Gay-Baiting Congress Puts on a Show This Week

Astral said:
ummm negative buddy. I understand that the Bible might be an intial source but ultimately proves to be insufficent because of time frames.

Historically marriage in every culture has been attributed to something NON legal! In fact that is also how you can prove it to be far beyond legal is because it is a foundational component to society! EVERY fucking place on earth recognizes Marriage between a man and a woman! Law was force to recognize this. Just think logically about this. You cannot remove religion from it. And you most certainly cannot say the law was first! big fucking negative!!!! Even in nature there are apparent signs of male/female pairing off! where is their fucking laws?
Click to expand...



....and only in a few species is it ever a for life pairing. Very few in fact. The first laws governing the institution of marriage allowed more than one woman to be married to the same man in fact. (Kind of a fuckheadish double standard that the reverse couldn't be true, but there it is) Where is the commitment in more than one marriage? Hmmm? You want to come at me with logic, fine. Come at me with logic then. You haven't yet. The fact is, while there was a idea of a lifelong partner, there was not MARRIAGE (as an institution) until there was a government around to define what one was. And so it has since been for thousands of years, and so it should continue to be. But do not try to use nature to defend marriage. Out of millions of species, you can count on one hand the number that pair for life.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
We're not the ones introducting Defense of Marriage acts and Bans on Gay Marriage amendments to the Constitution. We're on the defense here, we're being attacked by radicals who have the power to make law, so of course we're going to get testy.

If the lawmakers would bother to write decent laws that aren't so easily dismantled in the courts, then there wouldn't be such an air of hostility to the debate.
Click to expand...


What you just said directly tells you how broken the system is. The senate has the power to throw a court and a judge out on its ear for even thinking they have the right to strike down a law. Legally and consitutionally only the Supreme court can challange a law. And they also need at least 1 of the other branches support to do it!

Take Roe v Wade for example. The executive branch and the legislative branch TOGETHER can tell the Supreme court to shut the fuck up and reinstate a ban on abortion no matter how loud the supreme court squeals!
 
Astral said:
What you just said directly tells you how broken the system is. The senate has the power to throw a court and a judge out on its ear for even thinking they have the right to strike down a law. Legally and consitutionally only the Supreme court can challange a law. And they also need at least 1 of the other branches support to do it!

Take Roe v Wade for example. The executive branch and the legislative branch TOGETHER can tell the Supreme court to shut the fuck up and reinstate a ban on abortion no matter how loud the supreme court squeals!
Click to expand...


Actually, it only takes an override-sized vote in congress. Roe vs. Wade sucked in that it was the wrong branch of the government deciding an issue that should have been taken care of by Congress long before then, but you have to admit that Congress was never going to grow the backbone to handle it, leaving the court (which doesn't face a concept like re-election) to do it.
 
SSgt_Sniper said:
....and only in a few species is it ever a for life pairing. Very few in fact. The first laws governing the institution of marriage allowed more than one woman to be married to the same man in fact. (Kind of a fuckheadish double standard that the reverse couldn't be true, but there it is) Where is the commitment in more than one marriage? Hmmm? You want to come at me with logic, fine. Come at me with logic then. You haven't yet. The fact is, while there was a idea of a lifelong partner, there was not MARRIAGE (as an institution) until there was a government around to define what one was. And so it has since been for thousands of years, and so it should continue to be. But do not try to use nature to defend marriage. Out of millions of species, you can count on one hand the number that pair for life.
Click to expand...


I said there are signs. I did not make the state as an end all. It was mearly there to show you that the statement of placing marriage wholesale under legal definition is an utterly incorrect statement!

Gubermint was not involved until recently in defining marriage. It was the culture and the religious pinnings of the era that defined marriage. It was simply the law had to accept such rullings.

You have a serious misconception here... you must forget ther is a lot fucking more than 50 years of earth history on this subject! You are seriously mistaken on this subject! Law was forced to accept the definition of marriage by its people not the other way around! Take a look at things now... we have far more openly gay people and now this is becoming and issue. What does it look like? A contest of wills and power by the people! And either way people are going to do as they please REGARDLESS of the law. The current events are even against your summary statement!
 
SSgt_Sniper said:
Actually, it only takes an override-sized vote in congress. Roe vs. Wade sucked in that it was the wrong branch of the government deciding an issue that should have been taken care of by Congress long before then, but you have to admit that Congress was never going to grow the backbone to handle it, leaving the court (which doesn't face a concept like re-election) to do it.
Click to expand...

That entirely depends. If there is a law created that truly is against the constitution then yes the supreme court has and SHOULD exercise the authority to strike it down... Remember 3 equal branches!

While I do believe that the supreme court was entirely wrong it is rulling as I do believe a state would have more authority than the central gubermint on this issue! However states rights have long since taken a back seat to central gubermints desire to rule us in a method not intended by the framers!

They did not intend for welfare of its citzens and certainly not for foreign nations!!! hell fucking no! At best only a state itself could conduct a welfare system. that is the highest level of gubermint with that authority!
 
Astral said:
[STRIKE]This is what is so funny. You show your fucking 2-faced biases shit all the damn time. This is why I say you fucking liberals are a contradiction in terms![/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]
We when say something is wrong, filthy, bad, or evil you try to slap it asside and call it relative! I guess you dont just fucking get what you just said BITCH! When you call it relative you place your own fucking arguements on the same "relative" playing field! You contradict your very self when you claim you are right and that we are wrong, but use the term relative in a paradoxical attempt to strike down our posts! Dont you fuckers get educations in your part of the universe![/STRIKE]
Click to expand...
So do you have anything other than weak flames to add?
 
Astral said:
I said there are signs. I did not make the state as an end all. It was mearly there to show you that the statement of placing marriage wholesale under legal definition is an utterly incorrect statement!

Gubermint was not involved until recently in defining marriage. It was the culture and the religious pinnings of the era that defined marriage. It was simply the law had to accept such rullings.

You have a serious misconception here... you must forget ther is a lot fucking more than 50 years of earth history on this subject! You are seriously mistaken on this subject! Law was forced to accept the definition of marriage by its people not the other way around! Take a look at things now... we have far more openly gay people and now this is becoming and issue. What does it look like? A contest of wills and power by the people! And either way people are going to do as they please REGARDLESS of the law. The current events are even against your summary statement!
Click to expand...


Okay, too many wrongs, not enough time.

The only one that I am going to tackle is that marriage has been recognized as a legal institution for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, not just this past century.

Now, I'm all for making a new institution for gay partnerships. Someone invent a word, we'll slap it on the idea, and break for lunch. What I am not in favor of is taking the instition of Marriage and redefining it after thousands of years of unquestioning happiness with the format for one as it is.

You really need to have a firm concept of the history of civilization before you come back and try to debate this subject again. It's clear you have absolutely no understanding of how any government that existed and perished before you were born worked.
 
Marriage is a regulated institution solely for tax purposes, and to tell insurers, employers, and financial/estate planners who qualifies as a dependant/beneficiary.

Whether or not the participants make a vow to God is irrelavant to the state. That they do it before a judge or legally recognized administrator is all the state cares about.

The religious aspects of marriage are a personal and cultural thing. But the presence of God in a ceremony is not a requirement for the state. Which is why the legal definitions of "marriage" and "family" can't be assumed based on cultural bias.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
Marriage is a regulated institution solely for tax purposes, and to tell insurers, employers, and financial/estate planners who qualifies as a dependant/beneficiary.

Whether or not the participants make a vow to God is irrelavant to the state. That they do it before a judge or legally recognized administrator is all the state cares about.

The religious aspects of marriage are a personal and cultural thing. But the presence of God in a ceremony is not a requirement for the state. Which is why the legal definitions of "marriage" and "family" can't be assumed based on cultural bias.
Click to expand...

And thus it has always been. Formalized marriage as an institution was desgined for the purpose of legally detirming the destination of one's estate after you died. Wife first, kids later sort of thing. Legitimate kids before illegitimate kids as well. (Issac and Ishmael anyone?) What it defines has expanded over time as civilization has expanded (and as religious historians have attempted rather poorly to re-write history) but the concept of a marriage between one man and one woman has never changed.
 
SSgt_Sniper said:
What it defines has expanded over time as civilization has expanded (and as religious historians have attempted rather poorly to re-write history) but the concept of a marriage between one man and one woman has never changed.
Click to expand...
What it defines HAS expanded over time, which means that expanding the definitions to include same-sex partners is not an impossibility. Civilizations change and progress over time.
 
No, I don't agree. What the institution has covered legally as in rights of the partner has expanded. Not the definition of what the institution itself is. There's a distinction there I don't want to see messed with. Now, pull a word out of your head, any word not marriage, slap it on a civil union, and we're good to go. IMO.
 
You don't agree that civilazations change and progress over time?

I respect your feelings on the subject, but they are personal feelings and not an argument for legal restrictions IMHO.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
What it defines HAS expanded over time, which means that expanding the definitions to include same-sex partners is not an impossibility. Civilizations change and progress over time.
Click to expand...
Only those deluded by Liberals. Show me an Eastern civilization which would even consider including this nonsense into its cultural paradigm.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
You don't agree that civilazations change and progress over time?

I respect your feelings on the subject, but they are personal feelings and not an argument for legal restrictions IMHO.
Click to expand...


Way to bypass the statement. While what the institution's rights have been expanded over time, the institution itself (what defines it) has not. Which was my whole point.
 
SSgt_Sniper said:
Okay, too many wrongs, not enough time.

The only one that I am going to tackle is that marriage has been recognized as a legal institution for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, not just this past century.

Now, I'm all for making a new institution for gay partnerships. Someone invent a word, we'll slap it on the idea, and break for lunch. What I am not in favor of is taking the instition of Marriage and redefining it after thousands of years of unquestioning happiness with the format for one as it is.

You really need to have a firm concept of the history of civilization before you come back and try to debate this subject again. It's clear you have absolutely no understanding of how any government that existed and perished before you were born worked.
Click to expand...


Your going to capitulate to my point and then tell me that I dont know what I am talking about? I have much greater grasp of history than you. I go by the truth, not by some liberlist rewrite that seeks to get people to missunderstand things!

You act as if Governments were here before civilizations! Great! Governement came first then came man and woman geting it on and having relationships! O fuck... wait thats backwards!!! ha ha... and I bet even after I point this out you will still refuse it! Why? because you cant admit defeat!

I will agree with you that marriage has been recognized... its what I am saying!!! now listen to what you just said. Marriage was recognized... meaning it was here first! Other wise law would have "created" marriage... not recognizing it!

Jeez... it feels like I just took a ride on the short bus!
 
What you've basically stated is that the law recognizes marriage as nothing but a legal function.

Look at this like so:

Biology to culture, culture to law.

You would want the culture to change to suit the whims of a minority of people, and use the law to go about it? For shame.

Plenty of things have a moral and biological basis, like sexually molesting a kid, or aborting a child week before it's born.

I'm not trying to equate gay marriage to these, I'm trying to show how using the law to sidestep the cultural foundations is a weak method and ignores too many factors to be reasonably valid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that the cultural paradigm might change, but only after the law has been changed, and that's just working backwards.
 
SSgt_Sniper said:
Way to bypass the statement. While what the institution's rights have been expanded over time, the institution itself (what defines it) has not. Which was my whole point.
Click to expand...
And I don't dispute it. I'm just saying that just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't or shouldn't. We can't predict these things...
 
Messenger said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that the cultural paradigm might change, but only after the law has been changed, and that's just working backwards.
Click to expand...
OK, you stand corrected. I don't believe this. But for many issues, the cart and the horse have changed positions, sometimes for the betterment of society.

Civil rights were still a powderkeg in the 60s when the first laws were passed, but society in general has caught up with the law, which sought to prevent citizens from being denied basic rights on the basis of personal prejudice and bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top