Uh Oh

[jimnyc]

Sure they do, Loving says so via incorporation.

I don't believe so myself, as Loving had nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage or marriages that were not recognized. You can't unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs and claim they are covered.

[jimnyc]

If the ban passes the SCOTUS will overturn it, as you well know. It is unconstitutional to deny equal rights to couples based on gender.

Denying something based on a LIFESTYLE CHOICE is NOT denying someone something based on their gender.

[OCA]

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.

Yep, out of 1 side of their mouth they claim its not covered in COTUS but when a state votes to ban they will say it violates COTUS..........quite a dishonest tactic.

[jimnyc]

It's the other way around stupid. Show us where MARRIAGE is in the COTUS.

It's not, but then when people vote in the states, then others shouldn't say it's a constitutional violation, cause it's not.

[OCA]

Denying something based on a LIFESTYLE CHOICE is NOT denying someone something based on their gender.

Correct, not so sure why thats so hard for people to understand. Hit em on the polygamists thing, that sends them into a dither.

[OCA]

It's not, but then when people vote in the states, then others shouldn't say it's a constitutional violation, cause it's not.

[jimnyc]

I believe it may be the 5th Amendment. I am not an American, so my knowledge of your constitution is a little rusty.

Wow, you're talking as if you know the subject, and others being "owned". You might be better off taking advantage of the 5th amendment! LOL

:cough: Loving :cough:

Can you show me where Loving has ever been successfully used as for gay marriage? Many seem to think this 30-40yr old case speaks for gay marriage, and I don't believe it does. But if a superior or supreme court has used it as precedent and basis to overturn a law, then that's different...

[jimnyc]

The subject of gay marriage is actually one of my favorite subjects to debate. You are part of the reason why.

You are like an American liberal though and basing everything you say on emotion and offering zilch in the facts department.

[jimnyc]

Funny enough, its what many Christians do today.

Care to expand on this? How are Christians interfering with the rights of others?

[ConHog]

Tax evasion doesn't hurt anyone else but you'll sure as hell go to the pokey if you don't pay your taxes for a few years.

Tax evasion certainly hurts other people.

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.

Marriage is NOT mentioned in the COTUS, religious freedom however IS. Telling someone that what THEIR religion calls marriage is illegal is in fact unconstitutional (assuming that we are talking about consenting adults of course.)

[jimnyc]

OR, they have a different definition of love than you do, Jim. This is where a lot of hypocrisy does jump up, cause see if I've got this straight: You love and trust your kid, so that means you don't love and trust your wife? Or do you not love your kids, cause your wife got there first? If you were married previously, doesn't that mean that by the definition, you can't love or trust whichever woman you end up with next? How much love and trust can you give people before you run out? Is there a ration in effect?

Okay, now, I don't even vaguely pretend to be someone who would go for polygamy, or even polyamory. I've done the threesome thing before, and it's just not all it's cracked up to be. I will focus to focus on mastering one woman, but I don't see why everyone has to follow that lead. You claim morality, Jim, but even the bible has polygamy, by more than one servant of God.

Loving a child and your wife is MUCH different than loving multiple wives and having sex with all of them. There is NO hypocrisy in my views whatsoever. There's a reason that bigamy and polygamy are outlawed. If you guys feel so strongly that homosexuality and polygamy should be accepted as the norm, so be it.

[ConHog]

You are like an American liberal though and basing everything you say on emotion and offering zilch in the facts department.

On this particular topic OCA, and to a lesser extent YOU, are certainly doing that.

Marriage is a religious institution PERIOD. You can NOT argue that point.

The point you would have to argue is that gays shouldn't be allowed to have civil contracts with each other, and in fact OCA flat said he would like as much, and THAT would be in violation of the 14th amendment.

Regulating MARRIAGE however is a violation of the first amendment, regardless of who's marriage the government is regulating.

[jimnyc]

Con, the choice point is an important one to me, as I do not believe people choose to be gay. Most of the time the gay marriage argument ends up discussing choice anyway.

And others feel it is a choice. Until such time that a gene or something is found that proves there is no choice, I think it's a learned behavior. I suppose my belief is just as valid as yours, only I don't have the burden of proof like you do, the proof that no one can seem to locate.

[ConHog]

Loving a child and your wife is MUCH different than loving multiple wives and having sex with all of them. There is NO hypocrisy in my views whatsoever. There's a reason that bigamy and polygamy are outlawed. If you guys feel so strongly that homosexuality and polygamy should be accepted as the norm, so be it.

Who the hell said that? Neither will EVER be accepted as the norm, however the first amendment does not only apply to the norm.

[ConHog]

And others feel it is a choice. Until such time that a gene or something is found that proves there is no choice, I think it's a learned behavior. I suppose my belief is just as valid as yours, only I don't have the burden of proof like you do, the proof that no one can seem to locate.

Myself I believe the bisexual people who switch back and forth like you or I would change socks destroys the entire "they were born that way" argument. However, it is irrelevant to THIS discussion. You have a right to do such things if you so choose.