Marriage Admendment:Missouri

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-08-05 04:34pm

Talon Karrde wrote:All humans do have inalienable rights, just not all have the right to marry, just as all don't have a right to drink until 21, smoke until 18... etc.

You're comparing legally imposed restrictions on the right to drink, smoke, etc (which vary from state to state) to the inalienable right to marry?!!? You do understand the difference between FUNDAMENTAL rights and legal restrictions don't you?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-05 04:35pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Look, Talon, you're just digging yourself deeper. I wish I'd gotten around to putting my "Read. Comprehend. Post." pic of Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the church door for use in this post, but I haven't. Oh well. Here goes anyway.

Mainstream =/= correct. It can be correct, but being a mainstream opinion does not in and of itself make a certain view automatically correct.

Thats not my point here. Mainstream in my opinion means what most people accept. Therefore, something that garners 70% support would be mainstream. How could it not be?

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-05 04:36pm

Talon Karrde wrote:All humans do have inalienable rights, just not all have the right to marry

Why?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-05 04:36pm

Stravo wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:All humans do have inalienable rights, just not all have the right to marry, just as all don't have a right to drink until 21, smoke until 18... etc.
You're comparing legally imposed restrictions on the right to drink, smoke, etc (which vary from state to state) to the inalienable right to marry?!!? You do understand the difference between FUNDAMENTAL rights and legal restrictions don't you?

Yes, and these were just examples. But what you refer to as a "fundamental right of marriage" hasn't been allowed since the beginning of time, what makes us so enlightened to all of a sudden detirmine it is an unalienable right?

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-05 04:49pm

My thoughts on this are kinda opposite of what you guys are thinking. My religious side has me thinking that what they did in this vote was wrong, but my rational side is where the problem lies. I guess for me, the question is, does a child have the right to a mother and father? Even divorced homes tend to stilll have both parental units. It needs to be discussed. If you can have gay marriages, what about the children that these couples can (well, for lack of a better word here...but its true...) buy? Ive never taken a developmental pysch class, so Im not sure....having a male and female influence in early childhood..what are its benefits? Im all for gay marriage if we really start talking about the children that will definitely end up coming into question.

There are plenty of single parent families out there, so its gotta be able to work...I think, but I havent seen anyone really studying this...and if they have been, I havent heard anything about it. Should the government encourage (through tax breaks and whatever else it uses to encourage marriage) two people of the same sex to raise children? I just dont know...but it is surly not for religious reasons that I ask these questions.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-08-05 05:04pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Stravo wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:All humans do have inalienable rights, just not all have the right to marry, just as all don't have a right to drink until 21, smoke until 18... etc.
You're comparing legally imposed restrictions on the right to drink, smoke, etc (which vary from state to state) to the inalienable right to marry?!!? You do understand the difference between FUNDAMENTAL rights and legal restrictions don't you?
Yes, and these were just examples. But what you refer to as a "fundamental right of marriage" hasn't been allowed since the beginning of time, what makes us so enlightened to all of a sudden detirmine it is an unalienable right?

Are you saying marriage has not been recognized as a right since the beginning of time? That in the Bronze Age until now there were no marriages, that people did not have the right to be married?

Every state - from the Greek city states to the super power of today recognize marriage as a fundamental human right in order to procreate and foster a strong family unit which is the basis of all governments.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-05 05:06pm

Talon Karrde wrote:what makes us so enlightened to all of a sudden detirmine it is an unalienable right?

What gives any of us the right to discriminate without an objective justification, moron? The burden of proof lies on he who would discriminate, not those who would object to such discrimination.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-05 05:07pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Stravo wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:All humans do have inalienable rights, just not all have the right to marry, just as all don't have a right to drink until 21, smoke until 18... etc.
You're comparing legally imposed restrictions on the right to drink, smoke, etc (which vary from state to state) to the inalienable right to marry?!!? You do understand the difference between FUNDAMENTAL rights and legal restrictions don't you?
Yes, and these were just examples. But what you refer to as a "fundamental right of marriage" hasn't been allowed since the beginning of time, what makes us so enlightened to all of a sudden detirmine it is an unalienable right?

It's called "the pursuit of happiness," and the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a part of that and itself a fundamental right.

Fa-ir.org wrote:For most people, marriage would be considered "in the pursuit of happiness." The United States Supreme Court, in recognizing that marriage is a fundamental right, stated that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967). See also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, 98 S. Ct. 673 (1978). The Supreme Court held that state regulations that interfere with the fundamental right to remarry will be subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if they are "supported by sufficiently important state interests and [are] closely tailored to effectuate only those interests." Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388.

Well I guess you look like a dumb-ass now, don't you?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-05 05:07pm

Cairber wrote:My thoughts on this are kinda opposite of what you guys are thinking. My religious side has me thinking that what they did in this vote was wrong, but my rational side is where the problem lies. I guess for me, the question is, does a child have the right to a mother and father? Even divorced homes tend to stilll have both parental units. It needs to be discussed. If you can have gay marriages, what about the children that these couples can (well, for lack of a better word here...but its true...) buy? Ive never taken a developmental pysch class, so Im not sure....having a male and female influence in early childhood..what are its benefits? Im all for gay marriage if we really start talking about the children that will definitely end up coming into question.

Irrelevant. If the optimum environment for child-rearing were a limiting factor for marriages, then most marriages would be disallowed by the state. Think of all the people who get married every day who you would classify as unsuitable or less-than-ideal parents, for fuck's sake.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-05 05:44pm

Talon Karrde wrote: Mainstream =/= correct. It can be correct, but being a mainstream opinion does not in and of itself make a certain view automatically correct.

Thats not my point here.[/quote]

So you admit popular opinion can be wrong?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-05 05:45pm

Cairber wrote: If you can have gay marriages, what about the children that these couples can (well, for lack of a better word here...but its true...) buy? Ive never taken a developmental pysch class, so Im not sure....having a male and female influence in early childhood..what are its benefits?

The same arguement can be used against single parenting or a single person adopting a child.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-08-05 06:11pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Cairber wrote: If you can have gay marriages, what about the children that these couples can (well, for lack of a better word here...but its true...) buy? Ive never taken a developmental pysch class, so Im not sure....having a male and female influence in early childhood..what are its benefits?
The same arguement can be used against single parenting or a single person adopting a child.

Didn't the APA or whatever that large group of psychologists or something report that children raised by gay parents were no worse off than any other child?

I believe there was a thread on it.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-05 07:32pm

Yes, but the state doesnt endorse single child homes, by sanctioning homosexual homes they are kinda endorcing these homes to be without one parent or the other. Im not saying its completely for the worse...I just want to have documented evidence of what effects this has on children. And not some web site, either....a scientific journal or reputable source. Searched the Villanova library but couldnt find much...although the journal search is under construction right now so that could be the issue.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-05 07:45pm

Cairber wrote:Yes, but the state doesnt endorse single child homes, by sanctioning homosexual homes they are kinda endorcing these homes to be without one parent or the other. Im not saying its completely for the worse...I just want to have documented evidence of what effects this has on children. And not some web site, either....a scientific journal or reputable source. Searched the Villanova library but couldnt find much...although the journal search is under construction right now so that could be the issue.

Yet again I must point out that it is you who must provide incontrovertible evidence, since you are proposing to use this claim as a basis for discriminating against homosexuals. And for the second fucking time, since marriage is not necessarily tied to having kids, your point is moot anyway.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-08-05 08:03pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Nice to see TK is still the homophobic piece of shit he's always been the whole time he's here.

Hey TK, what is so frightening about the "EVIL" Homosexual to you that you have to repeatedly fling yourself at them in rage and hate only to get beaten back with logic and true morality, the kind that doesn't or couldn't ever come from a book written by committee but that which flows from the heart of a real honest-to-Gods human who's been raised to believe everyone has certain inalienable rights?
First off, I don't "fling myself at them in rage" nor do I think they are "EVIL". I'm beaten back with true logic and morality? Explain this morality please, I'm dieing to hear it.

All humans do have inalienable rights, just not all have the right to marry, just as all don't have a right to drink until 21, smoke until 18... etc.

Nice try at dodging my question, TK, and I tip my hat to our dear Darth Wong for destroying even that attempt!

I'll rephrase it for you: What the fuck makes you better at telling me whom I can marry than I can?

<Red Herring>I'll bet you're also one of those damn contemptible Drug Warriors who supports the notion of $80billion a year in taxes down the drain, 6 million Americans locked away and rising, and a Constitution shredded beyond recognition only to protect me from smoking a nearly harmless plant because I'm not good enough to police myself. After all, if I'm not allowed to marry my husband "for my protection", where the fuck will you fucking meddling invasive Gestapo assholes stop!?</Red Herring>

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-05 08:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Cairber wrote:Yes, but the state doesnt endorse single child homes, by sanctioning homosexual homes they are kinda endorcing these homes to be without one parent or the other. Im not saying its completely for the worse...I just want to have documented evidence of what effects this has on children. And not some web site, either....a scientific journal or reputable source. Searched the Villanova library but couldnt find much...although the journal search is under construction right now so that could be the issue.
Yet again I must point out that it is you who must provide incontrovertible evidence, since you are proposing to use this claim as a basis for discriminating against homosexuals. And for the second fucking time, since marriage is not necessarily tied to having kids, your point is moot anyway.

going back to my first post on this, Im saying this evidence isnt out there but it needs to be. legislators are saying that this is their reason (fox news, this moring at 8AM had 3 state senators talking about how their fear is for the children) If you show the legislators that the children arent to be worried about, then they cant use that excuse anymore. Most arent gonna talk crazy christian BS...they are gonna argue things like this. Take it away from them by doing the research. It would convince voters like me, as well.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-05 08:39pm

Cairber wrote:going back to my first post on this, Im saying this evidence isnt out there but it needs to be. legislators are saying that this is their reason (fox news, this moring at 8AM had 3 state senators talking about how their fear is for the children) If you show the legislators that the children arent to be worried about, then they cant use that excuse anymore. Most arent gonna talk crazy christian BS...they are gonna argue things like this. Take it away from them by doing the research. It would convince voters like me, as well.

Go back and read my previous post, since you obviously didn't understand ANY of it.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-05 08:42pm

guess ive been in college too long, my "you" there isnt a YOU, darth wong, do the research. Im saying that if this research was done, state senators like the three I saw this morning couldnt say this was their excuse for proposing this. Why are you so hostile? you seem to want to just stick with the "flame the christian morons" tactics that are so popular on this site. Theres other ways to propose change, Im proposing this.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-05 08:49pm

neoolong wrote: Didn't the APA or whatever that large group of psychologists or something report that children raised by gay parents were no worse off than any other child?

I believe there was a thread on it.

Problem is one can find studies to support practically anything, and the Christian conservatives won't believe the study results, even if they are conducted by a respectable, non-partisan group. Remember, they called the Whatever-It-Is Psychology Association-thingamajig in Hawaii infiltrated by the gay agenda when they published their recent studies...

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-05 08:53pm

they may not convince crazy christians, but they would convince people who just have other concerns...I know there has to be more people like this out there...who have non "god said so" problems with gay marriage. Hell, im sitting in a room right now with 4 people who have issues with gay marriage that have nothing to do with God.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-05 08:57pm

Cairber wrote:guess ive been in college too long, my "you" there isnt a YOU, darth wong, do the research.

I already explained severalt imes that if you're going to discriminate against someone, YOU bear the goddamned responsibility to do the research to back up your claims, otherwise you HAVE NO FUCKING CASE! How many fucking times can you mindlessly stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the point?

Im saying that if this research was done, state senators like the three I saw this morning couldnt say this was their excuse for proposing this. Why are you so hostile? you seem to want to just stick with the "flame the christian morons" tactics that are so popular on this site. Theres other ways to propose change, Im proposing this.

If you try to please the fundies by letting them put the burden of proof on us, you let them dictate terms, and they will continue moving the goalposts until the end of fucking time, declaring victory each time. Either you're an imbecile or you're an apologist, which is just as bad.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-05 09:01pm

Darth, I dont see you proposing any ideas to change this, just complaining about what is. Guess the crazy christians are just more proactive

perhaps thats why they get their way.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-05 09:04pm

Cairber, take it from me. Do not make your religious beliefs an issue in any debate on this board unless you have to. It just makes life harder.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-05 09:05pm

true

) point taken! I gotta sign off this thread now tho, my guests are now arguing about this, too and its making for a bad evenin! LoL.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-05 09:06pm

Cairber wrote:Darth, I dont see you proposing any ideas to change this, just complaining about what is. Guess the crazy christians are just more proactive perhaps thats why they get their way.

Yeah, just like those crazy Christians in Germany in 1935. They got their way too.

One of these days, try learning how to ANSWER A FUCKING POINT, dumb-shit. Every time I make one, you simply ignore it like a blissful little airhead bimbo and mumble something about trying to make people happy.