Originally posted by C-B-M

That's interesting, because last time I checked it's your side that's trying to legislate acceptance of your views.  So it's pretty ballsy for you to try to say that I'm the one trying to legislate.

Simply put, your "judgements" and "stigma" are irrelevant to me and the vast majority of Americans. You can stand on a street corner all day and rant about the evils of homosexuality, or rant about what horrible people homosexuals are. You can say the same about anyone that gets divorced if it makes you happy. I honestly dont' think anyone is going to give a crap, I know I certainly don't.

if it's not legislated, it's irrelevant.

You cannot, IMO, legislate "acceptance".

If you want to hate gay people, that's your right to feeedom of thought, which does exist in America, and I'd fight for your right to say it, freedom of speech.

What we can legislate is equality under the law.

Separate is not equal.

How you feel about a particular minority of people is up to you, and I have no desire to legislate that. They try to legislate your thoughts in Iran.

I don't want to live in a country like that. I support freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.

If "judgements" and "stigma" didn't bother you, then you wouldn't demand legislation to combat them.  You talk a good game, but it never makes any sense.  Like, you say that you are for "responsibility" and "consequences," but your definition of those terms is actually the opposite of what they mean -- it turns out you're actually for "no responsibility" and "no consequences."  Now you say that I'm getting the government involved -- except you're the one who is having the government intervene to change things.  Finally you say that you don't care about "stigma" -- but you do because that's why you need the government to force a change.  You made fun of baff for his admittedly crazy ideas about burqas, but you're just as much in Bizarro Land as he was on that topic.

Originally posted by C-B-M

If "judgements" and "stigma" didn't bother you, then you wouldn't demand legislation to combat them.  You talk a good game, but it never makes any sense.  Like, you say that you are for "responsibility" and "consequences," but your definition of those terms is actually the opposite of what they mean -- it turns out you're actually for "no responsibility" and "no consequences."  Now you say that I'm getting the government involved -- except you're the one who is having the government intervene to change things.  Finally you say that you don't care about "stigma" -- but you do because that's why you need the government to force a change.  You made fun of baff for his admittedly crazy ideas about burqas, but you're just as much in Bizarro Land as he was on that topic.

Legislation does nothing for your judgemental attitude, or the way you feel about gays.

Legislation gives gay people the same rights under the law, as straight people.

I can prove it.

If the law changes, will your attitude change?

You'll like gay people and think they should be married, if the law changes? That's what determines your stance on teh issue, the law?

You can't discriminate against black people because of civil rights laws. Black people have equal rights under the law.

But you can still be a bigot and hate black people all you want. No one can stop that, and there is no legislation that makes that illegal.

Gays should also have equal rights under the law.

You can still hate them all you want. Nothing will change that.

Don't forget that gays can already get married without the government in a Church that accepts gay marriage.

They don't need the government for acceptance or whatever you're talking about. They have that already.

What they need is the same LEGAL rights under the law as everyone else.

Oh, are we back to the old argument that marriage is a right?  Again hilarious, this is how it's gone so far:

You: You're trying to get government involved to enforce your views!  And the government shouldn't get involved!!

Me: Um, no.  Actually, I'm fine with things the way they are.  You're the one who is having the government intervene.

You: That's right!  They should get involved!  Because this has to do with rights!

Notice how you don't care how stupid it looks?  You literally reversed your argument when you needed to and didn't bat an eye.  As I keep saying, that's how you argue.  When it comes to responsibility, you're like "she doesn't need to be responsible until she's pregnant, but then if she chooses to avoid the consequences of her actions that constitutes responsibility."  It's so convoluted that's it's funny.

Originally posted by C-B-M

Oh, are we back to the old argument that marriage is a right?  Again hilarious, this is how it's gone so far:

 

You: You're trying to get government involved to enforce your views!  And the government shouldn't get involved!!

Me: Um, no.  Actually, I'm fine with things the way they are.  You're the one who is having the government intervene.

You: That's right!  They should get involved!  Because this has to do with rights!

 

Notice how you don't care how stupid it looks?  You literally reversed your argument when you needed to and didn't bat an eye.  As I keep saying, that's how you argue.  When it comes to responsibility, you're like "she doesn't need to be responsible until she's pregnant, but then if she chooses to avoid the consequences of her actions that constitutes responsibility."  It's so convoluted that's it's funny.

I don't think having an abortion is avoiding consequences. I think it's a terrible consequence to have an abortion. You might understand it if it was a procedure that had something to do with your penis.

You've missed the mark.

Marriage is not necessarily a right. In fact I don't think it's a right at all.

What is a right is equality under the law.

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".^[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"^[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.^[3] As written it applied only to state governments, but it has since been interpreted to apply to the Federal Government of the United States as well.

It is irrelevant whether you consider abortion to be "a terrible consequence" or not.  The fact remains that it avoids the ACTUAL consequence of irresponsible sex, which is a baby.  And then you sit around going "oh, man, this is horrible!"  And then you go back to having irresponsible sex.  Wow, clearly a terrible consequence.  I can see that it has truly affected you on a deep level.

Oh, and now we're saying that the Fourteenth Amendment covers gay marriage?  This is almost as good as Arbacadarba's statement that the First Amendment covers collective bargaining.  Then again, that's actually no worse than liberals saying that abortion is covered under the "right to privacy" or that the Second Amendment DOESN'T actually allow gun ownership.  So I guess you're qualified to be on the Supreme Court now.

P.S. All of this is even funnier given that you believe that rights are conferred by man and can be revoked by man.  Except that you also don't acknowledge that removing rights such as freedom is a valid option.  Like I said, your arguments and beliefs all contradict each other because when you get down to it all you do is act like a little kid.  "This is what I want, so I should get it.  Now THIS is what I want, so I should get that!"  The only unifying theme is that you FEEL that you should have something, then you justify it with some nonsensical rationalization.

Originally posted by C-B-M

It is irrelevant whether you consider abortion to be "a terrible consequence" or not.  The fact remains that it avoids the ACTUAL consequence of irresponsible sex, which is a baby. 

 

Um, no, the the other "actual consequence" is an abortion. That's one consequence of an unwanted pregnancy, the other is an unwanted child. A baby that someone wants to have isnt' a consequence at all, it's exactly the opposite, the desired result of getting pregnant, a joyous occaision.

Originally posted by C-B-M

It is irrelevant whether you consider abortion to be "a terrible consequence" or not.  The fact remains that it avoids the ACTUAL consequence of irresponsible sex, which is a baby.  And then you sit around going "oh, man, this is horrible!"  And then you go back to having irresponsible sex.  Wow, clearly a terrible consequence.  I can see that it has truly affected you on a deep level.

 

Oh, and now we're saying that the Fourteenth Amendment covers gay marriage?  This is almost as good as Arbacadarba's statement that the First Amendment covers collective bargaining.  Then again, that's actually no worse than liberals saying that abortion is covered under the "right to privacy" or that the Second Amendment DOESN'T actually allow gun ownership.  So I guess you're qualified to be on the Supreme Court now.

 

P.S. All of this is even funnier given that you believe that rights are conferred by man and can be revoked by man.  Except that you also don't acknowledge that removing rights such as freedom is a valid option.  Like I said, your arguments and beliefs all contradict each other because when you get down to it all you do is act like a little kid.  "This is what I want, so I should get it.  Now THIS is what I want, so I should get that!"  The only unifying theme is that you FEEL that you should have something, then you justify it with some nonsensical rationalization.

A rigth without enforcement doesn't exist.

Show me one example of a right "God" has ever enforced.

You can't think of one can you?

That's because "God" has never enforced a right.

If the right is not enforced, it doesn't exist.

If "God" can't enforce your rights, he can't give them to you. 

Before the Civil War in America, black people were slaves.

You're saying "God" gave them the right to be free.

But they were still slaves. So "God" didn't actually give them anything, did he?

There were African Americans that were born slaves, and died slaves.

How did "God" give them the right to be free?

They never had the right to be free, becaues they never were free in their whole lives. Because "God" can't enforce any rights, which means he can't grant any rights.

I would also say that before any entity can grant a right, that entity would have to exist.

You'll first have to prove "God" exists, before you can show he can grant any rights.

If He doesn't exist, obviously He can't grant any rights.

Originally posted by C-B-M

I

 

Oh, and now we're saying that the Fourteenth Amendment covers gay marriage?

Yes, I would say the 14th Amendment covers gay marriage. Everyone deserves equal rights under the law.

Yes, but you just (correctly) said that marriage isn't a right.

Originally posted by C-B-M

Yes, but you just (correctly) said that marriage isn't a right.

Marriage is not a right.

Equal protection under the law is a right.

You can make laws that just apply to black people, or just apply to women, or just apply to gay people.

Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),^[1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex.^[2]

Lol, all you did was what you always do.  Your argument failed, so you ignored your argument.  You said that everyone is entitled to equal rights.  But when I reminded you that you yourself stated that marriage wasn't a right, you just said, "doesn't matter."  Then you say that you can't make laws for specific groups of people.  But note that your OWN post states that sodomy was outlawed for both heterosexuals and homosexuals -- for everyone, in other words.  In other words, all you did was what everyone does on here.  You probably googled for "gay marriage" and some website (most likely Wikipedia) cited the case and you cut-and-pasted it without understanding what you were doing and then hit post.

Originally posted by C-B-M

Lol, all you did was what you always do.  Your argument failed, so you ignored your argument.  You said that everyone is entitled to equal rights.  But when I reminded you that you yourself stated that marriage wasn't a right, you just said, "doesn't matter."  Then you say that you can't make laws for specific groups of people.  But note that your OWN post states that sodomy was outlawed for both heterosexuals and homosexuals -- for everyone, in other words.  In other words, all you did was what everyone does on here.  You probably googled for "gay marriage" and some website (most likely Wikipedia) cited the case and you cut-and-pasted it without understanding what you were doing and then hit post.

Lol, all you did was what you alwasy do.  You ignore other peoples' arguments when they destroy your own beliefs.  Ihmotepp explained it quite clearly yet you ignored it.

As usual, every time you post, Conservative-Based-Moroff, you prove my statements about you are 100% correct.

Originally posted by C-B-M

Lol, all you did was what you always do.  Your argument failed, so you ignored your argument.  You said that everyone is entitled to equal rights.  But when I reminded you that you yourself stated that marriage wasn't a right, you just said, "doesn't matter."  Then you say that you can't make laws for specific groups of people.  But note that your OWN post states that sodomy was outlawed for both heterosexuals and homosexuals -- for everyone, in other words.  In other words, all you did was what everyone does on here.  You probably googled for "gay marriage" and some website (most likely Wikipedia) cited the case and you cut-and-pasted it without understanding what you were doing and then hit post.

Sounds to me that you simply don't comprehend the issue.

I have never stated that "marriage is a right".

I have stated that equal protection under the law is a right.

Everyone should be treated equally under the law.

Lawrence v. Texas

is a well known case about due process under the 14th Amendment.

Scalia dissented in this case. You may agree with Justice Scalia's dissent. I suggest you read about the case and educate yourself about the US Constitution.

Justice Thomas also dissented, but for different reasonas than Justice Scalia.

Lawrence v. Texas is a famous due process case, and is still the current law. It is often referenced in other cases:

"Portions of Scalia's dissent appeared in Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger filed on August 4, 2010 supporting same-sex marriage and finding California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional: ^[16]"

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Sounds to me that you simply don't comprehend the issue.

No, sounds to me like we have a case of you using layman's logic to apply to the law.  You say that "equal treatment under the law" means "gay marriage," even if gay marriage isn't a right.  That's about as relevant as saying that the government should intervene in the Augusta golf club to make them accept women, which they don't.  Or it would be like some Internet whiz saying "I thought we struck down 'separate but equal,' I guess we need unisex bathrooms."

Oh, and adding additional cut-and-pasting paragraphs doesn't strengthen your argument.

Originally posted by C-B-M

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Sounds to me that you simply don't comprehend the issue.

No, sounds to me like we have a case of you using layman's logic to apply to the law.  You say that "equal treatment under the law" means "gay marriage," even if gay marriage isn't a right.  That's about as relevant as saying that the government should intervene in the Augusta golf club to make them accept women, which they don't.  Or it would be like some Internet whiz saying "I thought we struck down 'separate but equal,' I guess we need unisex bathrooms."

 

Oh, and adding additional cut-and-pasting paragraphs doesn't strengthen your argument.

Sorry, but you are the one using "layman's logic" as you call it, and failing to understand this Supreme Court case.

The Augusta golf club is a private entity, not the government.

The 14 amendment applies to government, not private entities.

Well, there are some private entities that are covered under special circumstances, such as hotels and transportation.

Those special circumstances are explained in this Supreme Court case:

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (379 U.S. 241, 1964)

 Basically, people have to eat, sleep, and travel (freedom of movement), so you can't discriminate in restaurants, hotels, and transportation.

But generally, if you want to open C-B-M's shoe store and hang out a big sign that says no blacks allowed, or no gays allowed, there's nothing stopping you.

But a shoe store is not State LAW, which is what we are discussing.

And State Laws are governed by the 14th Amendment, which applies the bill of Rights to the States.

You gotta love Ihmotepp.  He starts out strong and then in the middle of his post he realizes that his statements aren't right and he's like "well, anyways, it applies to some private entities ...basically, uh ......STFU."

Originally posted by C-B-M

You gotta love Ihmotepp.  He starts out strong and then in the middle of his post he realizes that his statements aren't right and he's like "well, anyways, it applies to some private entities ...basically, uh ......STFU."

I'm simply educating you on the US Constitution. There are  some exceptions to the general rule, so I wanted you to be aware of them.

Lol, all you're doing is demonstrating how your understanding of things is based on a patchwork of "exceptions to the rule."  But let's ask this: so is your contention that marriage is a government institution?

Originally posted by C-B-M

Lol, all you're doing is demonstrating how your understanding of things is based on a patchwork of "exceptions to the rule."  But let's ask this: so is your contention that marriage is a government institution?

That is how the law works. Maybe you're unaware of it. There are rules, and they have exceptions.

You're not allowed to kill anyone. Exception, in self defense. You have a right to free speech. Exception, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. All law is like that.

Marriage is two things at the same time.

It is a Government institution, and it is a Religious institution.

You can do them separately, or at the same time.

Separate:

You get a marriage certificate, no religious ceremony.

You have a religious ceremony, which gays often do in States that do not have legal marriage for them, but you do not get a marriage certificate.

Same time:

You get a marriage certificate, which must be signed by a Notary Public. Your priest is a notary public, as well as a member of the Clergy. He signs your marriage certificate as a Notary Public, as required by State law, and he also does a religious ceremony for you.

The Government institution should apply equally to everyone. For example, at one point interracial marriages were against the law in some States.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),^[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

The Religious institution is a private matter. You can start a Church, and marry people, don't marry people, marry only white people, only blacks, not homosexuals, ONLY homosexuals, whatever you want to do.