Texas ordered to pay $600,000 to same-sex couples.......

You really believe the Government got involved in the marriage business to grow the population? Hell, if population growth was the objective, all they had to do was promote intercourse - with or without marriage.

 

It's not hard if they license married couples and give benefits special for such coupling you can't consider private parts of each party everything else being equal. Separate Isn't Equal!

 

If it isn't genetic than it's environmental or merely a choice. Would it be reasonable to make illegal marriage between two people who chose to be together or are environmentally conditioned to be together assuming they are consenting adults and not related?

So because we don't know that it's genetic there can be no erring on the theory that it is? It has to be proven for certain?

I have to ask, what is lost by erring on the side of the theory?

 

Well, you finally got something right. There is more depression, anxiety and suicide among gays.

What's wrong is your concept of cause and effect. There is more depression, anxiety and suicide among gays because of the stigma against homosexuality. This stigma is especially strong in the Christian Community. There is a thread in the Religion section where a married man feels shamed and embarrassed because he has a desire to masturbate. Many Christian men try hide their homosexuality to the point of getting married. That's a recipe for depression, anxiety and suicide.

If we were to eliminate ancient religious beliefs everyone would be a lot better off.

 

I wouldn't agree with that. It does give something back. First it shows that a society accepts members that may not fit the norm. It establishes a stable home environment for homosexuals that have children. It also quells unrest from homosexual activists that agitate and pressure society to allow them these benefits.

Keeping SSM illegal doesn't trick homosexual people into being straight and they would pair up with same sex people anyway. So I'd say banning it does nothing.

Well the right to the pursuit of happiness can be.

I wouldn't bother with this point. Texas would rather be forced to marry some homosexual couples so that they don't have to give up control over marriage

 

Well he isn't saying that sexual orientation is a race. He's drawing a comparison because it shares a similarity. People can't help that they are black just like people can't help that they are homosexual. That's how they are similar. That might be the only way they are similar.

And further the 14th amendment does say the state cannot deny privileged to ordinary citizens. It talks about these categories but it isn't specific to these categories of people. I honestly think that was done on purpose.

 

yeah, but the right of marriage is not in the Constitution.

 

Marriage has been deemed a right by SCOTUS even before the gay marriage ruling.
So the 14th does apply.

 

So, in your infinite wisdom, interracial marriage became legal in 1868. If that was true, why did SCOTUS have to rule on it in 1967?



Where is "race is actually mentioned and addressed in the 14th amendment."

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.




From Section I.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

Wouldn't you concede that the phrase "any person" includes gay people?
Wouldn't you concede that "liberty" includes the freedom to marry as one sees fit?

Nah. You wouldn't.

 

fair enough - i suppose i could find a compromise with marriage and women having the right to work - it would be too chaotic on such matters.

 

I'm for gay marriage so I have no issues with it. I'm willing to let this be a right to everyone. I just worry about us being so willing to circumvent the Constitution.

 

Having sex is a behavior, marriage is not.
.

Calling Marriage a behavior dispels all of that Rahl. You post nonsense. Easilly debunked, laughable nonsense.

Having Sex is a behavior. A "relationship" is simply another way to say people having sex wiht each other. see that definition I gave you before.

Such as attraction or arousal or sex? Seems pretty cut and dry Rahl.

No, of course not. A Gender is a biological fact. You being aroused, or preferential to or by a particular gender in the bedroom is a behavior.

No, I'm talking about Marriage and why a society validates it and what doesn't seem to fit.

Thank goodness I posted a definition, and am not "pretending" anything.

 

homosexuals by nature of being Homosexuals aren't having Children. Adoption, or kids from a prior life when they weren't Homosexuals maybe, but too many people try and present Homosexuals and Heterosexuals as if it's the same thing in that regard and it isn't.

The problem isn't pairing up. pair up till your hearts content. The issue is why sanction it? What is the societal and governmental interest in sanctioning it?

happiness however can be defined by 100 people 100 different ways. Is happiness an outcome that can be guaranteed to all? I don't believe so, I think there have to be boundaries, or a society cannot keep up trying to make everyone happy.

 

It is when marriage is also NOT mentioned in the 14th amendment. That's what creating new amendments is for.

@Channe

It didn't take any time before a lefty is chanting "Separate but Equal" as if homosexuality has anything to do with a genetic reality like race.

 

That's also proven laughably not true because even modern studies are finding the same higher levels in gays as they did before this movement of acceptance began so your bullshit theory that its still society's fault for not accepting them is a complete fabrication. You really need to catch up on your reading.

I've got news for you Genius, Islam is FAR less tolerant of gays than Christianity. I find it laughable you are still pretending Christianity is the biggest threat to gays when gays are executed in Muslim controlled countries.

Just more ignorance and bigtory without factual data.

 

The case is specifically about race. My God have you done any study of history at all?

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Theamendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.

How do you miss such a basic historical fact?

To address slaves being given the right to vote. Good Lord you can't even come to grips with any historical data at all.

Do you even hear how ridiculous you sound when you ignore the very case that this was specifically designed to address?


But let's take your uneducated argument for a second. If your premise is that gays are people and it only takes a definition of a person to expand the rights of marriage then you just legalized pedophile marriage since all children are persons.

Another perfect example of the liberal thought process.

Why should we even have the ability to create new amendments if we can just tack on anything to one written at a specific time to address a specific issue?

 

the Bible says abortion is not murder

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-bible-says-abortion-is-not-murder.502829/

 

I'm trying to think of something to say here that hasn't been said already.

 

That's why I don't use the Bible as a source of morals or guidance.

 

You can't expect things to change completely overnight, especially with an issue as polarizing as this. Public support in the US for SSM now stands at 61% and climbing. Give it a couple of decades with gay kids growing up in a far less stigmatizing environment and compare outcomes then with outcomes now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taraha...when-same-sex-marriage-is-legal/#6aec81ec3b75

“Our results build on prior research indicating that state same-sex marriage bans were associated with increased rates of psychiatric disorders and that health expenditures decreased following implementation of a same-sex marriage policy in Massachusetts,”

 

Well I agree with you it isn't the same thing. But homosexuals can and do have children. Either through artificial insemination, surrogacy, or adoption homosexuals do have children.

I already said what the governmental interest in sanctioning it was. You argued against it saying that homosexuals can't have children, but they can through adoption surrogacy and artificial insemination. Do you agree this is having children though it may not actually be birthing them or conceiving them within the couple? I admit it is different from how heterosexual couples have children. But just because it's different how the children come to be in the family, does it make them any less the responsibility of the people who agreed to be responsible for the child or children? Doesn't a marriage make a more stable home for children? Do the parents regardless of sanguinity with the child provide a better home for children if their relationship is more stable? Isn't giving children a stable home one of the interests of government involvement in marriage?

Further I stated that government has no interest in banning same sex marriage. What is the societal interest in banning it?

You aren't addressing what I said. I said people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't matter how you define happiness. You have the right to pursue it.

 

I agree that interfering with ones right to marry who they love goes against freedom, but if you are a Dem using it as an attack against republicans, you are the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Is marriage a state privilege?

 

The language of the law does not state that it applies only to slaves. Try again.

Children can marry when they are able to consent. As always your though process is backwards and reeking of agenda driven fearmongering.

 

It doesn't have to be the second the government at the State level has a law that discriminates against gender its unlawful since the 14th Amendment demands equal treatment under the law to all citizens and marriage laws are laws. It doesn't matter if two straight people who are men or women want to wed for the rights for some reason it has to be treated the same as opposite sex people marrying. Period. And now its the law of the land as that so arguing it is a mute point States must comply to it. The wording of the Equal Protection Clause is pretty clear if they failed to edit it to be more precise they should have as written read verbatim and that is how it should be read its pretty simple to apply.