Political Crossfire Forums

[Freemason]

What is a social contract - is the principle question in "gay marriage".

There are many social contracts - do not murder, do not steal, do not committ adultery.

Some make it into law (the first two) some do not (the last mentioned).

What is Marriage? It is "THE" social contract.

Marriage establishes the "future" of society - who is allowed to marry is supposed to condone who has legitimate children. In more ancient society these children inherited the country - bastards were landless and usually "vassals" or other form of commons with no legal authority.

This was because those societies especially were protecting traditions.

Now we don't need to be so barbaric as leaving deformed children in caves - or outcasting bastards.

But do we need to be so liberal as to allow gay marriages? Is that the type of new social contract we want?

Bastard children typically are criminals - you can blame racism all you want.

But, typically, most criminals are minorities especially blacks, and minorities are the most likely to have children out of wedlock, especially blacks.

The correlation is strong between single mothers and poverty.

So was allowing this to be a new social contract a "good thing"?

As such - why would allowing gay marriages be a "good thing"?

[LostSoul3412]

Freemason wrote: As such - why would allowing gay marriages be a "good thing"?

Because following the Constitution is a "good thing", and because discrimination is a "bad thing".

(Also, this should be moved to the Gay/Lesbian Forums.)

[Freemason]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Freemason wrote: As such - why would allowing gay marriages be a "good thing"?

Because following the Constitution is a "good thing", and because discrimination is a "bad thing".

(Also, this should be moved to the Gay/Lesbian Forums.)

Oh so when is it that Gay marriage or any marriage is protected by the Constitution? That's a retarded argument...seriously.

[Gdawg007]

Freemason wrote: What is a social contract - is the principle question in "gay marriage".

There are many social contracts - do not murder, do not steal, do not committ adultery.

Some make it into law (the first two) some do not (the last mentioned).

What is Marriage? It is "THE" social contract.

Marriage establishes the "future" of society - who is allowed to marry is supposed to condone who has legitimate children. In more ancient society these children inherited the country - bastards were landless and usually "vassals" or other form of commons with no legal authority.

In ancient society? Many other things went on in ancient society that were social contracts, shall we defend them all because of their deemed importance at the time?

Quote: This was because those societies especially were protecting traditions.

This was before legal codes and systems allowed for land to be protected.

Quote: But do we need to be so liberal as to allow gay marriages? Is that the type of new social contract we want?

Based on popular voting in some states, no. But apparently some do in other states.

Quote: Bastard children typically are criminals - you can blame racism all you want.

Please provide proof of this claim.

Quote: But, typically, most criminals are minorities especially blacks, and minorities are the most likely to have children out of wedlock, especially blacks.

This is statistically true, but the link you are making is not. That is, criminals are breed due solely to being "bastards" is easily refutable.

Quote: The correlation is strong between single mothers and poverty.

That is true.

Quote: So was allowing this to be a new social contract a "good thing"?

As such - why would allowing gay marriages be a "good thing"?

Based on what you said here I can't say. Actually, you've just provided a strong argument for allowing gay marriage. If bastards supposedly wind up as criminals, and the same goes for the children of single mothers in poverty, than perhaps you could eliminate some of those criminals by allowing those that become gay to marry. That way, there will be fewer bastards and less criminals. Other than that, your mixing about five different issues and trying to use them to argue against gay marriage.

[Gdawg007]

Freemason wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Freemason wrote: As such - why would allowing gay marriages be a "good thing"?

Because following the Constitution is a "good thing", and because discrimination is a "bad thing".

(Also, this should be moved to the Gay/Lesbian Forums.)

Oh so when is it that Gay marriage or any marriage is protected by the Constitution? That's a retarded argument...seriously.

Gay marriage is not, equal protection under the law is in the constitution.

[Freemason]

Equal protection where voting and citizenship is concerned - but not in what is legal.

[Gdawg007]

Freemason wrote: Equal protection where voting and citizenship is concerned - but not in what is legal.

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.

What due process has been taken against homosexuals to deny them equal protection of the laws? Changing the law is one thing, however, most states don't have a law against being gay. Unless one of those passes, you cannot deny them equal protection based on their sexual status.

[Freemason]

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.

What part of this don't you understand? It denies a state the power to deny a citizen the rights in the Bill of Rights, or to take away anything from a citizen without due process. Nor can a state decide to enforce a law for a white man over a black man.

It doesn't say anything about marriage just as it doesn't say anything about gun laws.

[Gdawg007]

Freemason wrote: 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.

What part of this don't you understand? It denies a state the power to deny a citizen the rights in the Bill of Rights, or to take away anything from a citizen without due process. Nor can a state decide to enforce a law for a white man over a black man.

It doesn't say anything about marriage just as it doesn't say anything about gun laws.

You are the one who doesn't understand. The language isn't specific to ANY issue, as you point out. Therefore, on can apply it as long as the general language fits. That is, no person shall be denied equal protection under the law. I was incorrect, the semi-colon makes that part a completely different sentence, meaning the caveats of due process don't apply to equal protection under the law. You assume this only applies to race. Show me where it says anything about race in this part of the amendment...? It says ANY PERSON.

[War Approving Democrat]

Freemason wrote: 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.

What part of this don't you understand? It denies a state the power to deny a citizen the rights in the Bill of Rights, or to take away anything from a citizen without due process. Nor can a state decide to enforce a law for a white man over a black man.

It doesn't say anything about marriage just as it doesn't say anything about gun laws.
Yes that may be your interpretation but mine is that ANY law passed by the congress, because there is no mention of Bill of Rights only laws, is able to be placed under this amendment and a state does need to give due processes. And where does it mention race? Because if it doesn't then it applies to all including gays. You need a law to ban but not to allow it is mine.

[Alizard]

Freemason wrote:

But do we need to be so liberal as to allow gay marriages?

We need to be fair enough to allow all citizens the same rights under our laws with regard to property, taxes, inheritance, authorizing medical care, and other lawful standing. I don't care whether it is called "marriage", "civil union" or "Rumplestiltskin".

To sepearate out a small segment and exclude them is pure bigotry.

Just like this thread.

[Alizard]

Freemason wrote:

Bastard children typically are criminals -

I often see ignorance reflected in the posts of bigots, but very few put the words in flashing neon like you just did.

[Proton]

That's the same user that has been making race & culture threads etc eh. Take notice.

He seems to have be easily swayed with mouthfuls of BS.

The gays don't hurt anyone (directly/ use of force to a third person or whatever you want to call it) they concent, they are free to have joint taxation forms or anything else they like (which is what all this marriage thing, legal wise is about). End.

[Alizard]

Proton wrote: That's the same user that has been making race & culture threads etc eh. Take notice.

He seems to have be easily swayed with mouthfuls of BS.
I wonder when we will be treated to a thread on the benefits of selective sterilization of the "lessers" in our society.

Sieg heil, y'all...... :cry:

[kohadril]

I think the constitutional question of gay marriage is an interesting, but ultimately irrelevant one. I would argue that any law that unfairly benefits one group over another (heterosexuals over homosexuals), and where there is no compelling state interest to do so, is necessarily unconstitutional either in fact or in spirit. Marriage provides certain priveleges and immunities, as well as legal protections (among them priveleged contact with one's spouse, visitation rights at hospitals, tax benefits, and other things) that are unavailable to the unmarried. Therefore, people who are not allowed to marry are discriminated against, and denied equal protection, priveleges, and immunities.

Of course, one may easily argue that it is legal for homosexuals to marry; just not members of their own gender. Arguably, then, homosexuals have exactly as much access to those rights as heterosexuals. But that's a pretty ridiculous argument. People don't marry for the benefits; they marry for love. The benefits are designed to encourage monogamy (there is quite a compelling state interest in insuring monogamy) and stable families for raising children (again, there is an important state interest here). Considering that monogamy among homosexuals is useful to the state, just as it is among heterosexuals, and considering that stable families are always beneficial for children, regardless of the gender dispositions of their legal guardians, I see no justification for denying homosexuals the right to marry. If indeed the governmental/legal institution of marriage is, as all of its proponents argue, useful in encouraging monogamy and stable families, then why would it not do so for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals?

The argument that only heterosexuals can produce children falls immediately; if it were valid to restrict marriage only to those who can actually reproduce, then the infertile should be banned from marrying, as should those who have no intention of having children with their spouse. Nobody is advocating that. Moreover, gay families may adopt, and again, family stability is important for any kind of child rearing. And to those who argue that gay couples are necessarily less effective parents than heterosexual couples: first, there is no empirical evidence to support that; second, what disparagement and abuse children of gay parents face is a product of the very intolerance legal equality might help to ameliorate; and third, it's basically irrelevant, since there are more children looking for adoptive parents than there are heterosexual families waiting to adopt them. Unless someone is going to step forward and reasonably assert, with any kind of evidence, that having homosexual parents is worse than being subjected to a childhood in the foster care system, homosexual adoption is a good thing.

Gay marriage is socially useful for exactly the same reasons that marriage advocates argue that heterosexual marriage is useful. If the word "marriage" is too religiously loaded, then change the word to "civil unions."

The real question is not why we should allow gay people to marry each other. The real question is why the hell we shouldn't.

Edited for grammar

[Alizard]

kohadril wrote:

The real question is not why we should allow gay people to marry each other. The real question is why the hell we shouldn't.[/i]

Homophobes need a boogie man to direct their hatred towards, and blame all the failings of our society. It's a well-known fact the 60% failure rate of heterosexual marriages is the fault of gays.... at least, I'm sure people like the OP would have some way of showing it is.

The reactionary right has become so hate blind they have no room left for rational thought. They will never accept the gay lifestyle even as it is revealed many in their own ranks are gay. They will always demonize gays and claim they are evil and sinful.

This problem has no rational solution because the problem is being caused by people who will not be rational.

[agentkgb]

Freemason wrote: 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.

What part of this don't you understand? It denies a state the power to deny a citizen the rights in the Bill of Rights, or to take away anything from a citizen without due process. Nor can a state decide to enforce a law for a white man over a black man.

It doesn't say anything about marriage just as it doesn't say anything about gun laws.
It doesn't say anything about any specific issue. That doesn't mean it applies to nothing, it means it would apply to everything, gay marriage included.
Edited to fix typo.

[sLiPpY]

I've got to say, I don't understand the big deal over the "marriage" thing.

There are almost 100 million Americans who aren't married. 63 percent of that number has never been married. Around 23 percent are single by divorce, 14 percent single by being widowed.

I like having a "live-in" every once in a while, but I've got absolutely no desire to ever get married, share my wallet, or having someone else have a say so over what I choose to do with my time.

For those folks who have a desire to get married, all I can say is "god bless you." :lol:

[Marzelvane]

Gdawg007 wrote:

You assume this only applies to race. Show me where it says anything about race in this part of the amendment...? It says ANY PERSON.

You just proved it right there. See it says ANY PERSON. It does not say "any person or gay". So why do you think gays are included?

[agentkgb]

Marzelvane wrote: Gdawg007 wrote:

You assume this only applies to race. Show me where it says anything about race in this part of the amendment...? It says ANY PERSON.

You just proved it right there. See it says ANY PERSON. It does not say "any person or gay". So why do you think gays are included?
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.