What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The federal marriage ammendent

  • Thread starter Wesley
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #241
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ July 15 2004,2:31)]oh really? why not dustin? think we won't make good parents, why is that?

whats the difference between 2 dads and one single day? or 2 moms and 1 single mom?
Actually, from a statistical standpoint none of the options you mentioned produces results all that different from each other. However they cannot compare to a Husband wife marriage in which both parents are the biological of the child. Also adopted children stand a better chance of being abused (not that it's a gay thing)

Scholty,

That YOU'RE opinion not based on anything, but what in your head. Now you're saying because my opinion is different from you'rs I'm uneducated? Think again. You can't sit there and tell me you're opinion is correct because there are some major falicies in you thought process.

Where in society has anyone attempted legalizing gay marriages? Past, or present you're ovisouly ignoring statistics that prove counter to you're beliefs, in a poor attempt to speculate on an out come.
 
  • #242
Schloaty and ZAK,
Public laws should serve public functions. Like preventing theft, and protecting people from violence. These are secular, communal needs that are necessary for a functional society.

Personal opinions and preferences are NOT appropriate bases for public policy. I would be just as out of line to suggest that sour cream be banned because I don't like it as to suggest that some bit of religious doctrine be made into public policy just because I belong to that religion. There is a vast gulf between one person's beliefs and preferences, and what should be enacted into law contraining the behavior of everyone.

Laws need to have rational foundations and serve the whole community. That's not that hard to understand, is it?

Capslock
 
  • #243
in foreign countries, buddy! like the netherlands!!

if a single parent isn't as good as a mother and father raising a child, lets go ahead and make single parenting illegal while were at it. that was sarcasm for those of you who can't tell
smile_m_32.gif


if adopted children have a better chance of being abused, then what about children created in-vitro? wheres your argument there? the only way that could be bad is if the parents hid that fact from the child, but if your honest with your child, wheres the harm.

unfortunately i'm leaving town for the weekend, so i won't get to miss out on all the fun of this thread
smile_m_32.gif
it's been a great thread. there have been good arguments, bad arguments, and a bunch of crap in between on both sides. this thread has been mostly civil (haha, i got a little too passionate sometimes) and i hope it continues to be so.

biggrin.gif
 
  • #244
amen capslock and schloaty!
 
  • #245
Ok I've watched this thread continue to expand and move in different directions that originally started... what was a question about a change to the US Constitution has morphed into a religious debate...

The question is rooted in "the rule of law" as our current government likes that phrase I thought I would co-opt it for this purpose.

The civil contract of marrige confers 1,138 individual federal rights and responsibilites as outlined by the General Accounting Office and communicated to the Senate Majority Leader in Feb 2004.

The issues before the Senate are to amend the US Constitution to specifically EXCLUDE a group of citizens in the US. The consititution as been AMENDED 17 times in 200+ years as well as several articles extending and defining the role and actions of the federal government.

The articles in question are

Article 4 - Section 1; Full Faith and Credit - this states that a contract in 1 state is recognized as valid in ANY other state... hence married couple in MA are married in TX. ... (imagine what the neighbors think of that one.)

Article 9 - Equal Protection - any law of the US will be applied equally to all citizens... well if 2 people can enter into a contract why are 2 others self identified as homosexual excluded - this is the crux of the argument FOR gay marriage.

Within this framework of existing laws you cannot reasonable deny any citizen access to the rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage. Hence the current leadership is attempting to modify that framework before existing lawsuits can reach their natural result and constitutional review by the US Supreme Court using those 2 articles mentioned above.

Also you may check the congressional register and see that another law is being debated in the Senate - written by the Republican from Indiana - it seeks to move ANY court case regarding samesex marriage out of the FEDERAL COURT and into State court ... Seems logical when republicans speak of states rights - but incongruent to the arguement of a need for FEDERAL amendment. Why? because the Federal court that decides a case under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the 14th Amendment will cause the Defense of Marriage Acts signed in that state to become invalid raising the case to the US Supreme Court and hence the constitutional review I mentioned previously ...

Now after this lenghty post and breif legal education - I'll point out the arbitrary nature of our system...

The discussion has been good, well thought out, and 99% respectful of opposing views, but it has reached its conclusion - I'm locking this thread now.

Thanks
Michael
JungleWerks Corporation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top