RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


SadistDave -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/6/2013 1:37:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
There is no Constitutional guarantee that anyone gay or straight can enter into marriage. Period.

But there is this
quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So since prop 8 allows some people to marry and not others it violates the 14th Amendment. Just like Virginia violated the 14th in 1967 when SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia.

BTW the reason the prop 8 groups are called bigots is because when called upon to support their claims in a court of law they brought totally disproven crap and hateful nonsense equating homosexuals with pedophiles and zoophiles. And that is not my opinion, it is the opinion of every judge at every level that heard this case and its appeals except the Supreme Court which avoiding issuing an opinion.


If a law is passed defining marriage by due process, it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Prop 8 was passed in a legal vote (read "with due process"). No one is deprived of life, liberty, or property as a result of not being allowed to enter into a legal contract any more than ex-cons are having their rights infringed by not being allowed to own firearms, or blind people not being allowed to drive. Society has rules, and if the rule says that marriage is between a man and a woman, noones rights are being infringed, nor their liberty deprived, unless they are not allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays may choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that does not mean they don't have the right to enter into a marriage contract that is exactly the same as everyone else.

Marriage between a man and a woman has been pretty much an unwritten definition of the word since the dawn of mankind. Family is important. For most of human history the family unit consited of a man and at least one woman out of necessity because a man and a woman create offspring, and offspring mean everything if you want to perpetuate a species. Perpetuating the species is pretty much what we do here. It's only been very recently in human history that we've had the ability to inseminate a woman artificially. Men still can't get pregnant though... Lets be honest, without that artificial ability to inseminate females homosexuality is a complete genetic dead end, and marriage serves no function in the course of creating offspring.

Even with the ridiculous assertion that it deprives gays of liberty to not be able to marry, there is nothing they are being deprived of by the government that has anything to do with liberty. The government does not restrict gays from residing together, owning joint property, or to act like married couples in every respect. There are benefits to marriage, but there are benefits to a great many things that not every citizen is eligable for. Some people want to join the millitary and are deemed physically or mentally unfit and they never recieve any of the benefits afforded to veterans. Many private citizens are religious, but do not recieve the tax benefits that a church would recieve. Here on this board we talk a lot about politics, but we don't necessarily feel as though our rights are being infringed because we do not recieve the benefits a politician recieves.

I bet we could find dozens, if not hundreds of instances of government violating the 14th Amendment if we used the ridiculous standards being used in the Prop 8 issue. So, the truth of the matter is that gays want special rights and special protections.

-SD-




Hillwilliam -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/6/2013 5:31:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
There is no Constitutional guarantee that anyone gay or straight can enter into marriage. Period.

But there is this
quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So since prop 8 allows some people to marry and not others it violates the 14th Amendment. Just like Virginia violated the 14th in 1967 when SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia.

BTW the reason the prop 8 groups are called bigots is because when called upon to support their claims in a court of law they brought totally disproven crap and hateful nonsense equating homosexuals with pedophiles and zoophiles. And that is not my opinion, it is the opinion of every judge at every level that heard this case and its appeals except the Supreme Court which avoiding issuing an opinion.


If a law is passed defining marriage by due process, it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Prop 8 was passed in a legal vote (read "with due process"). No one is deprived of life, liberty, or property as a result of not being allowed to enter into a legal contract any more than ex-cons are having their rights infringed by not being allowed to own firearms, or blind people not being allowed to drive. Society has rules, and if the rule says that marriage is between a man and a woman, noones rights are being infringed, nor their liberty deprived, unless they are not allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays may choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that does not mean they don't have the right to enter into a marriage contract that is exactly the same as everyone else.

Marriage between a man and a woman has been pretty much an unwritten definition of the word since the dawn of mankind. Family is important. For most of human history the family unit consited of a man and at least one woman out of necessity because a man and a woman create offspring, and offspring mean everything if you want to perpetuate a species. Perpetuating the species is pretty much what we do here. It's only been very recently in human history that we've had the ability to inseminate a woman artificially. Men still can't get pregnant though... Lets be honest, without that artificial ability to inseminate females homosexuality is a complete genetic dead end, and marriage serves no function in the course of creating offspring.

Even with the ridiculous assertion that it deprives gays of liberty to not be able to marry, there is nothing they are being deprived of by the government that has anything to do with liberty. The government does not restrict gays from residing together, owning joint property, or to act like married couples in every respect. There are benefits to marriage, but there are benefits to a great many things that not every citizen is eligable for. Some people want to join the millitary and are deemed physically or mentally unfit and they never recieve any of the benefits afforded to veterans. Many private citizens are religious, but do not recieve the tax benefits that a church would recieve. Here on this board we talk a lot about politics, but we don't necessarily feel as though our rights are being infringed because we do not recieve the benefits a politician recieves.

I bet we could find dozens, if not hundreds of instances of government violating the 14th Amendment if we used the ridiculous standards being used in the Prop 8 issue. So, the truth of the matter is that gays want special rights and special protections.

-SD-


"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

If you wish to move someplace where that document doesn't apply, please feel free to do so.




DomKen -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/6/2013 7:06:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
There is no Constitutional guarantee that anyone gay or straight can enter into marriage. Period.

But there is this
quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So since prop 8 allows some people to marry and not others it violates the 14th Amendment. Just like Virginia violated the 14th in 1967 when SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia.

BTW the reason the prop 8 groups are called bigots is because when called upon to support their claims in a court of law they brought totally disproven crap and hateful nonsense equating homosexuals with pedophiles and zoophiles. And that is not my opinion, it is the opinion of every judge at every level that heard this case and its appeals except the Supreme Court which avoiding issuing an opinion.


If a law is passed defining marriage by due process, it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Prop 8 was passed in a legal vote (read "with due process"). No one is deprived of life, liberty, or property as a result of not being allowed to enter into a legal contract any more than ex-cons are having their rights infringed by not being allowed to own firearms, or blind people not being allowed to drive. Society has rules, and if the rule says that marriage is between a man and a woman, noones rights are being infringed, nor their liberty deprived, unless they are not allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays may choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that does not mean they don't have the right to enter into a marriage contract that is exactly the same as everyone else.

Read Loving v Virginia. Virginia passed a law limiting who could get married and that was the same as here and the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that it violated the 14th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

quote:

Marriage between a man and a woman has been pretty much an unwritten definition of the word since the dawn of mankind. Family is important. For most of human history the family unit consited of a man and at least one woman out of necessity because a man and a woman create offspring, and offspring mean everything if you want to perpetuate a species. Perpetuating the species is pretty much what we do here. It's only been very recently in human history that we've had the ability to inseminate a woman artificially. Men still can't get pregnant though... Lets be honest, without that artificial ability to inseminate females homosexuality is a complete genetic dead end, and marriage serves no function in the course of creating offspring.

Not true. Polygamy and various sorts of plural "marriage" were common for most of history, polygamy of various sorts is still practiced in much of the world today. As to the reproduction argument, are we running out of people? Is there some reason to restrict the rights of people who do not wish to procreate? Should infertile people be barred from marriage?




SadistDave -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 1:42:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
There is no Constitutional guarantee that anyone gay or straight can enter into marriage. Period.

But there is this
quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So since prop 8 allows some people to marry and not others it violates the 14th Amendment. Just like Virginia violated the 14th in 1967 when SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia.

BTW the reason the prop 8 groups are called bigots is because when called upon to support their claims in a court of law they brought totally disproven crap and hateful nonsense equating homosexuals with pedophiles and zoophiles. And that is not my opinion, it is the opinion of every judge at every level that heard this case and its appeals except the Supreme Court which avoiding issuing an opinion.


If a law is passed defining marriage by due process, it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Prop 8 was passed in a legal vote (read "with due process"). No one is deprived of life, liberty, or property as a result of not being allowed to enter into a legal contract any more than ex-cons are having their rights infringed by not being allowed to own firearms, or blind people not being allowed to drive. Society has rules, and if the rule says that marriage is between a man and a woman, noones rights are being infringed, nor their liberty deprived, unless they are not allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays may choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that does not mean they don't have the right to enter into a marriage contract that is exactly the same as everyone else.

Read Loving v Virginia. Virginia passed a law limiting who could get married and that was the same as here and the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that it violated the 14th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

quote:

Marriage between a man and a woman has been pretty much an unwritten definition of the word since the dawn of mankind. Family is important. For most of human history the family unit consited of a man and at least one woman out of necessity because a man and a woman create offspring, and offspring mean everything if you want to perpetuate a species. Perpetuating the species is pretty much what we do here. It's only been very recently in human history that we've had the ability to inseminate a woman artificially. Men still can't get pregnant though... Lets be honest, without that artificial ability to inseminate females homosexuality is a complete genetic dead end, and marriage serves no function in the course of creating offspring.

Not true. Polygamy and various sorts of plural "marriage" were common for most of history, polygamy of various sorts is still practiced in much of the world today. As to the reproduction argument, are we running out of people? Is there some reason to restrict the rights of people who do not wish to procreate? Should infertile people be barred from marriage?




First: I've used bold print and increased the font size on the part of my quote that references the concept of polygamy and plural marriage. You will find that what I wrote is, in fact, true... As for infertility, you're obviously unaware that men have been divorcing, abandoning, and killing their wives for thousands of years over infertility. No one has seriously suggested that the infertile should not be allowed to marry, because the problem has been resolving itself through fairly efficient means since the dawn of civilization.

Second: Since you mentioned it, perhaps you should study up on Loving_v._Virginia.

In 1883 ( Pace-v-Alabama ) SCOTUS ruled that states could ban interracial marriage and upheld that decision in 1896 ( Plessy v. Ferguson ). SCOTUS overturned those decisions in 1967 ( Loving-v-Virginia ) Now... this tells us one very simple thing that can be found in a few other SCOTUS rulings. SCOTUS rulings can be overturned at any point in the future based on the interpretation of the Constitutional by the sitting Supreme Court. Short of a Constitutional Amendment there is no guarantee that gay marriage will not be revisited and struck down by a more conservative SCOTUS in the future. Savvy?

Third: I've already demonstrated that no one is being denied the right to marry following the legal guidelines set down by the various states. In states that do not recognize gay marriage, we all still have the exact same rights as everyone else. Gays simply choose not to exercise those rights and want special rights. A gay man choosing not to marry a woman (or vice versa) is no different than someone choosing not to exercise their right to buy a firearm. There are many reasons to enter into a marriage contract that do not include sex/love. There are many reasons a person might want to own a firearm that do not include being a Tea Partier. By the same token, many people choose not to marry, and many people choose not to own firearms. However, refusal to exercise your rights does not mean that you don't have those rights. You don't seem to understand that very simple distinction.

-SD-




Powergamz1 -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 1:50:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Second: Since you mentioned it, perhaps you should study up on Loving_v._Virginia.

In 1883 ( Pace-v-Alabama ) SCOTUS ruled that states could ban interracial marriage and upheld that decision in 1896 ( Plessy v. Ferguson ). SCOTUS overturned those decisions in 1967 ( Loving-v-Virginia ) Now... this tells us one very simple thing that can be found in a few other SCOTUS rulings. SCOTUS rulings can be overturned at any point in the future based on the interpretation of the Constitutional by the sitting Supreme Court. Short of a Constitutional Amendment there is no guarantee that gay marriage will not be revisited and struck down by a more conservative SCOTUS in the future. Savvy?

-SD-


And that will happen right after the Supreme Court 'revisits' Dred Scott and decides to reaffirm that black people aren't humans, and therefore not protected by the Constitution.




SadistDave -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 2:08:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

And that will happen right after the Supreme Court 'revisits' Dred Scott and decides to reaffirm that black people aren't humans, and therefore not protected by the Constitution.


Oh? Bear in mind that the primary opposition to gay marriage is religious in nature and spans virtually all ethnic and racial groups. Do you really think that just because most blacks and hispanics vote Democrat they all support gay marriage? Do you honestly believe that all Democrats do? What about those wonderful Islamists who want to impliment Sharia worldwide. Liberals are always spouting off about how we need to be more tolerant of Islam, but they seem to forget that in the Middle East, Muslims still kill openly gay people.

Gay marriage is not anything like Dred Scott, no matter how much you would like to believe it is. The comparisson is more than a little naive.

-SD-




BitaTruble -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 2:35:39 AM)

~fr~

It seems to me that with around 70% of college freshman (our future SCOTUS pool) supporting same-sex marriage, the issue is a done deal as soon as most of us old foggies just go ahead and die. The next generation doesn't give a crap what other people are doing in their bedrooms or which body parts want to marry which other body parts.

I love young people.





SadistDave -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 4:08:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

If you wish to move someplace where that document doesn't apply, please feel free to do so.


The issue deprives no one of their life, their liberty,which leaves the pursuit of happiness. As a legal institution, marriage can be regulated. However, marriage is not a Constitutional right. But since you erroneously believe that it is, consider that the Constitutional right to own a firearm is regulated. The Constitutional right to free speech is regulated. The Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure are regulated. Come to think of it.... every Constitutional right has some sort of regulations that govern how those rights may be enjoyed by citizens without infringing on the rights of the majority.

The right to marry however, is not a Constitutional right. It is considered a "fundamental" right that has been ruled as a right by the Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, EVERY "fundamental" right is also regulated. Regulation defines how one may pursue happiness, and we are all equal under the law to pursue happiness within the guidelines of regulation.

Clearly, in the real world, marriage has been, and will continue to be regulated. So if you know of somewhere in the real world where rights are not limited or regulated in some way, perhaps you should move there. If such a place existed in the real world, I don't think you'd last 5 minutes...

-SD-




SadistDave -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 4:26:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

~fr~

It seems to me that with around 70% of college freshman (our future SCOTUS pool) supporting same-sex marriage, the issue is a done deal as soon as most of us old foggies just go ahead and die. The next generation doesn't give a crap what other people are doing in their bedrooms or which body parts want to marry which other body parts.

I love young people.




Okay. It seems to you. It seems to you means nothing to me. Don't get me wrong. You're probably within an acceptable variance, but this board lives on citations...

But let's forget that for a minute.

If I'm going to ask you for a citation the only relevant one you could possibly provide would be a citation guaranteeing that every college freshman's political, philosophical, moral, or ethical views will remain static until they die, and that they will never change or "evolve" over the course of their lifetimes.

No other citation really has bearing on the 70% you just pulled out of your ass...

-SD-




dcnovice -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 7:13:48 AM)

quote:

So, the truth of the matter is that gays want special rights and special protections.

Haven't heard this one in a while. It's sort of like finding a 1980s dollar bill that's still in circulation. [:)]




Hillwilliam -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 8:12:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

If you wish to move someplace where that document doesn't apply, please feel free to do so.


The issue deprives no one of their life, their liberty,which leaves the pursuit of happiness. As a legal institution, marriage can be regulated. However, marriage is not a Constitutional right. But since you erroneously believe that it is, consider that the Constitutional right to own a firearm is regulated. The Constitutional right to free speech is regulated. The Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure are regulated. Come to think of it.... every Constitutional right has some sort of regulations that govern how those rights may be enjoyed by citizens without infringing on the rights of the majority.

The right to marry however, is not a Constitutional right. It is considered a "fundamental" right that has been ruled as a right by the Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, EVERY "fundamental" right is also regulated. Regulation defines how one may pursue happiness, and we are all equal under the law to pursue happiness within the guidelines of regulation.

Clearly, in the real world, marriage has been, and will continue to be regulated. So if you know of somewhere in the real world where rights are not limited or regulated in some way, perhaps you should move there. If such a place existed in the real world, I don't think you'd last 5 minutes...

-SD-

What part of "All men are created equal" are you not getting?
Would not the ability to marry be considered "The pursuit of happiness"?

You are singling out people based the fact that they prefer to enter into a civil contract with someone that your religion doesn't approve of.

As for my not lasting 5 minutes, what do you base that utter asswipe on?

You keep bringing up the Constitution. My quote was from an older, more important and unalterable document known as "The Declaration of Independence"

I'll take First Grade American History Jeff [8|]




Hillwilliam -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 8:13:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave



No other citation really has bearing on the 70% you just pulled out of your ass...

-SD-

So says the person who to my knowledge has never cited anything.[8|]

ETA. here ya go. http://heri.ucla.edu/pr-display.php?prQry=88

"An unprecedented 71.3 percent of incoming college students indicated that same-sex couples should have the right to legal marital status"




dcnovice -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 11:33:03 AM)

quote:

Bear in mind that the primary opposition to gay marriage is religious in nature

So what?




BitYakin -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 12:55:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

If you wish to move someplace where that document doesn't apply, please feel free to do so.


The issue deprives no one of their life, their liberty,which leaves the pursuit of happiness. As a legal institution, marriage can be regulated. However, marriage is not a Constitutional right. But since you erroneously believe that it is, consider that the Constitutional right to own a firearm is regulated. The Constitutional right to free speech is regulated. The Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure are regulated. Come to think of it.... every Constitutional right has some sort of regulations that govern how those rights may be enjoyed by citizens without infringing on the rights of the majority.

The right to marry however, is not a Constitutional right. It is considered a "fundamental" right that has been ruled as a right by the Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, EVERY "fundamental" right is also regulated. Regulation defines how one may pursue happiness, and we are all equal under the law to pursue happiness within the guidelines of regulation.

Clearly, in the real world, marriage has been, and will continue to be regulated. So if you know of somewhere in the real world where rights are not limited or regulated in some way, perhaps you should move there. If such a place existed in the real world, I don't think you'd last 5 minutes...

-SD-

What part of "All men are created equal" are you not getting?
Would not the ability to marry be considered "The pursuit of happiness"?

You are singling out people based the fact that they prefer to enter into a civil contract with someone that your religion doesn't approve of.

As for my not lasting 5 minutes, what do you base that utter asswipe on?

You keep bringing up the Constitution. My quote was from an older, more important and unalterable document known as "The Declaration of Independence"

I'll take First Grade American History Jeff [8|]



I disagree that the declaration of indpendance is "more important" than the consitution

while it is a beautiful and important document, in essance all it really is just a statment that they had decided to break ties with england, once those were broken the constitition was written to define the sentiments expressed in the prior document

so the DOI declares we are going to make new rules, and the constitution declares these ARE the NEW RULES!

in a way the DOI is like saying "we are going to the store" but it doesn't tell what exactly we are going to buy at the store, it gives generalties, like groceries, but doesn't stipulate what the exact items will be, wether we are going to buy hunt's ketup or hienze ketup. the constitution on the other hand says we are going to buy ketup and it SPECIFIES that we prefer the more tangy kectup of hunts over the sweeter hienze!

a good example of this would be that whole church and state issue, at the time MANY founding fathers thought there should be a tax levied against people to support the church, while many others were against it, the DOI addressed no such issue. that issue was decided well after the DOI was written, in the constitution!

again DOI we are going to the store to get groceries, constitution, these are the specific groceries we intend to get!




MissAsylum -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 12:56:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Bear in mind that the primary opposition to gay marriage is religious in nature

So what?


Also, keeping this in mind, marriage being a religious thing, atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry....right?





DarkSteven -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 12:58:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MissAsylum

Also, keeping this in mind, marriage being a religious thing, atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry....right?




And there goes interfaith marriage.




dcnovice -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 3:12:38 PM)

quote:

Also, keeping this in mind, marriage being a religious thing, atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry....right?

Well, maybe if you promise to reproduce.

Turns out marriage is all about the offspring. So I guess we'll be denying marriage licenses to infertile or elderly couples.




Hillwilliam -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 3:24:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


I disagree that the declaration of indpendance is "more important" than the consitution


Here is my logic.

Without the Declaration of Independence, there is no United States of America and the Constitution is never written.

If B Cannot exist without A then it follows that A is more important.





BitYakin -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 3:42:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


I disagree that the declaration of indpendance is "more important" than the consitution


Here is my logic.

Without the Declaration of Independence, there is no United States of America and the Constitution is never written.

If B Cannot exist without A then it follows that A is more important.




you do know the DOI was written after the war had already started?
you do know it was writtin in response to the knowledge that king george had issued a proclimation that he was raising an army to put gown the reblels?

in other words even if the DOI had never been written at all the WAR WAS ON!

so its a fallacy to say one could not have happened without the prior!

its POSSIBLE I'll admit, it possible without the DOI after it was all over the people would have just returned to being english subjects, unlikely, but possible!

sorry but the DOI, is merely an acknowldgement that YES we are at war, the constitution after the war is what DEFINED the rules on how to achive the things they were fighting for.

a huge clue as to the differances of importance could be taken from the amount of time it took to write the DOI and the consitution

apox 2 weeks for the DOI and and a total of less than a month from start to being issued
aprox 2 years for the constitution.
why two years instead of two weeks? well maybe cause it was SOOOOOOOOO important to get it RIGHT!!


the DOI could have been all of ONE SINGLE sentance and achived the same result, it could have said we the people delcare indpendance from england PERIOD!
the fact that TJ used more words to say it neither adds nor detracts from its importance




Hillwilliam -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/7/2013 3:49:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


I disagree that the declaration of indpendance is "more important" than the consitution


Here is my logic.

Without the Declaration of Independence, there is no United States of America and the Constitution is never written.

If B Cannot exist without A then it follows that A is more important.




you do know the DOI was written after the war had already started?
you do know it was writtin in response to the knowledge that king george had issued a proclimation that he was raising an army to put gown the reblels?

in other words even if the DOI had never been written at all the WAR WAS ON!

so its a fallacy to say one could not have happened without the prior!

its POSSIBLE I'll admit, it possible without the DOI after it was all over the people would have just returned to being english subjects, unlikely, but possible!

sorry but the DOI, is merely an acknowldgement that YES we are at war, the constitution after the war is what DEFINED the rules on how to achive the things they were fighting for.

a huge clue as to the differances of importance could be taken from the amount of time it took to write the DOI and the consitution

apox 2 weeks for the DOI and and a total of less than a month from start to being issued
aprox 2 years for the constitution.
why two years instead of two weeks? well maybe cause it was SOOOOOOOOO important to get it RIGHT!!


Yes, I know we had been invaded before the DOI.

As for 2 weeks for the constitution, more like 200 years.

The time it takes to create something is not an absolute indicator of its importance.

I stand by: Without A, B doesn't exist. Without B, A still exists. Therefore A is more important.

Without the Constitution, we're still a separate nation. (maybe not for long but...)
Without the Declaration, the Constitution is never written.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625