Rainbow Cocksuckers

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights.

So, you agree then that marriage is a fundamental right and NOT a privilege like you said above? Is that correct?

Or did you just cut and paste that blurb above without thinking about what it means?

How does your post impact voting rights? Privacy rights? Are they natural and therefore inalienable? Or are they contingent upon customs and belief of a particular culture? What about the right to an attorney? The right to remain silent? What about the right to a jury of your peers? All contingent up culture and therefore NOT universal and inalienable?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And your point is?

EVEN IF MARRIAGE IS A PRIVILEGE, the government cannot violate the equal protection of the law by withholding the privilege from one group of people without a damn good reason.

And there IS NO GOOD REASON to deny it to gays. Thinking that gays are icky is NOT a good reason.

That's why they changed the rules. Now marriage becomes a right by legal leverage so gays can get married. But a license is still required, so there are still some privileges involved. For instance severely mentally handicapped can't get married because of their inability to understand the provisions of entering a contract. In most states first cousins are denied marriage. If a license wasn't required then privileges wouldn't be granted. People could get married to anyone, anywhere at anytime.

Jim

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, you agree then that marriage is a fundamental right and NOT a privilege like you said above? Is that correct?

Or did you just cut and paste that blurb above without thinking about what it means?

How does your post impact voting rights? Privacy rights? Are they natural and therefore inalienable? Or are they contingent upon customs and belief of a particular culture? What about the right to an attorney? The right to remain silent? What about the right to a jury of your peers? All contingent up culture and therefore NOT universal and inalienable?

You can get your license and marry Ralph, you do have that privilege...

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

That's why they changed the rules. Now marriage becomes a right by legal leverage so gays can get married. But a license is still required, so there are still some privileges involved. For instance severely mentally handicapped can't get married because of their inability to understand the provisions of entering a contract. In most states first cousins are denied marriage. If a license wasn't required then privileges wouldn't be granted. People could get married to anyone, anywhere at anytime.

Did you read ANY of the posts above?

The fact that there are minimum restrictions on getting married doesn't make it OK for government to discriminate unless it has a substantial reason for doing so.

There are minimum restrictions on voting and driving. That does NOT make it a privilege and it does NOT mean that government can deny equal protections of the law unless the discriminatory action advances some substantial governmental purpose and the government chooses the least restrictive means in advancing that purpose.

So, what purpose is government advancing in barring gays from marrying?

If government values stable human relationships and family support networks, doesn't denying gays inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical decision authority, tenants rights, group healthcare, etc. seem to be doing the opposite?

Prior to Loving vs. Virginia, some states banned interracial marriage. What governmental purpose did THAT serve? NONE. It was bigotry carried our in the law. When we finally struck down those laws, were we moving the goal posts then too? What exactly was the "goal" the posts were making anyhow?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Did you read ANY of the posts above?

The fact that there are minimum restrictions on getting married doesn't make it OK for government to discriminate unless it has a substantial reason for doing so.

There are minimum restrictions on voting and driving. That does NOT make it a privilege and it does NOT mean that government can deny equal protections of the law unless the discriminatory action advances some substantial governmental purpose and the government chooses the least restrictive means in advancing that purpose.

So, what purpose is government advancing in barring gays from marrying?

If government values stable human relationships and family support networks, doesn't denying gays inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical decision authority, tenants rights, group healthcare, etc. seem to be doing the opposite?

He's not one of the smarter ones...

He's against it, but doesn't have the first clue as to arguing that point from a legal standpoint. 'Icky' is about as far as he gets.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Did you read ANY of the posts above?

The fact that there are minimum restrictions on getting married doesn't make it OK for government to discriminate unless it has a substantial reason for doing so.

There are minimum restrictions on voting and driving. That does NOT make it a privilege and it does NOT mean that government can deny equal protections of the law unless the discriminatory action advances some substantial governmental purpose and the government chooses the least restrictive means in advancing that purpose.

So, what purpose is government advancing in barring gays from marrying?

If government values stable human relationships and family support networks, doesn't denying gays inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical decision authority, tenants rights, group healthcare, etc. seem to be doing the opposite?

Prior to Loving vs. Virginia, some states banned interracial marriage. What governmental purpose did THAT serve? NONE. It was bigotry carried our in the law. When we finally struck down those laws, were we moving the goal posts then too? What exactly was the "goal" the posts were making anyhow?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

What rights have been taken away from you?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

He's not one of the smarter ones...

He's against it, but doesn't have the first clue as to arguing that point from a legal standpoint. 'Icky' is about as far as he gets.

You are the last person that should ever talk about "liberty" OzombieRaider...

We counted on you to defend "liberty" and you let us down!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Did you read ANY of the posts above?

The fact that there are minimum restrictions on getting married doesn't make it OK for government to discriminate unless it has a substantial reason for doing so.

There are minimum restrictions on voting and driving. That does NOT make it a privilege and it does NOT mean that government can deny equal protections of the law unless the discriminatory action advances some substantial governmental purpose and the government chooses the least restrictive means in advancing that purpose.

So, what purpose is government advancing in barring gays from marrying?

If government values stable human relationships and family support networks, doesn't denying gays inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical decision authority, tenants rights, group healthcare, etc. seem to be doing the opposite?

Prior to Loving vs. Virginia, some states banned interracial marriage. What governmental purpose did THAT serve? NONE. It was bigotry carried our in the law. When we finally struck down those laws, were we moving the goal posts then too? What exactly was the "goal" the posts were making anyhow?

There is a perfectly good reason why gays should be restricted from marrying. For one thing it goes against the biological order of things. Whether you want to accept it or not homosexuals have a loose wire somewhere. People are not suppose to be romantically attracted to members of the same sex, but because the way our society is changing, and for the worse I might add. The law thinks we should accept it, which is bullshit. The basic premise of this argument was, is it a right or a privilege to marry. The definitive answer is marriage is a provisionary right. Because a license is granted, marriage also has some privileged qualities.

Jim

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by slingblade

LOL I guess it never crossed your mind the the photo may have been made by a gay marine. Cant say for sure but you do know they exist

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/r...marinekiss.jpg

Okay now that I have pissed off a bunch of you guys. I understand how that makes you feel. I personally would not have done something like that. To say that it is my right to do so is one thing but I give the same respect that I ask for. It is a good example of how flag can make someone feel so now you know how Blacks feel when they see a navy jack (rebel flag) being displayed.

It's more than the flag. It is the theft of the pose itself. An iconic statement of heroism is in that pose and a bunch of peter puffers is going to steal that honor??? That's what it is.... theft of honor.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, you agree then that marriage is a fundamental right and NOT a privilege like you said above? Is that correct?

Or did you just cut and paste that blurb above without thinking about what it means?

How does your post impact voting rights? Privacy rights? Are they natural and therefore inalienable? Or are they contingent upon customs and belief of a particular culture? What about the right to an attorney? The right to remain silent? What about the right to a jury of your peers? All contingent up culture and therefore NOT universal and inalienable?

The 1st and 5th amendment rights are political in nature while the idea of marriage is religious at its root. As some left wingers have said (and right wingers as well) the government should not be in the marriage business at all. Marriage is fundemental to the understanding of a religion. Each religion has slightly different rules but just about every mainstream religion does share one thing; marriage is between a man and a woman. Government intruded for tax and property reasons and should be out of that business. Let each church decide if they believe or want to recognize gay marriage. Leave that up to the worshippers and not some judge with an agenda.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

What's interesting is the story behind the photo. The famous photo was not the first flag raised on Mt Suribachi that day. The secretary of the Navy requested that flag and ordered a larger one erected or Rosenthal would never have had the chance to get the photo in the first place. Three of the marines in the famous photo were dead less than a month later.

As for this photo with the rainbow flag, it's within their right to do it, but probably not something I would say is in good taste.

Tell us something we don't know. Other than the fact that you agree that it is in bad taste (though you said it is not in good taste), I think most of us know that stuff. Which affects this how? FYI, one member of that detail was a Navy Corpsman.

[CuteOldGuy]

Jude's-Christian marriage is between a man and one or more women + concubines. The New Testament only recommended, not required, elders to have only one wife.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Jude's-Christian marriage is between a man and one or more women + concubines. The New Testament only recommended, not required, elders to have only one wife.

As if his (or "their") argument isn't full of holes to begin with.

It's like watching a nutless monkey trying to argue astrophysics.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

There is a perfectly good reason why gays should be restricted from marrying. For one thing it goes against the biological order of things. Whether you want to accept it or not homosexuals have a loose wire somewhere. People are not suppose to be romantically attracted to members of the same sex, but because the way our society is changing, and for the worse I might add. The law thinks we should accept it, which is bullshit. The basic premise of this argument was, is it a right or a privilege to marry. The definitive answer is marriage is a provisionary right. Because a license is granted, marriage also has some privileged qualities.

Jim

The biological order of things? Thousands of species have been observed engaging in same-sex behavior, so I'm not sure what biological order you're talking about. I think what you meant to say is you think it's gross and can't imagine it, so it must not be biologically proper. Complete bullshit. Who are YOU to say what sex someone should be attracted to?