Thread: N. Carolina bans same-sex marriage, part 2

Originally Posted by Anikdote

Something that most certainly has never occurred. Like I said, I'll add prove to consent for the terms you fail to grasp.

Keep on stalling. Very typical.

That marriage is a right for everyone. Marriage isn't a right, the ability to pursue happiness is, of which marriage is a part of, the second part of the lie is that is should apply to "everyone" -- No, just consenting adults. Now that you've been shown to be a liar hopefully you'll recant, I won't hold my breath though.

What a shock you lied about what I said. I never said I believed marriage was a right I said people on your side have said that. Can't say I'm surprised though.

And you lied about "consenting adults" again because in that quote YOU quoted in the 14th ammendment NO limit on age was ever given.

When you are ready to admit you lied again, let us know.

[/I][/COLOR]
You had it right in the first sentence, now we're back to you having no clue about consent, or have you suddenly forgot that there's an age of consent? Of course you haven't, just another stupid, easily destroyed argument.

What a shock you ducked your claim of "consent" again. For the third time you can't hide behind laws that ban some sexual practices and want to tear down laws that deny some sexual practices you like and claim you support "the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" which you claim to abide by in your narrow view of the 14th amendment.

Let's see if you can be honest enough to address it this time.

What is typical is that you don't know what classical liberalism is, ignorance is a requirement for your stance so I'm hardly surprised.

More insults without any factual backing. Surprise surprise.

Of course you can, incest and pedophilia for instance both have a negative impact on the participants

WRONG. You cannot prove that. If a child can drive a car , pay taxes on a job, express their love or hate from their parents, who are you to make the judgment that there is no way they can conscent to a relationship? This is the lazy general argument of yours explored fully. You just inserted your own morality into the mix just as you attack those who have a moral argument against gay marriage.

Welcome back to hypocrisy.

and AGAIN you want to illustrate that the concept of consent is completely foreign to you. It's really convenient for me that you keep wanting to advertise this fact.

Because you run away every time from addressing the fact that consent is simply a law just like the laws against gay marriage you want to tear down. Once you claim its about treating people equality as you have claimed you cannot limit that equality based on age any more than you could limit it to heterosexual couples.

But since you've run away every time I've nailed you on it I wont be surprised when you run away again.

Oh goodie! Caps lock and bold print, things must be getting serious.

No you just needed the help.

No, it makes a direct reference to the DoI and the unalienable right to pursue happiness, but you won't stand for that, it's your position to obstruct those who seek to fulfill that promise. How very anti-American of you, but your not a lover of freedom so I doubt you care much for this country anyway.

LOL!!! The hypocrisy just knows no boundaries does it? In one breath you claim people should have the RIGHT (your words so don't lie about it again) to pursue happiness at the same time you want to limit that new "right" to ONLY 2 person adult couples. If you just stopped and thought about what you just said it would be such a blessing.

We'll end here, where you neatly advertise yet again that you don't understand consent.Ignorance is simply not knowing what something is, stupid is continuing to make the same mistake, we're all curious to see the path you choose.

I understand it perfectly. I'm just not allowing you to hide behind some laws that ban some sexual practices you don't like but want to tear down laws that ban sexual practices you do like and still claim you want people to have "unalienable right to pursue happiness"

Its a joke position because its a lie. You do want to limit people's "unalienable right to pursue happiness" by hiding behind consent laws.

But go ahead and run away again on that point. Its sad but amusing.

Originally Posted by expatriate

age is a red herring. no one is talking about anything other than adults. Only you weirdos. In Loving, the supremes said, unequivocally, that the freedom to marry is an essential right. Any adult should be able to exercise that right with any other adult. The supremes did not say that the right was limited in any way.

<<< MOD EDIT: PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED >>>

If you are hanging your hat on the 14th amendment and expanding its meaning well beyond the RACIAL case it was addressing then you cannot limit this new "unalienable right to pursue happiness" by age.

You cannot hide behind that law and want to remove other laws banning sexual practices you like.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

There is no benefit to society in Scientology or sanctioning it. Yet we give Scientologists drivers licenses and allow them to marry.

Because ones belief in scientology has no rational relation to ones ability or need to marry or drive a car. Whereas the absence of a mother or father has a very rational relation to their ability to procreate. Their ability to create a child in need of parents to care for them in a nuclear family.

"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."

Originally Posted by texmaster

Try to be honest just for a second. If you are hanging your hat on the 14th amendment and expanding its meaning well beyond the RACIAL case it was addressing then you cannot limit this new "unalienable right to pursue happiness" by age. You cannot hide behind that law and want to remove other laws banning sexual practices you like.

In 1971, the supreme court held that the 14th amendment applied to sexual discrimination as well as racial (Reed v. Reed). That folks have a right to marry, a right protected by the 14th amendment, in no way means that right can't be limited by law. Folks also have a right to free speech and even life, but we deny both to people when there is a compelling interest served by such a denial.

We deny many rights to children because of the compelling interest of protecting folks who we believe cannot make informed or competent decisions or who are unable to accept full responsibility for these decisions. We deny children the right to vote as one example, we deny them the right to enter into a contract as another.

There is no compelling interest served by denying a drivers license to a black man, denying a woman the right to vote, or denying two women the right the right to marry.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Because ones belief in scientology has no rational relation to ones ability or need to marry or drive a car. Whereas the absence of a mother or father has a very rational relation to their ability to procreate.

Then try and pass a law denying them the right to procreate, not marry.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

This is correct... There is a gay couple here at work that divorced and after the divorce it's the same thing as for everyone on the laws... No special treatment.

Also, the neighbors across the street are a lesbian couple and they have three kids and a prior divorce to a man and woman - they are just doing fine and the kids are fabulous! I think the "religious" have been saying this crap for so long, they just don't want to look like idiots and find out that they have been wrong for all these years...

Yes, special treatment. Down the street lives a single mother and grandmother, raising their 3 children and grandchildren together for nearly a decade. I know a brother and widowed sister who have raised her kids for 15 years. Single mother sharing a house with her childhood, platonic friend. ANY TWO PEOPLE can join together can create a home. Can chose to raise children together. NOTHING special about those who happen to be gay that would warrant such special treatment for gays.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

Then try and pass a law denying them the right to procreate, not marry.

???? Why would I prohibit what is physically impossible. And they choose not to marry because they would rather spend their time with someone of the same sex.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Yes, special treatment. Down the street lives a single mother and grandmother, raising their 3 children and grandchildren together for nearly a decade. I know a brother and widowed sister who have raised her kids for 15 years. Single mother sharing a house with her childhood, platonic friend. ANY TWO PEOPLE can join together can create a home. Can chose to raise children together. NOTHING special about those who happen to be gay that would warrant such special treatment for gays.

No one's asking for special treatment for gay couples. Folks are simply pointing out the restriction against same sex couples serves no purpose. You want to argue the separate restriction against a person marrying their child also serves no purpose -- do so. But don't use it's existence as justification to deny the right of same sex couples to marry. That's like saying because we don't let surgeons operate on their own children, we shouldn't let female doctors operate on men.

And your platonic friends? If they want to exercise their right to intimately combine their identities, to join together legally, socially, and financially into a single couple. If they want to choose to live one life, for richer and poorer, in sickness and health, till death do they part -- no one cares if they're gay or straight. The only thing stopping them from getting marries is if they happen to be the same sex.

I think its only fair that states who vote against gay marriage should also be forced to forfeit any government benefits, tax breaks, exceptions, or any of the other hundreds of benefits that come with being married. Come on, stand on your principals if that is what this is really about.

Hell, lets take it a step further. Marriages that end in divorce and have therefore violated the "Sactity of Marriage" should be forced to return any monies procurred by a benefit of being married, ie tax breaks etc.

Seems completely fair for those rabidly defending marriage 'sanctity'.

you know if I was a gay N Carolininian I would be asking myself why Obama waited til after Tuesday to voice his support - way to go Barry