|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 20, 2007 13:27:00 GMT -5
President matters a great deal. I don't think anyone would be col with a person marrying a horse. It goes contrary to the concept of marriage. Homosexual marriage is contrary to the functioning definition of marriage. There is not legal grounds beyond "I want it" to redefine marriage in the fashion that homosexual couples require to have that title.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 20, 2007 17:12:35 GMT -5
Would you please be so kind as to present where a horse is allowed to enter into a legal contract? The 'concept' of marriage has changed so much over the years one must ask which 'concept' best suits your needs?
"I want it and there is no legitimate legal reason to deny it" IS[/b] grounds.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 20, 2007 20:19:43 GMT -5
If this nation is to make same sex marriage legal than it must be done by amending the Constitution to define marriage as being between any two people. As it is different to the clear long standing common definition. It is like demanding that people who watch enough soap opera's should be given college degrees. If we want to go that route it must be done through the amendment process. I personally think that TV watching does not equal a college degree, but others might. While I would oppose such a move it would at least be legal and done correctly as opposed to judges overstepping their role to force laws on people.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 20, 2007 23:12:48 GMT -5
If this nation is to make same sex marriage legal than it must be done by amending the Constitution to define marriage as being between any two people. As it is different to the clear long standing common definition. It is like demanding that people who watch enough soap opera's should be given college degrees. If we want to go that route it must be done through the amendment process. I personally think that TV watching does not equal a college degree, but others might. While I would oppose such a move it would at least be legal and done correctly as opposed to judges overstepping their role to force laws on people. Please be so kind as to present where the Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Jul 21, 2007 4:48:19 GMT -5
If President Bush felt it was necesarry to change the American constituion so that it explicitly stated that marriage had to be between a man and a woman then it would seem clear to me that it does not.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 21, 2007 14:37:15 GMT -5
If President Bush felt it was necesarry to change the American constituion so that it explicitly stated that marriage had to be between a man and a woman then it would seem clear to me that it does not. An amendment to the Constitution to define marriage is just that, an amendment. Now why would there needs be an amendment to further the current marriage fallacy? Perhaps because without said amendment the Constitution would not be 'against' same sex marriage?
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 23, 2007 13:15:47 GMT -5
Mestemia is right on these points. Individuals are, within the US' system of governance, given right to an action if there is no legitimate grounds for denying them that right, and the Constitution makes no mention of marriage whatsoever; the right, then, would come under the 10th amendment. The question is, then: what is grounds for denial? Enough social and political momentum to amend the Constitution would certainly (at least in a legally absolute manner) constitute said grounds; thus, the point in question is whether lesser law, that is, a bill, either state-wise or nationally, constitutes sufficient grounds. From my observation, such means appear to be considered insufficient or incorrect by a large enough population, judicial and public, that they would not succeed on at least a national level. As the majority of that population believes the measure incorrect, the amendment would also fail, as most proposed amendments do (there have been, if I remember right, several thousand). This proposed amendment is not that spectacular, as far as such go. Much more radical amendments have been proposed; they simply tend to be struck down quickly.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 23, 2007 18:29:33 GMT -5
Nowhere it also does not define what makes a person male or female nor does it define day and night. These things are clearly defined elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 23, 2007 18:36:40 GMT -5
There is a major point being missed here. Marriages laws have been made in this nation under the authority of the Constitution. Nowhere in those laws was an endorsement for homosexual marriages. Marriage laws run based on the laws and traditions of the past. Unless there was clear past homosexual marriages that where commonly known to the writers of the laws of marriages. It is absurd to assume that those laws apply to a significantly different arrangement just eecause some people demand acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 23, 2007 19:22:33 GMT -5
The point you are missing is that there is not one single legitimate legal argument against same sex marriage. Why is it that you suppose that the US Federal Government has actively avoided the issue for so long? I can tell you why. It is because when they do finally deal witht he issue they will hav eno choice but to allow same sex marriage. Why? Because of the point you choose to ignore: There is not one single legitimate legal reason to prevent same sex couples from getting married.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 23, 2007 19:24:43 GMT -5
Nowhere it also does not define what makes a person male or female nor does it define day and night. These things are clearly defined elsewhere. And yet I do not see groups of people banning men from being women or vice versa. Nor have I heard of anyone wanting to make day into night or night into day. Nice non sequitur though.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 24, 2007 12:11:32 GMT -5
But you would have marriage turned into something it never was?
On the grounds of no legal reason to the contrary we must abolish laws that prosecute people for domestic violence. After all the spouse rarely files charges and maybe they want that life style. So what if many people will die or spend a lot of time at the hospital we can't tell them what to do.
I could start introducing my self as having a PH.D after all their is no legal reason to deny people who play computer games the same respect and privilege that is giving to those who spend their time in academic pursuits. I've lodged enough hours over the years to more than qualify. I'm sure people would to have me running around bragging about my fine education. After all their is no legal grounds to discriminate against me.
The legal grounds for not allowing same sex marriages is simply (as I've stated before and no one has provided any evidence to refute) is that Marriage is a male and female getting together thing. All of the marriage laws made in this country are based on that concept. If we throw it out we must also remove all other marriage laws.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 24, 2007 13:15:57 GMT -5
But you would have marriage turned into something it never was? That has already happened. Your complaint is merely because now it will become something you do not like. On the grounds of no legal reason to the contrary we must abolish laws that prosecute people for domestic violence. After all the spouse rarely files charges and maybe they want that life style. So what if many people will die or spend a lot of time at the hospital we can't tell them what to do. Nice try. The fact is that domestic violence is a form of assault. Assault directly harms another. I could start introducing my self as having a PH.D after all their is no legal reason to deny people who play computer games the same respect and privilege that is giving to those who spend their time in academic pursuits. I've lodged enough hours over the years to more than qualify. I'm sure people would to have me running around bragging about my fine education. After all their is no legal grounds to discriminate against me. Again nice try. The grounds for discriminating against your imaginary PH.D. is that Ph.D.s are not self proclaimed. They are bestowed upon someone by an organization. I have several Honourary PhDs which are honestly worth nothing more than the paper they are printed on. The legal grounds for not allowing same sex marriages is simply (as I've stated before and no one has provided any evidence to refute) is that Marriage is a male and female getting together thing. All of the marriage laws made in this country are based on that concept. If we throw it out we must also remove all other marriage laws. Nice way to affirm the consequences. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal (unless they are gay); that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (unless they are gay); that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, (unless they are gay). What legal reason must marriage be solely a one man one woman thing? You have yet to present anything other than one logical fallacy after another.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 24, 2007 14:33:06 GMT -5
Law under the Constitution ultimately is supposed to reflect and protect the liberties considered inherent to human existence. That is the, at least supposed, basis of all law in the United States. Law, more generally, is a method to maintain, define and enforce morality. However, the Constitution fairly clearly specifies that all morality to be enforced by law must be based in the rights and liberties of man. By the more general purpose of law, the tradition of heterosexual marriage is legal grounds -- to those societies which, as a whole (defined, rather crudely, by the non-violent and legal capability of enforcement), believe in that tradition. Within the United States, then, such is not legal grounds for two reasons: first, the population which morally disapproves of homosexual marriage appears insufficient to enforce such a measure; and second, the underlying nature of its legality, a morality which constricts more rights than it protects, is antithetical to the underlying nature of the Constitution. In other words, to give it legal grounds within the United States, you must prove that the measure would protect more human rights or liberties, by quality or quantity, than it would restrict. If it counts for anything, I actually don't support homosexual marriage; I simply know that the law has no basis for enforcing such a morality, and furthermore feel that homosexuality is a personal issue, to be dealt with individually.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 24, 2007 22:58:19 GMT -5
In short vastly more people are in hetero sexual marriages than would be in homosexual unions. Frankly I find it appalling that a people equate the two relationships.
Anyhow as to logical fallacy's have you looked at your own arguments?
Spouse abuse has only recently been made a crime against society instead of just the person requiring the person to file charges in order for the cops to do anything.
I am sure that a large number of people would like it to go back the other way. thankfully some people in this country stand up for what is right even when they get called names.
|
|