I'm neutral toward gay marriage. BUT one's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, physical capability, and national origin IS NOT associated with filth and perversion like homosexuality and bisexuality is. So all you liberal, fruity, hippy, jungle loving, trailer trash, tree hugging, wiccan, low life, leftist shrimps need to realize that. It's undeniable that you're the same people that want obscene adult material, pre-marital intimacy, clothing optional places, promiscuity, etc in society. Sickos!
Miscegenation destroys diversity, it is not progressive in any sense of the word, it is unscientific. It is wishful thinking to assume we evolved along the same evolutionary lines and that we are completely equal in all of our skills, mental capacity and abilities.
In theory, if the state's only purpose was just procreation and physically forcing people to do so instead of mentally encouraging using the culturally understood term marriage, then i would somewhat agree that its its unjust but your strawmanning me. I never said the state's purpose was just procreation, but its to MENTALLY encourage citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate responsibly using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them into society the best way
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited...." cont.
the point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a secular reality as well as a religious belief, so there is not religious encroachment in legal matters here.
it is you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to impose their will and perverted notion of equality, civil rights, and reality not the other way around
Their Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal on the basis of equality and that implies that it would've been equally constitutional for California to ban all marriage. Then, California passed an amendment that just banned same-sex marriage, it has no clause saying the passage their Supreme Court used doesn't apply or making sure straight marriage stays legal so doesn't that mean if possible BOTH passages need to be followed & California is left with no option other than to ban all marriage?
Our constitutions are not enough for humanity. Just investigate CIA, FDR, and IRS. Why was the last economy tsunami? Deregulation are also laws as well. Our languages are primitive, our laws are not far from our primitive languages. Should we still be some societies of British, Scottish, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese .. forever? No! Please don't lie using our primitive psychology. Let's investigate and communicate what is available practically instead. OK?
Ironically, racist whites actually recognized the natural teleology of marriage and the natural family. They didn't want mongrel half-breeds running around.
To compare same-sex marriage debate to the racist social Darwinism of interracial marriage demonstrates ones ignorance and shallowness of thought.
California did not "repeal" its antimiscegenation laws. An activist Supreme Court of California overrode the will of the popularly-elected legislature and declared them unconstitutional. It did the same thing with same sex marriage. This time, fortunately, the people put the court in its place and enacted Proposition 8. Ironically, it was the black vote that put Prop 8 over the top. Without the black vote, Prop 8 would have lost.
People seem to look at race and gay marriage as separate issues. So, people of different races getting married seems more acceptable than gay marriage.
Yes, that is because black men and white men are the same, it turns out.
We haven't yet been convinced that men and women are the same. We still think there are differences.
If women didn't need protection to have children safely, marriage wouldn't exist. What other reason does the government have for caring who we love, if not for looking out for the well-being of our next generation?
That is why brothers & sisters can't marry - because we don't want them procreating.
The seeds for anti-miscegenation were but planted back in '67.The last State to ratify the legislation was Alabama,which did not sanction mixed race marriage until 1990.
Miscegenation Laws and the Equal Rights Amendment. Wow. Great video. We're featuring it at the GCRM Media Center on Facebook. See my channel for details. :)
For some reason, I keep trying to reply to a couple people, But my replies wont be accepted. It is either of two things, Youtube is screwy or the owner of this video has blocked my responses which would be freedome of speech
This is not a civil rights issue. No matter how anyone looks at it.
As for gay marriage going to be recognized throughout the USA. Its going to be a long battle, Because there are about 30 states that define marriage between a man and a woman and most of those states. There was a vote on the issue about it. Now, Try telling people that their votes dont matter. There could possibly be civil unrest if that happends.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Guess what...Im disturbed and insulted that people are trying to make this gay marriage look like interracial marriage. It isnt even close to that and here is why:
Interracial marriage was between man and a woman while same sex marriage is between 2 males or 2 females.
Sorry people, But not even close to Interracial marriage.
Ok then, how does one justify denying gay marriage then?
Your country has many founding principles, key ones being that *all* people have liberty, and are free to pursue happiness.
How does one justify the denial of marriage to a significant segment of society in this environment?
You will note that I am placing the burden of justification on those that wish to deny gay marriage. I do not see how gay marriage needs to be justified at all.
you can't insult your intelligence eaglefan!! You don't have any.
It's a civil issue. it's a group of people trying to tell another group of people how to live. You don't have to agree with homos. Or even like them, it's obvious you're a bigot. but, it's the same.
You are just like most of the members of the gay community. You insult people who oppose SSM. And guess what, You cant force a group of people to accept SSM no matter how hard you try.
BTW, If this was truly a civil rights issue, The US supreme court would hear arguments about it, But they have stated that it is up to the states to decide on what they want to do.
And you're just like the people who oppose SSM. And guess what, you can't force a group of people to accept your bigotry.
But, again though, like the retard you are, you think we're trying to get you to 'accept us.' I, like the majority of my people don't really care what you think about us. You'll take our tax money though, I note. ;) Thank god I'm in Canada, land of the actual free.
Regardless of the schematics, it's a group of people oppressing another group. What is that then???
You state that you are in Canada, So why dont you mind your own business. This is a US issue and NOT a candian issue, So dont come sticking your nose in other peoples business.
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
I have no idea what you are talking about. From this incomprehensible response of yours, I cannot tell if you are for, or against, the banning of gay marriage.
Legal definitions are modified and redfined all the time. It is often done to clarify language or to eliminate injustices inherent in existing definitions.
What makes the current definition of marriage so special?
On what justification can you deny redefining marriage when the existing definition so clearly denies basic rights to a significant segment of society?
The rights being denied are those which most people are able to take for granted.
On the contrary, federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents. Something same sex couples cannot do
So, it's OK to redefine other laws, just not marriage.
It comes down to procreation for you then? If the marriage cannot serve as a vehicle for the monogamous creation of babies, then you are against such marriages? Do I understand you correctly?
NO, the state's purpose is not just procreation because we don't need any encouragment from something that already naturally occurs within us already. its about PROMOTING and MENTALLY encouraging citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within stable environments using the culturally understood term "marriage" where there is two biological married parents rearing them in the best place right into society
not only would this be impossible for same sex couples to do this exact same thing in practice accidently in certain situations but its always impossible no matter what the situation and therefore, allowing same sex couples to marry would not only infringe on the state's objectives but it would eliminate the entire reason the state recognizes and uses the term marriage which is to promote natural procreation and rearing of children to at least the vast majority who are capable of achieveing this
very simple. allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on the states' objectives to promote and mentally encourage responsible procreation and rearing of kids in the best place using the culturally understood term marriage because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
not only would this be impossible for same sex couples to do this exact same thing in practice accidently in certain situations but its always impossible no matter what the situation and therefore, allowing same sex couples to marry would not only infringe on the state's objectives but it would eliminate the entire reason the state recognizes and uses the term marriage which is to promote natural procreation and rearing of children to at least the vast majority who are capable of achieveing this
It does not, at all, infringe on the state's desire to promote and encourage procreation through monogamous unions any more than allowing infertile men and women to marry.
Another point is taking to task what you claim as the state's goal in defining marriage. Marriage is a legal contract that defines and protects the rights of the parties in that contract.
Well the question now becomes how does the state go about promoting marriage or procreation within it. one way they promote it is through the school's curriculum. another is through the media like TV. the other way is through terminology like changing books and laws that deal with gender specfic terms. lastly, business are changed to fit the standards of the state by making certain symbols or posters. with civil unions or allowing the infertile to marry, none of this would be the case
I do not believe that it is the state's business to either promote marriage or promote procreation within it.
The state's mandate should be to protect the rights of its citizens while allowing the greatest possible freedom for all.
The state should not care about who gets married so long as the parties are consenting adults. Consent is the key, since it is a contract with legal rights and obligations.
in a private situation, i would agree with you. the state or society does not have a right to tell you who you can or cannot marry. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law (where you cannot marry your sister, uncle, etc) and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy where tax payer's money is spent
how do you deny a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children according to a centuries worth of law. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
the only thing we be denying would be their right to impose their way of life onto to society and that they do not have a right to do
That right would be "marriage". You know, the right that most people take for granted? The right to be able to marry the person that you want to spend your life with? For most people, it's a given.
You freely admit to imposing your way of life on them yet cannot see that you deny them the simply freedom of being left alone.
They impose nothing on you or anyone else, nor do they have any desire to do so.
gay activists and atheists like you would require the same thing from pastors and religious organizations when they entered the public arena or try to influence public policy to express their beliefs. the same standard applies to the gays and their sexual expression being displayed in public and influencing public policy when using my taxpayer's money to indoctrinate children and socially experiment with your corrupted views of marriage and humanity
Religion is a very personal and private thing. It should be kept as such.
We should teach our children about religion in public schools, but only in the context of a mythology. We should also ensure that children learn about many religions, the creeds, dogmas, requirements, and prohibitions. Only the facts, the undisputed facts about them.
Since you have admitted to having no issue with denying the rights of others, you have no business talking about morals.
"The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination."
therefore, we are not talking about infringing on somebody's right to get married, we are talking about ADDING a new right onto the positive laws that already exist to marry somebody of the same sex for a small group. this makes the burden of proof on you
Thankfully, forty year old decisions like this are being overturned in many jurisdictions because they are seen now for what they have always been....bigotry. Plain and simple
If two consenting adults want to marry, no matter what their respective genders, the state has no business standing in their way.
The Supreme Court has a history of overturning previous rulings for no other reason than the previous rulings were simply wrong.
OH PLEASE. Even if the U.S. supreme court overturns baker v. nelson or the country establishes gender neutral marriage into our constitution, same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because it is impossible by nature. there is no such thing as gay marriage. what societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature. it is a relationship that we apply the word "marriage" to, but the relationship is what comes first
So, even if it becomes legal, it can't exist because it goes against nature?
You are seriously deluded my friend. Homosexuality has always existed in nature, and always will. However, that is beside the point.
Advanced civilizations recognize the primacy of human freedom. We all should have the freedom to conduct our lives freely. Allowing gay marriage will not affect our society at all. Heterosexual marriages and child-rearing will go on.
this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach our children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
Right, and what is wrong with children being taught that there exists more than one sexuality?
It will have no effect on thier sexuality aside from the idea that they are free to express themselves without fear of bigotry should they turn out to also be homosexual.
if you object as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the government treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage the people who stand for true equality will find out that this new law impinges on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children
Another point, teaching children that marriage can also involve same sex unions is not a value statement. It is a description of the reality of human relationships.
The problem is, you want *your* values taught to my children using my own tax dollars. All I want is for people to be able to live free.
You are free to teach your children any values that you see fit. The education system is [or should be] about the teaching of the facts and the explanations for those facts.
the point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a secular reality as well as a religious belief, so there is not religious encroachment in legal matters here.
it is you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to impose their will and perverted notion of equality, civil rights, and reality not the other way around
the point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a secular reality as well as a religious belief, so there is not religious encroachment in legal matters here.
it is you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to impose their will and perverted notion of equality, civil rights, and reality not the other way around
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"....the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement"
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.......This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942)."
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
the point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a secular reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in legal matters here. it is you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to impose their will and perverted notion of equality, civil rights, and reality not the other way around
Allowing gay people to marry, with all the attendant rights and obligations therein, will have no effect whatsoever on the heterosexual segment of society.
People will still be able to marry people for the same reasons that they always have and procreate to their heart's desire.
It will be a good day when a person's sexuality is no more an issue than their shoe size. Your problem is that you think that your religion owns the definition of marriage, you do not.
Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
On this we can agree. It is the people who will ultimately decide. All have a say, all have the right to express their opinion.
This, more than anything else, nullifies your arguments against it. Once enough people decide that denying people the fundamental right of being able to marry whom they would consent to marry, it will be redefined.
it is true that people can ignore all the sound arguments against redefining marriage and the ZERO or refuted arguments for gay so-called marriage because people have a fundamental right to vote rationally or irrationally all they want but i doubt it.
as soon as people get educated about the fact that there is no right legally or through common sense that confers any type of right to this , and the self righteous gay agenda that seeks to force their beliefs onto other people and their children
Look again, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
Yet, you argued several points on the basis of Christian beliefs?
Do you object on religious or legal grounds? You bounce back and forth and it is rather confusing. It seems to me that your actual objections are religious, but you use legal precident as convenient support.
I suspect that you will continue to object on religious grounds even after same-sex marriages become legal [which they will].
the reason why the Loving case does not support your position because if you actually read the case closely when they said "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival", they referenced another U.S. supreme court case called Skinner v. Oklahoma along side that famous quote. does this quote sound familiar:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Well then, they are misinformed. The statement is wrong on its face. It is a conflation of two separate ideas, marriage, and procreation.
It would be correct to say that procreation is fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race. Marriage is simply not required [strictly] for that to come about.
Marriage is a social construct designed as a cultural recognition of a monogamous bond between two people. It is a separate notion from procreation.
its not about creating more children because we don't need encouragment to do something that is already naturally encouraged or have more people. its about responsible procreation and rearing them into society to have a country thats as functional as it can possibly be. this is achieved by encouraging its citizens using the term "marriage" to channel those natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within stable environments.Therefore, they are NOT separate ideas
You are mistaken. The quote is claiming that "Marriage AND procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race". This claim is false.
Marriage is not necessary, not even a little bit, for the existence and survival of the human race.
You, however, are arguing something entirely different. You are using this [false] claim to support your [also false] claim that marriage is a necessary condition for proper child rearing. It is not.
this is a quote from the federal 8th circuit court case (2006) called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning that dealt with bans on gay marriage:
"The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage." By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples..." cont..
Marriage and procreation are two separate and distinct notions.
It is easy to demonstrate that marriages can, and often do, exist in the complete absence of procreation. So long as we are talking about heterosexual unions, nobody cares one bit.
Procreation, can, and often does, exist in the complete absence of marriage. I know of several instances, personally, where a man a woman live together, have children, and live in a loving and stable environment without marriage.
".....such laws "encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry...." cont....
This is one long and windy appeal to authority. Has any judge ever, at any time demonstrated that what they assume to be true is actually true with respect to the best environment in which to raise children?
Your claim that marriage and procreation are not separate ideas is false, and is obviously false to anyone that thinks about it for more than 30 seconds.
The linking of marriage with procreation is only brought up these days in the context of same-sex marriage. It is used as the argument for denying same-sex couple that legal ability to marry, and all sorts of apologies are made when it is pointed out that many heterosexual couples do not procreate.
"....But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."
there are many more laws that reflect this purpose
Senior citizens cannot procreate, not even by accident. Yet, that same criteria would never be used to deny seniors the right to marry.
The judges were wrong, the judgements are bigoted.
The best environment for a child is to be raised in a home with loving caregivers who can adequately provide for those children. It does not matter if it is a single parent home, a home with heterosexual parents, adoptive parents, gay parents. It does not matter.
we went through this already. we cannot legislate to prohibit the infertile and other situations because the U.S supreme court protects the fundamental to marry someone of the opposite-sex, so its a none demand. But even if we could prohibit them from marrying, it would not only be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy but it would take the unnecessary spending of manpower money and resources to accomplish. you would have to provide a compelling reason to do this
It is still Special Pleading. The courts have contradicted themselves. Any rule applied to prohibit gay marriage seems to have an apology when it could also be applied to heterosexual marriage.
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited...." cont.
I will close with one last question. How does the Canadian definition of marriage deny any person any right with respect to marriage or religious freedom? How does it also force anyone to accept a worldview that they would otherwise reject?
But most importantly, allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on the objectives because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this. Now, In theory, if the state's only reason was just for procreation, then yes it would probably be unjust to give a marriage license to an infertile couple but not a same sex couple, but its not.
You did not answer the question. You made another apology.
Allowing gay people to marry similarly does not infringe on the stated objectives either. The state can still encourage responsible pro-creation through marriage without limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
By allowing gay marriage, the state is also saying that it encourages stable, monogamous relationships between consenting adults.
its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural feelings to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer way within stable relationships using the culturally understood term "marriage" NOT physically force them. Not only would this be impossible for same sex couples to do this exact same thing in practice accidently in certain situations but its always impossible no matter what the situation
if marriage is redefined to just two people, the state would be saying to its citizens from now on marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and less encouragement in better places than cohabitation
NOW, whether or not you actually think this works for the state to be doing this or that redefining marriage wouldn't produce this effect in reality if we experiment is an entirely different topic and separate from the reality that CIVIL marriage is about marriage AND procreation
Marriage is understood by most people as being a committed relationship between two consenting adults.
Responsible procreation involves being able to adequately provide for the emotional and material needs of the children in your care. Nothing else matters. If you want to do this within a marriage, that's OK, if not, that's OK too.
It is special pleading because the rule applied to prohibit gay marriage is not applied to prohibit any heterosexual marriage in cases where it could reasonably be applied. What does happen is that an apology is made for the heterosexual marriage, an excuse is offered as a post hoc rationale.
you need to explain how the laws and actions that promote procreation in a marriage using the word "marriage" and allowing infertile couples who fit the definition but denying that word (not the benefits) to same couples in order to continue to MENTALLY encourage ,in whatever means, its citizens to procreate responsible marriage in the best place is still unjust discrimination. please explain precisely, don't just assert. you say the rule could be reasonably applied to the infertile but How so?
..the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment"
i do not see how its special pleading sir and explained how its not at least as far as i know anyway. Nevertheless, i will answer your last question and explain further why its not a double standard:
the question becomes how does the state go about promoting marriage. one way they promote it is through the school's curriculum using taxpayer's money to support it. Another is through the media like TV. the other way is through terminology like changing books, laws, etc. that deal with gender specific terms. lastly, business are changed to fit the standards of the state by making certain symbols or posters. with civil unions or allowing the infertile to marry, none of this would be the case
The state can promote marriage in any way that it sees fit.
Children should be educated by tax dollars with facts, not dogma. The facts indicate that homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality. It occurs in a small percentage of the population which has been stable throughout history, and in all cultures, and that it should be nothing to be ashamed of.
Religious dogma paints a different, and mistaken picture of homosexuality, and of homosexuals.
you need to explain how the laws and actions that promote procreation using the word and/or meaning of "marriage" and allowing infertile couples who fit the definition but denying that word (not benefits) to same couples in order to continue to MENTALLY encourage ,in whatever means, its citizens to procreate responsible marriage in the best place is still unjust discrimination. please explain precisely, don't just assert. you say the rule could be reasonably applied to the infertile but How so?
It's quite simple actually. If the issue is procreation, and it seems to be, at least in principle, there is no difference in this regard between a gay couple and an infertile one. Neither one, it is claimed, is able, even in principle, to procreate.
The only difference is that one couple is gay, and the other is not. The denial of marriage is based solely on the fact that the couple being denied is gay.
However, a lesbian couple can procreate rather easily.
In theory, if the state's only purpose was just procreation and physically forcing people to do so instead of mentally encouraging using the culturally understood term marriage, then i would somewhat agree that its its unjust but your strawmanning me. However..... cont.
Also, the topic is not homosexuality which is separate from what we are talking about. we are discussing redefining marriage to just two people. therefore, I would definitely agree with you that children should be educated with the facts not the dogmatic and ridculous notion that gay marriage is a civil, equal, human right.
I would argue that all people should be free to marry whomever they choose to marry, so long as the arrangement is between consenting adults.
It is that which is the basic, civil, equal, human right. Restricting it to heterosexual unions is a denial of that basic freedom to a significant portion of society.
It is the restriction of freedom is what needs to be justified.
In theory, if the state's only purpose was just procreation and physically forcing people to do so instead of mentally encouraging using the culturally understood term marriage, then i would somewhat agree that its its unjust but your strawmanning me. I never said the state's purpose was just procreation, but its to MENTALLY encourage citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate responsibly using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them into society the best way
In theory, if the state's only purpose was just procreation and physically forcing people to do so instead of mentally encouraging using the culturally understood term marriage, then i would somewhat agree that its its unjust but your strawmanning me. I never said the state's purpose was just procreation, but its to MENTALLY encourage citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate responsibly using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them into society the best way
@kshackleton I never said the state's purpose was just procreation, but its to MENTALLY encourage citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate responsibly using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them into society the best way
therefore, allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on these objectives to encourage the vast majority of its citizens who can procreate responsibly nor change the definition and laws
In the same way that allowing infertile couples to marry does not infringe on the states objectives....allowing gay couples to marry does not either.
If people wish to procreate, the encouragement of doing so responsibly within marriage is not encumbered at all by changing the definition to allow gay couples to marry.
The objection is specious, changing the definition is trivial.
The state's resources would be better spent encouraging people to be just better parents.
when you say that allowing same sex couples in same way we allow the infertile to does not infringe on the state's way to promote responsible procreation in marriage, i am assuming you are basing that on the reality that there is not any proof RIGHT NOW that there is a decline in the marriage rate when marriage is redefined because as i said and showed is that it would indeed change the way the state advertises marriage and not with the infertile which i definitely have more evidence to show it
I do not care if there will be any decline in rates of marriage. That was not your point, you are moving the goalposts.
The state is still free to encourage procreation through marriage even if it allows gay couples to marry just as it allows infertile couples to marry.
I would also argue that the state has no interest in seeing people procreate through marriage. The state is interested in children being looked after properly, marriage is irrelevent to that end.
the point of the quote is that the state and multiple courts around the country disagree with you that redefining marriage does not interfere with the state objectives and since they would know better than you obviously because its their business their running or know how to run, it is just your personal opinion that you cannot prove but only assert
The state is comprised of politicians who's primary goal is to stay in office. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply law.
I have showed you the flaws in their position on this subject, and I have shown how their arguments are fallacious. You have the last word since I will no longer reply to your posts.
But its always impossible no matter what the circumstances for same sex couples to do this. the state would no longer be able to promote responsible procreation if changed and that would be the glaring difference between allowing the infertile and same sex couples to marry
besides, i would argue that we can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights or have marriage recognition within the U.S. from Canada without actually legally performing them in the U.S.
Lesbian couples can, and do make use of sperm donors to procreate just as do heterosexual couples where the man is infertile.
The state is not encumbered at all by allowing gay marriages.
The state also encourages people to quit smoking. Some people still choose to, however, the state is not prevented at all from educating people about the perils of smoking even though it is allowed.
I have no idea what this guy is saying.
benisturning30 1 week ago
I'm neutral toward gay marriage. BUT one's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, physical capability, and national origin IS NOT associated with filth and perversion like homosexuality and bisexuality is. So all you liberal, fruity, hippy, jungle loving, trailer trash, tree hugging, wiccan, low life, leftist shrimps need to realize that. It's undeniable that you're the same people that want obscene adult material, pre-marital intimacy, clothing optional places, promiscuity, etc in society. Sickos!
IcedCoffee81 6 months ago
IR EQUALS WHITE GENETIC ANIHILATION!
firefox8192 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kind notice for you Latin women ** rockmycity.info **
geenadeena 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try to meet your dream girls from Russia gettop5.info
natashiaminglech 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there are many datig side for you naneedj.info
siththee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
little girls online today DATEMEDEAR.INFO
fraekoud 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try Latino brides in your area rockmycity.info
aleenweiszjca 1 year ago
Miscegenation destroys diversity, it is not progressive in any sense of the word, it is unscientific. It is wishful thinking to assume we evolved along the same evolutionary lines and that we are completely equal in all of our skills, mental capacity and abilities.
UnyieldingDefiance 1 year ago
@UnyieldingDefiance,no it doesn't.separating yourself from other people destroys diversity.
98bigbutt 1 year ago
I can't wait until it's legal everywhere, no matter what the state wants. People's heads down here and Texas will explode.
hitheresunshine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>> /watch?v=T8eh5MkZwcQ << watch my sexy gay striptease prop 8 parody video!
DillonCallaway 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In theory, if the state's only purpose was just procreation and physically forcing people to do so instead of mentally encouraging using the culturally understood term marriage, then i would somewhat agree that its its unjust but your strawmanning me. I never said the state's purpose was just procreation, but its to MENTALLY encourage citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate responsibly using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them into society the best way
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From Baker v. Nelson:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited...." cont.
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a secular reality as well as a religious belief, so there is not religious encroachment in legal matters here.
it is you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to impose their will and perverted notion of equality, civil rights, and reality not the other way around
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Their Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal on the basis of equality and that implies that it would've been equally constitutional for California to ban all marriage. Then, California passed an amendment that just banned same-sex marriage, it has no clause saying the passage their Supreme Court used doesn't apply or making sure straight marriage stays legal so doesn't that mean if possible BOTH passages need to be followed & California is left with no option other than to ban all marriage?
sicktoaster 1 year ago
well said
oneyedo 2 years ago
Our constitutions are not enough for humanity. Just investigate CIA, FDR, and IRS. Why was the last economy tsunami? Deregulation are also laws as well. Our languages are primitive, our laws are not far from our primitive languages. Should we still be some societies of British, Scottish, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese .. forever? No! Please don't lie using our primitive psychology. Let's investigate and communicate what is available practically instead. OK?
beancube2010 2 years ago
i laughed for a good five minutes after reading this
yokatabukata619 2 years ago
When was white established their superiority in this land? How and why? Were they through wars?
When was hetero relationship established their superiority in this land? How and why? Were they through wars?
What are the difference? Why laws and wars define everything? Are we still British, Jewish or Chinese?
beancube2010 2 years ago
confusing but your comment above made me realize you were just stupid
yokatabukata619 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here we go again with the Gays trying to force their lifestyle on traditional families.
Discrimination with race and what a person does behind closed doors are 2 totally different topics.
It is not a sin to be of a different race. It is a sin to be openly disobedient to GOD.
Interracial marriages are still traditional marriage. STOP IT RAINBOW MOVEMENT!
Mrsnesi08 2 years ago
Is this a joke?
akariNoRyu 2 years ago
Anti-miscegenation laws were EUGENIC LAWS.
Ironically, racist whites actually recognized the natural teleology of marriage and the natural family. They didn't want mongrel half-breeds running around.
To compare same-sex marriage debate to the racist social Darwinism of interracial marriage demonstrates ones ignorance and shallowness of thought.
wood9670 2 years ago
California did not "repeal" its antimiscegenation laws. An activist Supreme Court of California overrode the will of the popularly-elected legislature and declared them unconstitutional. It did the same thing with same sex marriage. This time, fortunately, the people put the court in its place and enacted Proposition 8. Ironically, it was the black vote that put Prop 8 over the top. Without the black vote, Prop 8 would have lost.
mindspring57 2 years ago 4
Why is this a equal rights / human rights issue?
Why isn't there an separation of church and state?
Clearly, if there is an issue with two adults getting married under God, then obviously it is an issue WITHIN THE CHURCH.
This has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH Prop 8, interracial marriage, human rights, or what have you.
TankSwift 2 years ago
People seem to look at race and gay marriage as separate issues. So, people of different races getting married seems more acceptable than gay marriage.
gypsygrl1 2 years ago
Yes, that is because black men and white men are the same, it turns out.
We haven't yet been convinced that men and women are the same. We still think there are differences.
If women didn't need protection to have children safely, marriage wouldn't exist. What other reason does the government have for caring who we love, if not for looking out for the well-being of our next generation?
That is why brothers & sisters can't marry - because we don't want them procreating.
kitmarq 2 years ago 2
Yes, there are definite differences between men and women . . . nice differences.
gypsygrl1 2 years ago
@gypsygrl1 How different that they have no rights to choose?
beancube2010 2 years ago
The seeds for anti-miscegenation were but planted back in '67.The last State to ratify the legislation was Alabama,which did not sanction mixed race marriage until 1990.
djnross 2 years ago
Miscegenation Laws and the Equal Rights Amendment. Wow. Great video. We're featuring it at the GCRM Media Center on Facebook. See my channel for details. :)
patrickometry 2 years ago 2
im disturbed by own state government in general.
it's quite a mess.
fubar28 2 years ago
OK...That response went through, But why not the others?
eaglefan9727 2 years ago
For some reason, I keep trying to reply to a couple people, But my replies wont be accepted. It is either of two things, Youtube is screwy or the owner of this video has blocked my responses which would be freedome of speech
eaglefan9727 2 years ago
This is not a civil rights issue. No matter how anyone looks at it.
As for gay marriage going to be recognized throughout the USA. Its going to be a long battle, Because there are about 30 states that define marriage between a man and a woman and most of those states. There was a vote on the issue about it. Now, Try telling people that their votes dont matter. There could possibly be civil unrest if that happends.
eaglefan9727 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Guess what...Im disturbed and insulted that people are trying to make this gay marriage look like interracial marriage. It isnt even close to that and here is why:
Interracial marriage was between man and a woman while same sex marriage is between 2 males or 2 females.
Sorry people, But not even close to Interracial marriage.
eaglefan9727 2 years ago
It's precisely the same issue.
It's an issue where people are attempting to control the harmless behaviour of others; justified solely on the basis of their personal bigotry.
When two adults decide to get married, it's their business alone. Society suffers not one bit by same-sex marriages being legal.
kshackleton 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No it isnt the same issue....I dont care if you think it does, But it clearly doesnt....
Now, Quit insulting my intellegence and others who know the diffrence between those two type of marriages.
eaglefan9727 2 years ago
Ok then, how does one justify denying gay marriage then?
Your country has many founding principles, key ones being that *all* people have liberty, and are free to pursue happiness.
How does one justify the denial of marriage to a significant segment of society in this environment?
You will note that I am placing the burden of justification on those that wish to deny gay marriage. I do not see how gay marriage needs to be justified at all.
kshackleton 2 years ago 4
you can't insult your intelligence eaglefan!! You don't have any.
It's a civil issue. it's a group of people trying to tell another group of people how to live. You don't have to agree with homos. Or even like them, it's obvious you're a bigot. but, it's the same.
ragingflamerboy 2 years ago
You are just like most of the members of the gay community. You insult people who oppose SSM. And guess what, You cant force a group of people to accept SSM no matter how hard you try.
BTW, If this was truly a civil rights issue, The US supreme court would hear arguments about it, But they have stated that it is up to the states to decide on what they want to do.
eaglefan9727 2 years ago
And you're just like the people who oppose SSM. And guess what, you can't force a group of people to accept your bigotry.
But, again though, like the retard you are, you think we're trying to get you to 'accept us.' I, like the majority of my people don't really care what you think about us. You'll take our tax money though, I note. ;) Thank god I'm in Canada, land of the actual free.
Regardless of the schematics, it's a group of people oppressing another group. What is that then???
ragingflamerboy 2 years ago
You state that you are in Canada, So why dont you mind your own business. This is a US issue and NOT a candian issue, So dont come sticking your nose in other peoples business.
eaglefan9727 2 years ago
I welcome the outside perspective. Agree or disagree, the spirit of Free Expression shouldn't hinge on birthright.
PaulCynic 2 years ago
@ragingflamerboy
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kshackleton
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I have no idea what you are talking about. From this incomprehensible response of yours, I cannot tell if you are for, or against, the banning of gay marriage.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
i am against redefining marriage
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
What is your justification? What is so special about the existing definition? Can you tell me what the present definition is?
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Legal definitions are modified and redfined all the time. It is often done to clarify language or to eliminate injustices inherent in existing definitions.
What makes the current definition of marriage so special?
On what justification can you deny redefining marriage when the existing definition so clearly denies basic rights to a significant segment of society?
The rights being denied are those which most people are able to take for granted.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
On the contrary, federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents. Something same sex couples cannot do
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
So, it's OK to redefine other laws, just not marriage.
It comes down to procreation for you then? If the marriage cannot serve as a vehicle for the monogamous creation of babies, then you are against such marriages? Do I understand you correctly?
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
NO, the state's purpose is not just procreation because we don't need any encouragment from something that already naturally occurs within us already. its about PROMOTING and MENTALLY encouraging citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within stable environments using the culturally understood term "marriage" where there is two biological married parents rearing them in the best place right into society
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Ok, so you are not against marriages that cannot produce babies then?
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
YES i am not against marriages that cannot produce babies
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kshackleton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not only would this be impossible for same sex couples to do this exact same thing in practice accidently in certain situations but its always impossible no matter what the situation and therefore, allowing same sex couples to marry would not only infringe on the state's objectives but it would eliminate the entire reason the state recognizes and uses the term marriage which is to promote natural procreation and rearing of children to at least the vast majority who are capable of achieveing this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Ignore the first reply....I misunderstood.
So, if you are not against marriages that cannot produce babies, why did you previously use that as a justification for denying same-sex marriage?
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
very simple. allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on the states' objectives to promote and mentally encourage responsible procreation and rearing of kids in the best place using the culturally understood term marriage because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not infringe on the state's goals either.
kshackleton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not only would this be impossible for same sex couples to do this exact same thing in practice accidently in certain situations but its always impossible no matter what the situation and therefore, allowing same sex couples to marry would not only infringe on the state's objectives but it would eliminate the entire reason the state recognizes and uses the term marriage which is to promote natural procreation and rearing of children to at least the vast majority who are capable of achieveing this
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
It does not, at all, infringe on the state's desire to promote and encourage procreation through monogamous unions any more than allowing infertile men and women to marry.
Another point is taking to task what you claim as the state's goal in defining marriage. Marriage is a legal contract that defines and protects the rights of the parties in that contract.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Well the question now becomes how does the state go about promoting marriage or procreation within it. one way they promote it is through the school's curriculum. another is through the media like TV. the other way is through terminology like changing books and laws that deal with gender specfic terms. lastly, business are changed to fit the standards of the state by making certain symbols or posters. with civil unions or allowing the infertile to marry, none of this would be the case
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I do not believe that it is the state's business to either promote marriage or promote procreation within it.
The state's mandate should be to protect the rights of its citizens while allowing the greatest possible freedom for all.
The state should not care about who gets married so long as the parties are consenting adults. Consent is the key, since it is a contract with legal rights and obligations.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
in a private situation, i would agree with you. the state or society does not have a right to tell you who you can or cannot marry. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law (where you cannot marry your sister, uncle, etc) and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy where tax payer's money is spent
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
So now you want to deny basic human rights on the basis of cost to the public purse.....you sell your morals cheaply.
kshackleton 1 year ago
how do you deny a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children according to a centuries worth of law. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
the only thing we be denying would be their right to impose their way of life onto to society and that they do not have a right to do
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
That right would be "marriage". You know, the right that most people take for granted? The right to be able to marry the person that you want to spend your life with? For most people, it's a given.
You freely admit to imposing your way of life on them yet cannot see that you deny them the simply freedom of being left alone.
They impose nothing on you or anyone else, nor do they have any desire to do so.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
gay activists and atheists like you would require the same thing from pastors and religious organizations when they entered the public arena or try to influence public policy to express their beliefs. the same standard applies to the gays and their sexual expression being displayed in public and influencing public policy when using my taxpayer's money to indoctrinate children and socially experiment with your corrupted views of marriage and humanity
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Ah yes....so the real fear finally comes out. You are a christian who believes that there is a gay agenda to bring children over to their side.
You fear that their intent is to indoctrinate just as christians have done to children for centuries.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
and obviously your an athiest who love to see religion fervor eradicated within the public forum to uphold athiesm and immorality
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Religion is a very personal and private thing. It should be kept as such.
We should teach our children about religion in public schools, but only in the context of a mythology. We should also ensure that children learn about many religions, the creeds, dogmas, requirements, and prohibitions. Only the facts, the undisputed facts about them.
Since you have admitted to having no issue with denying the rights of others, you have no business talking about morals.
kshackleton 1 year ago
from Baker v. Nelson:
"The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination."
therefore, we are not talking about infringing on somebody's right to get married, we are talking about ADDING a new right onto the positive laws that already exist to marry somebody of the same sex for a small group. this makes the burden of proof on you
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Thankfully, forty year old decisions like this are being overturned in many jurisdictions because they are seen now for what they have always been....bigotry. Plain and simple
If two consenting adults want to marry, no matter what their respective genders, the state has no business standing in their way.
The Supreme Court has a history of overturning previous rulings for no other reason than the previous rulings were simply wrong.
kshackleton 1 year ago
OH PLEASE. Even if the U.S. supreme court overturns baker v. nelson or the country establishes gender neutral marriage into our constitution, same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because it is impossible by nature. there is no such thing as gay marriage. what societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature. it is a relationship that we apply the word "marriage" to, but the relationship is what comes first
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Impossible by nature? WTF?
So, even if it becomes legal, it can't exist because it goes against nature?
You are seriously deluded my friend. Homosexuality has always existed in nature, and always will. However, that is beside the point.
Advanced civilizations recognize the primacy of human freedom. We all should have the freedom to conduct our lives freely. Allowing gay marriage will not affect our society at all. Heterosexual marriages and child-rearing will go on.
kshackleton 1 year ago
this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach our children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Right, and what is wrong with children being taught that there exists more than one sexuality?
It will have no effect on thier sexuality aside from the idea that they are free to express themselves without fear of bigotry should they turn out to also be homosexual.
kshackleton 1 year ago
if you object as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the government treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage the people who stand for true equality will find out that this new law impinges on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I would have no objection to my children being taught that these relationships exist. It would have no effect on their sexuality.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Another point, teaching children that marriage can also involve same sex unions is not a value statement. It is a description of the reality of human relationships.
The problem is, you want *your* values taught to my children using my own tax dollars. All I want is for people to be able to live free.
You are free to teach your children any values that you see fit. The education system is [or should be] about the teaching of the facts and the explanations for those facts.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
kshackleton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kshackleton
the point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a secular reality as well as a religious belief, so there is not religious encroachment in legal matters here.
it is you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to impose their will and perverted notion of equality, civil rights, and reality not the other way around
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kshackleton
the point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a secular reality as well as a religious belief, so there is not religious encroachment in legal matters here.
it is you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to impose their will and perverted notion of equality, civil rights, and reality not the other way around
kenballer00 1 year ago
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"....the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement"
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Wow. Could you cite an older precedent? What about Plessy v Ferguson? You know that was overturned, right?
61790027 1 year ago
From Baker v. Nelson:
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.......This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend."
kenballer00 1 year ago
From Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942)."
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I would also be against the sterilization of criminals.
kshackleton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kshackleton
the point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a secular reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in legal matters here. it is you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to impose their will and perverted notion of equality, civil rights, and reality not the other way around
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Allowing gay people to marry, with all the attendant rights and obligations therein, will have no effect whatsoever on the heterosexual segment of society.
People will still be able to marry people for the same reasons that they always have and procreate to their heart's desire.
It will be a good day when a person's sexuality is no more an issue than their shoe size. Your problem is that you think that your religion owns the definition of marriage, you do not.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
they don't either
Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
On this we can agree. It is the people who will ultimately decide. All have a say, all have the right to express their opinion.
This, more than anything else, nullifies your arguments against it. Once enough people decide that denying people the fundamental right of being able to marry whom they would consent to marry, it will be redefined.
kshackleton 1 year ago
it is true that people can ignore all the sound arguments against redefining marriage and the ZERO or refuted arguments for gay so-called marriage because people have a fundamental right to vote rationally or irrationally all they want but i doubt it.
as soon as people get educated about the fact that there is no right legally or through common sense that confers any type of right to this , and the self righteous gay agenda that seeks to force their beliefs onto other people and their children
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
It still is a mystery to me how you can justify the position in which you can say to two consenting adults, "You two cannot marry each other".
kshackleton 1 year ago
OMG!!!!!!!
Look again, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Yet, you argued several points on the basis of Christian beliefs?
Do you object on religious or legal grounds? You bounce back and forth and it is rather confusing. It seems to me that your actual objections are religious, but you use legal precident as convenient support.
I suspect that you will continue to object on religious grounds even after same-sex marriages become legal [which they will].
kshackleton 1 year ago
the reason why the Loving case does not support your position because if you actually read the case closely when they said "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival", they referenced another U.S. supreme court case called Skinner v. Oklahoma along side that famous quote. does this quote sound familiar:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Well then, they are misinformed. The statement is wrong on its face. It is a conflation of two separate ideas, marriage, and procreation.
It would be correct to say that procreation is fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race. Marriage is simply not required [strictly] for that to come about.
Marriage is a social construct designed as a cultural recognition of a monogamous bond between two people. It is a separate notion from procreation.
kshackleton 1 year ago
its not about creating more children because we don't need encouragment to do something that is already naturally encouraged or have more people. its about responsible procreation and rearing them into society to have a country thats as functional as it can possibly be. this is achieved by encouraging its citizens using the term "marriage" to channel those natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within stable environments.Therefore, they are NOT separate ideas
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
You are mistaken. The quote is claiming that "Marriage AND procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race". This claim is false.
Marriage is not necessary, not even a little bit, for the existence and survival of the human race.
You, however, are arguing something entirely different. You are using this [false] claim to support your [also false] claim that marriage is a necessary condition for proper child rearing. It is not.
kshackleton 1 year ago
this is a quote from the federal 8th circuit court case (2006) called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning that dealt with bans on gay marriage:
"The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage." By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples..." cont..
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Marriage and procreation are two separate and distinct notions.
It is easy to demonstrate that marriages can, and often do, exist in the complete absence of procreation. So long as we are talking about heterosexual unions, nobody cares one bit.
Procreation, can, and often does, exist in the complete absence of marriage. I know of several instances, personally, where a man a woman live together, have children, and live in a loving and stable environment without marriage.
kshackleton 1 year ago
".....such laws "encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry...." cont....
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
This is one long and windy appeal to authority. Has any judge ever, at any time demonstrated that what they assume to be true is actually true with respect to the best environment in which to raise children?
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Your claim that marriage and procreation are not separate ideas is false, and is obviously false to anyone that thinks about it for more than 30 seconds.
The linking of marriage with procreation is only brought up these days in the context of same-sex marriage. It is used as the argument for denying same-sex couple that legal ability to marry, and all sorts of apologies are made when it is pointed out that many heterosexual couples do not procreate.
It is Special Pleading.
kshackleton 1 year ago
"....But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."
there are many more laws that reflect this purpose
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
It's Special Pleading.
Senior citizens cannot procreate, not even by accident. Yet, that same criteria would never be used to deny seniors the right to marry.
The judges were wrong, the judgements are bigoted.
The best environment for a child is to be raised in a home with loving caregivers who can adequately provide for those children. It does not matter if it is a single parent home, a home with heterosexual parents, adoptive parents, gay parents. It does not matter.
kshackleton 1 year ago
we went through this already. we cannot legislate to prohibit the infertile and other situations because the U.S supreme court protects the fundamental to marry someone of the opposite-sex, so its a none demand. But even if we could prohibit them from marrying, it would not only be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy but it would take the unnecessary spending of manpower money and resources to accomplish. you would have to provide a compelling reason to do this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
It is still Special Pleading. The courts have contradicted themselves. Any rule applied to prohibit gay marriage seems to have an apology when it could also be applied to heterosexual marriage.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From Baker v. Nelson:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited...." cont.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I will close with one last question. How does the Canadian definition of marriage deny any person any right with respect to marriage or religious freedom? How does it also force anyone to accept a worldview that they would otherwise reject?
kshackleton 1 year ago
But most importantly, allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on the objectives because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this. Now, In theory, if the state's only reason was just for procreation, then yes it would probably be unjust to give a marriage license to an infertile couple but not a same sex couple, but its not.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
You did not answer the question. You made another apology.
Allowing gay people to marry similarly does not infringe on the stated objectives either. The state can still encourage responsible pro-creation through marriage without limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
By allowing gay marriage, the state is also saying that it encourages stable, monogamous relationships between consenting adults.
Seems like a win-win to me.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural feelings to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer way within stable relationships using the culturally understood term "marriage" NOT physically force them. Not only would this be impossible for same sex couples to do this exact same thing in practice accidently in certain situations but its always impossible no matter what the situation
kenballer00 1 year ago
if marriage is redefined to just two people, the state would be saying to its citizens from now on marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and less encouragement in better places than cohabitation
NOW, whether or not you actually think this works for the state to be doing this or that redefining marriage wouldn't produce this effect in reality if we experiment is an entirely different topic and separate from the reality that CIVIL marriage is about marriage AND procreation
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Marriage is understood by most people as being a committed relationship between two consenting adults.
Responsible procreation involves being able to adequately provide for the emotional and material needs of the children in your care. Nothing else matters. If you want to do this within a marriage, that's OK, if not, that's OK too.
You create a linkage where none needs to be.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
It is special pleading because the rule applied to prohibit gay marriage is not applied to prohibit any heterosexual marriage in cases where it could reasonably be applied. What does happen is that an apology is made for the heterosexual marriage, an excuse is offered as a post hoc rationale.
kshackleton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you need to explain how the laws and actions that promote procreation in a marriage using the word "marriage" and allowing infertile couples who fit the definition but denying that word (not the benefits) to same couples in order to continue to MENTALLY encourage ,in whatever means, its citizens to procreate responsible marriage in the best place is still unjust discrimination. please explain precisely, don't just assert. you say the rule could be reasonably applied to the infertile but How so?
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kshackleto
..the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment"
i do not see how its special pleading sir and explained how its not at least as far as i know anyway. Nevertheless, i will answer your last question and explain further why its not a double standard:
continuing....
kenballer00 1 year ago
the question becomes how does the state go about promoting marriage. one way they promote it is through the school's curriculum using taxpayer's money to support it. Another is through the media like TV. the other way is through terminology like changing books, laws, etc. that deal with gender specific terms. lastly, business are changed to fit the standards of the state by making certain symbols or posters. with civil unions or allowing the infertile to marry, none of this would be the case
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
The state can promote marriage in any way that it sees fit.
Children should be educated by tax dollars with facts, not dogma. The facts indicate that homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality. It occurs in a small percentage of the population which has been stable throughout history, and in all cultures, and that it should be nothing to be ashamed of.
Religious dogma paints a different, and mistaken picture of homosexuality, and of homosexuals.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
you need to explain how the laws and actions that promote procreation using the word and/or meaning of "marriage" and allowing infertile couples who fit the definition but denying that word (not benefits) to same couples in order to continue to MENTALLY encourage ,in whatever means, its citizens to procreate responsible marriage in the best place is still unjust discrimination. please explain precisely, don't just assert. you say the rule could be reasonably applied to the infertile but How so?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
It's quite simple actually. If the issue is procreation, and it seems to be, at least in principle, there is no difference in this regard between a gay couple and an infertile one. Neither one, it is claimed, is able, even in principle, to procreate.
The only difference is that one couple is gay, and the other is not. The denial of marriage is based solely on the fact that the couple being denied is gay.
However, a lesbian couple can procreate rather easily.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kshackle
In theory, if the state's only purpose was just procreation and physically forcing people to do so instead of mentally encouraging using the culturally understood term marriage, then i would somewhat agree that its its unjust but your strawmanning me. However..... cont.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kshackleton
Also, the topic is not homosexuality which is separate from what we are talking about. we are discussing redefining marriage to just two people. therefore, I would definitely agree with you that children should be educated with the facts not the dogmatic and ridculous notion that gay marriage is a civil, equal, human right.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I would argue that all people should be free to marry whomever they choose to marry, so long as the arrangement is between consenting adults.
It is that which is the basic, civil, equal, human right. Restricting it to heterosexual unions is a denial of that basic freedom to a significant portion of society.
It is the restriction of freedom is what needs to be justified.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In theory, if the state's only purpose was just procreation and physically forcing people to do so instead of mentally encouraging using the culturally understood term marriage, then i would somewhat agree that its its unjust but your strawmanning me. I never said the state's purpose was just procreation, but its to MENTALLY encourage citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate responsibly using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them into society the best way
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kshackle
In theory, if the state's only purpose was just procreation and physically forcing people to do so instead of mentally encouraging using the culturally understood term marriage, then i would somewhat agree that its its unjust but your strawmanning me. I never said the state's purpose was just procreation, but its to MENTALLY encourage citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate responsibly using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them into society the best way
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kshackleton I never said the state's purpose was just procreation, but its to MENTALLY encourage citizens to channel their natural urges to procreate responsibly using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them into society the best way
therefore, allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on these objectives to encourage the vast majority of its citizens who can procreate responsibly nor change the definition and laws
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
In the same way that allowing infertile couples to marry does not infringe on the states objectives....allowing gay couples to marry does not either.
If people wish to procreate, the encouragement of doing so responsibly within marriage is not encumbered at all by changing the definition to allow gay couples to marry.
The objection is specious, changing the definition is trivial.
The state's resources would be better spent encouraging people to be just better parents.
kshackleton 1 year ago
when you say that allowing same sex couples in same way we allow the infertile to does not infringe on the state's way to promote responsible procreation in marriage, i am assuming you are basing that on the reality that there is not any proof RIGHT NOW that there is a decline in the marriage rate when marriage is redefined because as i said and showed is that it would indeed change the way the state advertises marriage and not with the infertile which i definitely have more evidence to show it
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I do not care if there will be any decline in rates of marriage. That was not your point, you are moving the goalposts.
The state is still free to encourage procreation through marriage even if it allows gay couples to marry just as it allows infertile couples to marry.
I would also argue that the state has no interest in seeing people procreate through marriage. The state is interested in children being looked after properly, marriage is irrelevent to that end.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
the point of the quote is that the state and multiple courts around the country disagree with you that redefining marriage does not interfere with the state objectives and since they would know better than you obviously because its their business their running or know how to run, it is just your personal opinion that you cannot prove but only assert
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
The state is comprised of politicians who's primary goal is to stay in office. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply law.
I have showed you the flaws in their position on this subject, and I have shown how their arguments are fallacious. You have the last word since I will no longer reply to your posts.
Peace.
kshackleton 1 year ago
But its always impossible no matter what the circumstances for same sex couples to do this. the state would no longer be able to promote responsible procreation if changed and that would be the glaring difference between allowing the infertile and same sex couples to marry
besides, i would argue that we can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights or have marriage recognition within the U.S. from Canada without actually legally performing them in the U.S.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Wrong.
Lesbian couples can, and do make use of sperm donors to procreate just as do heterosexual couples where the man is infertile.
The state is not encumbered at all by allowing gay marriages.
The state also encourages people to quit smoking. Some people still choose to, however, the state is not prevented at all from educating people about the perils of smoking even though it is allowed.
kshackleton 1 year ago