Today is a sad day in American history

[Cedar Park Dad]

Thats vague nonsense insufficient to support against the inalienable rights of individuals to do what they want in a free society. If thats your standard, just about everything in life violates it, and I'd bet good money you'd not like where that chain goes. If everything impacts the village, then the village can control everything.

No, the village cannot control everything and that's what we've been arguing. But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

Nature, Father, Mother the Great Wienerdog or dirt. Its not relevant to fundamental rights in the US.

You're saying the village can't control everything yet you're demanding the village control something far more important than anything in the Constitution except the First Amendment. That lacks merit.

[baldeagle]

Thats vague nonsense insufficient to support against the inalienable rights of individuals to do what they want in a free society. If thats your standard, just about everything in life violates it, and I'd bet good money you'd not like where that chain goes. If everything impacts the village, then the village can control everything.

No, the village cannot control everything and that's what we've been arguing. But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

Nature, Father, Mother the Great Wienerdog or dirt. Its not relevant to fundamental rights in the US.

You're saying the village can't control everything yet you're demanding the village control something far more important than anything in the Constitution except the First Amendment. That lacks merit.

I have a simple response.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

America was not founded on the principle that dirt granted humans rights. Or Nature, Father, Mother or the Great Wienerdog.

[Cedar Park Dad]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And yet you would take that right away from others. interesting.

[baldeagle]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And yet you would take that right away from others. interesting.

Please point to the place in the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution where the right to marry exists.

[Cedar Park Dad]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And yet you would take that right away from others. interesting.

Please point to the place in the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution where the right to marry exists.

Please point to me the part in the US Constitution where the right to marry may be infringed.

[chuck j]

You ought to stick a fork in this topic .

[PUCKER]

This song/video sums it up pretty well.

"Come On Down To The Farm"

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

[baldeagle]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And yet you would take that right away from others. interesting.

Please point to the place in the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution where the right to marry exists.

Please point to me the part in the US Constitution where the right to marry may be infringed.

If there is no right, it's not possible to infringe on it. You first have to establish the right. Marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege. (We're talking about this from a governmental point of view, not human relationship point of view.) Any American is free to live with any other American, regardless of their sex, and do whatever they like so long as they don't harm the other person. They can enter into contracts that obligate each other to various things (wills, powers of attorney, etc.) But having a marriage recognized by the state is a privilege which grants you things that you don't get if you don't have that privilege. (Think of driving - not everyone can drive - you must qualify, pass tests, prove competence, etc., and you can lose the license on bad behavior.)

[cb1000rider]

If there is no right, it's not possible to infringe on it.

You're overlooking the fact that the constitution says that all men are created equal.
To me, that means that we must treat men equally, regardless of "protected class/status". In regard to homosexuals, it's pretty well documented that they haven't been treated equally.
If we had true equal options from homosexual unions, you'd find that I for one wouldn't support making changes to secular marriage... We've only had about 60 years or so to get it right.

[RoyGBiv]

All the examples you give do not change the purpose of marriage. Homosexual marriage does. This is a much bigger issue than whether or not Adam or Steve can live happily ever after. No one with any ethics would care one way or the other. I have a homosexual couple living on my cul-de-sac. I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home. But when they want to change a fundamental tenet of civilized society (that the purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children who become responsible adult citizens) then I will oppose them. It has nothing to do with their behavior, and I have no problem with them getting favorable tax treatment under law just as married couples do.

Thanks for the added detail..... and thanks for being consistent (ref your EDIT comments)
I will (promise!) read through the paper you posted...

Again I'd propose that using the term "marriage" to describe civil unions is a bad choice of terms.... I agree that homosexual unions are not "marriage", but I do think these unions should have the benefit of secular law, for the reasons given previously...

With regard to the first link.... as much as I am opposed to the familial relationships described by Ms. Gessen, as long as her partners and her offspring are contributing members of society, not living off public welfare, living within the law.... I am FAR more worried about the effects of low-information voting and tyranny of the majority than I am about her procreative choices. Yes... they are correlated, but not necessarily cause and effect... Perhaps I feel that if we were to accept the Geffen model into secular society she and those like her could get past the haze of their oppression and focus on bigger problems. I'm not sure about that, quite. I'll think about that some more...

Society has been plagued with "progressive ideas" since the invention of the wheel. Some are bigger than others (Our current POTUS' pursuit of Socialism, for example). Some are enough to make me do my Archie Bunker impression, same as my father and his father and his father... but not world ending.

The sky didn't fall when Black people paired with White (or any other color, faith, etc. combination). I don't expect the sky to fall from homosexual unions. Ending the growth in the number of folks living off the public teat is a much bigger, more sky-is-falling issue for me...

[RogueUSMC]

1) Marriage, as we know it, is a privilege, not a right...just like your CHL is a privilege, not a right...just like your Driver's License is a privilege, not a right. Biblical marriage is a three party covenant agreement. Biblically, at least one of those three parties would not be in agreement, therefore, there would be no biblical covenant because it requires all three parties to be in agreement.

2) Statements to the effect that the GLBT crowd wants the same rights as everyone else is a moot point, they already do. The decisions made are ones regarding affording privileges that have yet to exist, not rights to be removed.

Folks need to get their ducks lined up correctly before you wanna argue for or against something. Arguing about marriage rights, technically, can't be done as they are not rights. I don't have the right to marry my wife, I have the privilege to.

I want to be able to carry any weapon I so choose, any way I so choose, anywhere I so choose but that is not allowed under the privileges afforded to me by the state of Texas. Can I work to get it changed? Yes. Will I be successful? Time will tell.

Same can be said of the gay marriage thing, but don't try to use the stance that it is rights being taken away from you because it isn't. Those are just inaccurate, engineered statements made to attempt to discredit opposition because you have not other basis for argument.

But with the GLBT crowd, if you don't agree with them, you are automatically an intolerant, hateful jerkwad. Where is the tolerance shown to me there? (though I believe tolerance to be a poison to society, but I digress). Work to change things you do not like and I will do the same. If we both work within the civic process as it has been established, then we both need to be content with whatever progress is made. If indeed the 'majority of Americans' are for gay marriage (which I, personally, doubt the statistics on that), then those privileges will be afforded to those who want them. And feel free to continue working toward what you want until you get it, but work withing the established rules and don't resort to underhanded methods or references to the family tree of those who disagree with you.

Just my two cents adjusted for inflation...

*edited for spelling and grammar*

[TheCytochromeC]

Hey guys, it might just be me talking all CRAZY here but, maybe we should "agree to disagree". I don't even know what this thread is about anymore. Take it to the poll.

If I had only posted seconds later...

[baldeagle]

If there is no right, it's not possible to infringe on it.

You're overlooking the fact that the constitution says that all men are created equal.

Actually, that's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration is a statement of beliefs. The Constitution is the codification of a specific form of government. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, because marriage, with regard to how government addresses it, is a privilege, not a right.

The reason marriage has been granted special privileges by government is not to elevate one groups rights over others but to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society. For society to survive, it must replace itself at least on a one to one basis (one child for each adult). Otherwise that society will cease to exist. This is commonly known as "dying off". If the purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise healthy productive citizens to adulthood, then government is perfectly justified in encouraging that behavior by granting it privileges not granted to others.

For example, anyone can create a power of attorney granting a second party the right to make medical decisions on their behalf. But to do it you have to engage a lawyer and pay for the contract to be drawn up. If you're married, you have an automatic power of attorney without the cost of a lawyer. That's a privilege.

To me, that means that we must treat men equally, regardless of "protected class/status". In regard to homosexuals, it's pretty well documented that they haven't been treated equally.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not changing the purpose of marriage is beneficial to society.

If we had true equal options from homosexual unions, you'd find that I for one wouldn't support making changes to secular marriage... We've only had about 60 years or so to get it right.

Homosexuals have existed since the beginning of recorded history (and probably before.) What suddenly changed in the last 60 years or so that required us to "get it right"?

[APynckel]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And yet you would take that right away from others. interesting.

Please point to the place in the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution where the right to marry exists.

10th amendment.

[/thread]

Please point to me the part in the US Constitution where the right to marry may be infringed.

Sorry, marriage is NOT a right.