N. Carolina bans same-sex marriage, part 2

And a perfectly good point when laws are required to be narrow and sufficient I execution. In this case being both too narrow in excluding many people with kids and who could have kids, and too broad I including those who can't, won't or should not.

 

Not much to explain, it's like I said. The science of genetics doesn't recognize the concept of race; at a genetic level it's a fallacy. There is currently one human species. As I said, folks do commonly divide each other into groups based on arbitrary physical characteristics, handles for some common characteristics have existed and been used socially for a long time. The word race has convenience and application, but from a genetic point of view it makes about as much sense to call all red heads one race as it does to call all folks with dark skin another. Anyway, if you're really interested look a little further than a dictionary. Talk to a geneticist or just do a Google search. The assertion is not only well established, it's what's commonly accepted throughout the science.​

 

It's a parallel criteria for unfair discrimination. What does religion have to do with race? The answer is people and laws have unfairly discriminated between between other people based on both. Like they do now with regard to sexual orientation or gender.

When you deny a person the right to sit on a bus or another civil right because of any of these criteria you're doing so to serve only prejudice. That denial is unnecessary, society doesn't benefit denying them that right. The same is true when you use that same unfair criteria to deny two people the right to speak freely or marry.

You know there's no law against bigotry. Folks are free to their own opinions and even hatreds. It's ok for you to hate blacks, Jews, or homosexuals. But our constitution doesn't allow our laws that same freedom. All people are guaranteed equal protection under the law, with the sole caveat that if there is a compelling need we can deny them those rights in the most limited way possible. There is no need to deny a drivers license to a black man, or a marriage license to two black men.​

 

Yup, like they've done before.​

​

 

That's a reason to hand the ones who do a cigar, not a reason to discriminate between two octogenarian couples who both want to marry.​

​

 

Until gays and lesbians delcare themselves a religion, they have no business comparing their behaviors and beliefs to a religion. And they most definitely are not a race or "born that way". Too much evidence to the contrary; as in that animals across all mammalian species can be trained around puberty to fixate sexual orientation on any number of artificial objects or mates introduced via classical conditioning. Ancient Greece was changed to a gay pedophile state in increments gained very much how gays are gaining access to marraige and to schools promoting a pedophile in CA even in schools there. We as a majority have a right to protect our cultural values from being usurped and turning the US into a parallel of Ancient Greece. Homo sapiens has not changed since then. The same psychology applies.

Now, gays and lesbians do qualify as a religion in my opinion. They require a staunch adherence to their dogma. They do not like people challenging it and when they do they scream "oppression"!. Anyone trying to leave the fold is met with stern coercion not to do so [see Anderson Cooper's recent bit on CNN on how to turn in psychologists for doing therapy at their patient's request to reform the patient's own unwanted sexual compulsions, gay or otherwise..]. And they evangelize, holding events for the "bi-curious" [I thought gays say they are "born that way"?] and so forth.

So when gays and lesbians get formally recognized as a religion then we can start talking about descrimination. Until then, it's just another complusive behavioral group trying to pass itself off as a "civil rights movement".

We have laws for human behaviors. Which will be next for "civil rights" to marry? Siblings? Polygamists? Actually, of all the parade of sexual fetishes that will march before the Supreme Court after gays and lesbians get their way, polygamists have the strongest argument for "born that way". Poor supreme court. Once they give rights to gays and lesbians, their hands will be tied if they are faced with denying others based on behaviors and "love". They can't descriminate, remember?

 

*shrug* It ain't that complicated. Rights aren't granted folks because of any criteria other than being American. They're denied folks only when that denial is necessary and by the narrowest criteria possible. Race, religion, and sex are unfair criteria for legal discrimination.

Don't give homosexuals any rights beyond those offered to all Americans. Don't deny same sex couples rights because of their sex.​

 

Sex or gender? Their sexual behavior most certainly will be denied rights. Just like polygamists' sexual behavior and any siblings who are sexually involved. We deny them too, don't forget. Stop using "sex" as interchangeable.

Any gender may marry the opposite gender. Any sexual behaviors however may not be declared "married". We have laws against certain types of human behaviors for a reason. We don't want to become Ancient Greece which became the way it did [gay pedophile state] by increments just like the inroads gays are making today.

We don't let men shower with women in public locker rooms. That's discrimination too. Will that be your next cause for "civil rights"? That's just like the 'blacks only' and "whites only" drinking fountains.

Who will be the next "Harry Tubman" of the locker rooms? Which man will walk boldly into a woman's shower stall and declare he isn't moving, that he no longer will abide by this unfair discrimination?

See, behaviors are problematic and are not racial issues.

 

Then propose any laws you'd like to limit behaviors you consider harmful. I'll be happy to discuss, in a separate thread, any you'd like to make a case for.

In this thread we're talking about suspending the civil right of marriage based on sex (gender). We limit people based on a groups size or on familial relations. We don't do so based on race, religion, or sex.

It's understandable and defendable to prevent a surgeon from operating on her children or a judge from judging his father. We commonly limit the size of partnerships; LLCs and S CORPs have a maximum number of participants; we don't let more than a certain number of folks in an elevator. You want to argue a size restriction or familial relation restriction is inappropriate in marriage? Go ahead, you might even convince me. But do it in a different thread.

It's an entirely separate issue to say we need to keep a same sex couple from marrying. And as yet you have provided no reason why we need to do this.​

 

yea, while over here on the west coast where we have real waves, not those puny little ass 3 footers.
You obvioulsy dont understand the purpose of my screen id.

you probably dont even know what the term bigot means, or where it came from, but nontheless, name calling is always the last refuge of someone who has no substance to their arguement.

 

The preference of people for privacy is why the current trend in public architecture is to provide stall doors. College dorms have had them on shower doors in unisex bathrooms for decades. Private clubs can have private rules, they can keep women out of a male locker room, or women out of the club entirely. The icons on public restroom doors are provided as a suggestion. With few exceptions (I think Oregon was the last) it's not illegal for a man to use a facility marked with a female icon. And while I think that law in Oregon remains on the books, I don't believe it's enforceable anymore.

By the way, watch some movies like Avatar or Starship Troopers -- literature has often been a good predictor of future trends.​

 

Noooo, it is not too narrow. The governmental interest is in encouraging heterosexual couples to raise the children they have created, together. As opposed to the alternative of only one, or none of them doing so. Not to raise somebody elses children or children created by only one of the couple. When a child is born only two people in the world are obligated by law to provide and care for that child. The mother who gave birth to that child, and the man who fathered that child.

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

Encouraging two people of the same sex to marry will never lead to the only two people, obligated by law to provide and care for a child they have created, raising that child together. In fact, any children raised in such a household requires separating them from one or both of their biological parents.

 

Not a biological child of both of them, one biological parent is not in the picture if two homos are raising the kid

right, marriage is based on a couple who have the potential to have a kid of THou EIR OWN, not possible in a homo marriage.
to deny a marriage license to a heterosexual couple because they cant procreate is impossible to enforce, how do you know they cant procreate without invading the privacy of the womb?

if an infertille couple want to get married, how would the state determine they are infertile?

I love my dog, I love two women,
its a privledge granted via a license just as driving is, and it does effect the community as a whole

homosexuality is not any of those. If a person is a virgin, are they a homo or hetero? You have to be one or the other, oh wait, ;you can be bisexual, but you cant be neutral and not belong to some race, and your sexual preference can and often does change, can any white person suddently become a black person, and quit insulting the black community, the mostly find it very offense when you equate civil rights for blacks to homosexual marriage

you defenders of homos readily admit that homosexual marriage is and would be different than hetero marriage, hence as another poster brilliantly stated, it needs a different term to identify it, but homos want to deny they are different and its normal, as for the kids these days being more accepting of it, that simply isnt true..
racism is learned, but their is an inherent repulsion to homosexuality. As much as you want to deny it, its still true, its a simple fact of nature, just like two homos cannot have a biological kid of their own

 

ROFL no based on the history of our species.

Specious but in fact there have been over 30 such "meetings" at the ballot box and traditional marriage has won all but one and won overwhelmingly.

That is what marriage will do.

Marriage is a privilege.

I know the purpose of marriage, it is you who does not.​

 

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Not because of prejudice based upon gender or sexual orientation but instead because of the biological requirements of procreation.

 

Marraige, like driver's licenses, is a privelege, yes. Imagine if the discrimination against the blind driving was overturned? And many blind people were actually born that way, instead of chanting it as a convenience to milk sympathy for "civil rights". As if Lady Gaga was a reknowned genetic researcher.

In the [fake] news today:

 

There is nothing parallel about it and it is a false association.

Again, what does race or religion have to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality?

Not when the purpose of marriage is to sanction and promote heterosexuality.

The question is what IS the benefit of promoting and sanction homosexuality.

Well I hope you don't use that as your excuse.

Yes you can hate people if you so choose, I wouldn't suggest it.

Speak for yourself, if you want to hate them that is your choice.

And when it comes to marriage we all have the same freedom.

Yes and we have that.

Yes because race has noting to do with driving a car and it is a benefit to society to allow all races to drive cars. Same with homosexuality or heterosexuality, we don't deny drivers licenses to people who proclaim they engage in homosexuality do we.

But marriage is a different proposition.​

 

To dissuade our culture from becoming Ancient Greece [gay pedophile state]. As it is, gays are already promoting a child sex-criminal to school kids in California [Harvey Milk] as a "hero". How far is it from there to lowering the age of consent once these school kids who have been taught this is "OK and normal" to voting it in once they reach 18? Anything less would be old fashioned, right?

We have a duty to our culture to shape its values so that we don't become like the lessons of history.

 

if you would just call for the restriction of marriage to fertile couples who actually reproduce and actually make marriage about producing new people that would be consistent with banning gay marriage you would also need to ban any heterosexuals who only have adopted kids or kids related to only one spouse

Till then reproduction is not a requirement of marriage let alone the central point of it and therefore is no grounds to deny any kind of marriage or a reason to create a 2nd class marriage called by another name

 

I can’t marry the consenting adult of my choice because he or she doesn’t look like me by skin color

I can the marry the consenting adult of my choice because he or she looks to much like me by my genitals

Ya the 2 are alike you can do anything a marriage requires regardless of skin color or gender of the people involved

 

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535

heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal in]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
terests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm


Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

 

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Skin color has no rational relation to the legitimate governmental interest in marriage. The absence of either a man or a woman renders procreation an impossibility.

 

Oh hey Dixon, been a while since I've seen you around; and you are pushing the exact same circular arguments as before.


First, please tell us which part (which page specifically) of the massive documents you post what you quote is in when you link to court documents.

Second, the argument you are making is total nonsense, normally I'm nicer than this but I have to take the gloves off here because you peddle the same arguments all the time which are disastrous. All you have done is put in a bit more fluff where the holes are which you think solves the problems with it.

To make sure I'm not misquoting you, I'll quote the post you just made.



"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis..."


Again, as I've pointed out before with your arguments, this, by definition, rules out marriage for any couples who either will not have children or cannot have children. This definition reminds me far too much of marriage as a way of passing down the family line or of considering children and women property and marriage is a contract of sorts to make sure this property is passed down. That was oftentimes what marriage was, Is that "traditional" defintion good with you? It should be, since that is the one which dominates antiquity. I find humorous that you draw on antiquity so much, as though the existence of a ridiculous law justifies itself. Well, two can play at that game.



"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal in]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . ."

Uh-huh, and we definitely don't have enough children in the world right now. Nope, we need the birth rates to go up right now because the world doesn't have enough mouths to feed as it is. Great plan bro.



"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

In other words, when confronted with the problems of your definition and the mass amount of people it wouldn't allow marriage to you just say, "meh, you aren't of the same sex, so its fine". "Theoretically imperfect" means that you concede that your definition has problems which you won't confront because they cause your whole definition to fall down. Your solution? Just ignore them and hope they go away. That is legal nonsense.

 

We deny privileges and rights to people every day -- when there is a clear and compelling need to do so. When we gave women the vote it didn't mean all restrictions of the right to vote were lifted. If we changed the driving age, it wouldn't mean the clear and compelling need to not allow a blind man to drive would disapear or that restriction.

Society has no need to prevent a same sex couple from marrying. Removing that unnecessary barrier to the right to marry won't cause the separate and unrelated restriction against driving blind to be lifted.​

 

*shrug* A person's sex has nothing to do with being married. It is a benefit to society for all of us to have a partner to help us in good times and bad, for richer for poorer, and in sickness and health. But benefit to society is not an issue. We do not deny people basic rights because society would gain an advantage in doing so.