Marriage isn't a human right

Then leave it up to the sates. If the people want gay marriage, they will have it. What i object to is people using the federal courts or federal government to jam their ideas down the throats of everyone else. But even in some of those states, it's not the people who want gay marriage, it's the one judge majority in a court.

 

Take it up with the Supreme Court. They said it is, ergo, until a Constitutional Amendment is passed or they reverse themselves, it is. As for the right side of history, rights, once recognized, are rarely taken away again. Sure, we could face a situation where the USA literally ceases to exist, and some evil dictator rises who controls the population with an iron fist, but I'm not holding my breath.

- - - Updated - - -

Civil rights should never be subject to a vote. And Unconstitutional laws are Unconstitutional.

 

It's simple, basic biology, men and women make babies, same sex couples never can.

 

{You’re narcissistic to think that you have the right to dictate what is a right and to think that people should live according to your narrow and bigoted reality. }

 

Doesn't change that you're twisting the definition of "basic human rights" just to include any and everything that you "want really bad", even if it's not a basic requirement of survival

 

The legal benefits of marriage aren't significant enough to qualify as a 'basic human right' - no starving person in North Korea, for example, has the luxury to worry about whether or not they're getting a tax incentive for marrying.

Marriage isn't about 'procreation' - no one ever said that. I was just using an analogy - if the state for example, was banning Jews or non-whites from having children, then that would be a human rights violation (since procreation exists in nature) - but if the state decided not to grant 'legal marriage benefits', that wouldn't be a human rights violation (since people could still have children with or without the state's approval).

Basically "legal marriage benefits" are a creation of the state, and don't exist as a 'natural human ability' in nature outside of the state - this is why you can't claim people are 'entitled to them', since they're a gift from the state - not the state 'taking something away' which you have without the state.

I don't even have a strong urge to get 'legally married' since I don't need the state to 'approve' a relationship - I know many straight couples who have 'the legal right' to marry and live as couples, but have no desire for 'legal marriage'.

I'm trying to come up with a basic definition of 'human rights' which nearly all cultures can agree on - I think that pretty much all cultures would agree that things like food, water, and ability to live without being harmed or killed by a totalitarian state are basic human rights. I think saying that "hospital visitation rights" or "tax incentives" is on the same level as a "basic human right" is a huge stretch

So what you're saying is that people cannot live as a couple, have sex, etc - unless the state hands them a piece of paper that says "legally married"?

 

Looks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is fluid per history and will have Article 16 modified to 'modernize'...it's just a matter of time........

Countries That Allow Gay Marriage
Argentina (2010) Denmark (2012) The Netherlands (2000) South Africa (2006)
Belgium (2003) England / Wales (2013) New Zealand (2013) Spain (2005)
Brazil (2013) France (2013) Norway (2009) Sweden (2009)
Canada (2005) Iceland (2010) Portugal (2010) Uruguay (2013)

Countries Where Gay Marriage is Legal in Some Jurisdictions
Mexico (2009) United States (2003)

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/16/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/#allow

 

Since when did the UN's definition of human rights become "official"?

Aren't they the ones who forced the democratic nation of Taiwan to leave, just so red China (labor camp paradise) could join their ranks?

 

I'm gong to try to take this topic in another direction.

If it wasn't clear already, this topic is about state-recognized marriage benefits (not a social institution - ex. gays can have a ceremony in a church anytime, whether or not their state recognizes the union).

If it's determined that marriage benefits are a 'basic human right' which people are entitled to under the Constitution, then what you're saying is that 'the state is entitled to give people something just for the sake of equality'

So where does the definition of 'human rights' end? Couldn't you argue that everyone is 'entitled' to anything they want, and that the state is therefore obligated to provide it? Ex. You could argue that the state is 'entitled' to provide every student in a public school a HS diploma regardless of their actual school performance, because denying this would be 'discriminating', and therefore a violation of human rights. you could argue that diplomas 'discriminate' against students of lower intelligence (since smarter students would likely have an easier time of passing their grades) - therefore the school should ignore grades, and just give a diploma to everyone (even those who don't turn in their homework) just for the sake of 'equality' - all or nothing right?

 

I don't need another approach. It is an indisputable fact that you don't have to have the ability to procreate in order to marry. It is an indisputable fact that you don't even need to have he ability to,have sex to marry.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, how can I lose the argument when state by state and court by court is calling bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your argument?

 

Nope. You don't even need to have the potential of procreation in order to marry

 

1948......

- - - Updated - - -

No one claimed "you" do need to have the potential of procreation in order to marry. Like I just said.

 

To be honest Im not going through all that piece meal, the law can written to give civil unions marriage benefits, it can be debated f they even deserve every single bit of benefit.
My personal opinion and its stated without venom or hatred or anti gay or to be offensive. if gays keep in everyones face and badgering the 97% daily I believe there will come a tipping point where rising support will diminish and some of the 97% might start getting very aggressive and very vocal in response.
Its good to fight for what you believe but you need to remember takes two to tango and tangle.

 

Why would we do that? Why wouldn't we just wait till a republican gets the presidency again and one of those liberals on the SCOTUS dies and we can put in a conservative and we will take that vote over again. Remember they only passed it 5-4. It won't take much to flip that in our favor again.

Oh this fight is nowhere near over. But you keep thinking it is it will make out success that much easier.

 

Marriage in the US was held to be a constitutional right because states frequently made it illegal for a man and woman to cohabitate without a marriage license. The Lovings from Lovings v Virginia weren't arrested for going to DC and getting married, they were arrested for cohabitating in Virginia without a valid marriage license. Supreme Court of the US in Zablocki v Redhail

Marriage is a Constitutional right because the state makes marriage a requirement of living as husband and wife. Living as husband and wife and creating a family is a constitutional right. The Supreme Court again, in Skinner v Oklahoma.

Only because the State of Oklahoma required a marriage in order for a man and woman to join together and procreate, and creating a family. The State of Oklahoma wasn't stopping poor Mr Skinner from getting married. They were about to cut off his balls for being a habitual criminal. Procreation is a fundamental human right and constitutional right. In Oklahoma both your balls and a marriage license were required for legal procreation.

 

Right, which is why your argument is invalid

 

If states can refuse to recognize marriages from other states with lower ages of consent under the full faith and credit clause, they can refuse to recognize marriages of the same sex from other states, when they wouldnt recognize one from their own state. The well established public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause is sufficient to allow a state to not recognize same sex marriages.

 

It's a little more than 3% of the population supporting gay marriage...97% of the population does not feel badgered.

 

What is the big deal about Gay Marriage?

I mean why would anyone really care?

We have legal Gay Marriage in Massachusetts and contrary to popular belief GOD has not split open the Earth and swallowed our state! LOL!!!

Just because I don't particularly enjoy watching a Male Gay Couple snuggle in Public does not give me or anyone else the right to prevent two consulting adults from getting married or prevent them from being together.

AboveAlpha

 

Sound like wishful thinking on your part. This wont be over until .gays have equality Gay have every right to 'be in your face" The fact that you feel that they are "in your face" tells be that you do in fact harbor the animosity that you claim not to have. You question the notion that they deserve all of the benefits of marriage.....why do you call yourself "middleroad" Sounds like your run off the road and into the ditch of ignorance. If you can't grasp what I have presented regarding civil unions you are truly hopeless

 

Under what terms and conditions can States refuse to honor the full faith and credit clause of our federal Constitution?

 

Of course its never ALL people on any issue and I wasnt trying to insinuating that. I do believe theres more people that arent necessary against it and harbor no animosity at all for gay people that very much feel if not badgered that they have had a belly full of being constantly bogarted. What I am saying is that there comes a point when anyone or any group can overplay their hand.
Then there may be laws in place but people do not have to show any love for those laws or the people they were written for.
Some gays on forums and I want to stress I have NOT seen that on this forum. Do not allow anyone to discuss gay marriage or rights unles that person is saying only exactly what they want to hear. They attack the person as a homophobe and bigot. It can get particularly nasty online because people do not have to deal with each other right up front and personal, theres lots of miles and a screen.

Theres always a way to make everyone somewhat happy and content but that never happens onesided. Thats a two way street

 

That may be true progress but having equality doesnt necessarily translate into bliss, you still have to live every single day with the rest of the world and if they arent happy, how much fun are you going to have.


The number one thing gays need to stop now is Gay Parades and I dont think I have to explain why to anyone gay or straight.

 

I'll tell you who is overplaying their hand. It's the religious right and organization like NOM who insist on standing in the way of progress. You complain about gay activists being "in your face" but if the forces of anti equality would just shut up and get out of the way there would be no need for any of that. They have a legal right to free speech but that does not make it right. Not when they are advocating the denial of rights based on their personal prejudices.

 

Equal rights for sexual perverts? Start collecting taxes at swing clubs and bathhouses? What a bunch of moral degenerates.