

My history books tell me slavery has been a long and widely practiced tradition. Why do we no longer have it? Perhaps it is because it was unfair to those who did not benefit from it (inhuman to say the least).

You may claim it is on a completely different level but I do not see why "just because we have been doing it for a long time" is reason enough to keep marriage the way it is.

 

[palerider]

My history books tell me slavery has been a long and widely practiced tradition. Why do we no longer have it? Perhaps it is because it was unfair to those who did not benefit from it (inhuman to say the least).

You may claim it is on a completely different level but I do not see why "just because we have been doing it for a long time" is reason enough to keep marriage the way it is.

Slavery was what it was, and we stopped it in this country. We didn't re-define it and keep on doing it. We stopped the practice. It became against the law to own another human being.

Marriage is what it is and you are talking about redefining what it is and giving a special right to some based on their sexual preference. If you are prepared to grant special rights based on sexual preference, where are you prepared to draw the line and by what right do you draw that line?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Homosexuals have the right to get married exactly the same as you and I. They don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex, however, which would be a special right and while no one deserves to have rights taken away because of sexual prefrence, no one deserves to be given special rights because of their sexual preference either.

Actually, what EVERYONE possesses is the right of unlimited contract in regards to all behavior that is peaceful, honest or voluntary. The government has no right to grant privileges in regards to marriage or require licensing of what they deem is an acceptable view of marriage.

People have a right to marry whoever they want, whenever they want, free of any interference from the government.

 

[palerider]

Actually, what EVERYONE possesses is the right of unlimited contract in regards to all behavior that is peaceful, honest or voluntary. The government has no right to grant privileges in regards to marriage or require licensing of what they deem is an acceptable view of marriage.

Actually, the government does have the right.

People have a right to marry whoever they want, whenever they want, free of any interference from the government.

I don't find such a right in my constitution. Could you point it out for me?

 

[n0spam4me]

Modern "Marriage" is a CONTRACT between two people and the state, to define the distribution of property by inheritance.

ALL such contracts should be called "Civil Union" and if the parties involved insist on calling it "Marriage" so be it. However under the LAW there should be no discrimination as to its a heterosexual or homosexual couple.

Logical
no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

 

[palerider]

Logical
no?

No. Marriage is what it is. Societies since the beginning of history haven't so much "defined" marriage as acknowledged what marriage is. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A union between two people of the same sex is simply not a marriage.

We, are all restricted from marrying close blood relatives, animals, another married person, and a person of the same sex. To grant one group a dispensation from these restrictions is to grant a special right based on sexual preference. Where do you draw the line?

There is no legal inequality with regard to marriage, only an inequality of desire and the state has no business granting special rights based on the desires of individuals based on sexual preference.

 

[TOGU]

Hello everybody, this is my first post

Palerider says it well.

Furthermore, homosexuality itself is immoral in almost every culture. It's completely unnatural and sinful.

I don't think the government should necessarily punish immorality, yet I do believe it is in the government's interest to discourage immorality in keeping with some basic standards of civilized behavior.

Still, homosexual marriage is a relatively minor issue in the big scheme of things. We should let the people decide what the law on homosexual marriage should be.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Actually, the government does have the right.

Under what specific Constitutional authority? Please define the specific authority. Good luck. While you're at it, see if you can find the Constitutional authority that would forbid prostitution. That's not there either:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua2.shtml

Also please tell me under what authority you seek to control and regulate the peaceful, honest behavior of other human beings.

I don't find such a right in my constitution. Could you point it out for me?

A marriage is a contract between two (or more in some cases) people. Only those people are involved in the contract. I believe the Supreme Court settled the right to contract issue a long time ago, back when the Justices actually still understood the Constitution:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I don't think the government should necessarily punish immorality, yet I do believe it is in the government's interest to discourage immorality in keeping with some basic standards of civilized behavior.

Then let them do it through PERSUASION (non-violence) as Jesus Christ did, and not through COERCION (violence - guns of government threatening punishment).

 

[TOGU]

All laws imply coercion for enforcement. Otherwise they wouldn't be laws in the first place.

 

[HighVoltage123]

ahamz ...

 

[palerider]

Under what specific Constitutional authority? Please define the specific authority. Good luck. While you're at it, see if you can find the Constitutional authority that would forbid prostitution. That's not there either:

You don't seem to understand what the constitution actually does. It doesn't tell either the federal government or the states what they may do, it tells them what they may not do. In order for you to claim that the government has no right to do a thing, that thing must be specifically forbiden by the constitution.

There is no section of the constitution that forbids government at either the federal or state level from regulating contracts between people (if that is what you want to call marriage) or from regulating who may marry for that matter so the government may indeed become involved. In order for government to be restricted from becoming involved in the issue of marriage, the right to marry whoever or whatever one wishes would have to be a protected constitutional right which it is clearly not.

Ditto for prostitution.

Also please tell me under what authority you seek to control and regulate the peaceful, honest behavior of other human beings.

I just did

A marriage is a contract between two (or more in some cases) people. Only those people are involved in the contract. I believe the Supreme Court settled the right to contract issue a long time ago, back when the Justices actually still understood the Constitution:

Once again, the government has the right to regulate contracts between people. Following your logic, a brother and sister or a father and daughter could enter into a marriage contract.

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).

Here, you have grossly misunderstood what was said in your rush to prove your point. The entire argument here is that our rights existed in the form of the common law long before the state held any sway over them and that the state's responsibility is to protect those rights that we held.

In the context of this argument, take some time to learn what the common law says about marriage. It does not recognize, or even acknowledge the possibility, of marriage existing between two members of the same sex.