bigNATE : Sorry I've been gone from this thread, I needed a break. No, I get all of your point, I just don't agree with it. Unless the Constitution is against something or for something than the law's adoption cannot be revoked unless the constitution takes an affirmative stand on a side. Besides, regardless of what the fed constitution says, the states are the ones with the power.

Elara : OK... well... no point in arguing. I believe Genesis however, making marriage originally a religious institution. But that's a discussion for another time.
Hoochman : You're not getting it. If the Constitution says nothing, then there is no redefinition. Marriage was never defined, making a definition, while agreeing with my moral beliefs, unfair in this situation. You need to understand politics better .

bigNATE : You're the one not getting it. Oh I need to get politics better. That argument won't get ya far. You're saying even though the constitution doesn't take any stand what so ever on this issue, it wouldn't be constitutional. That makes no sense. Exactly why prop 8 isn't unconstitutional. It isn't defined. If you were right than it wouldn't have been constitutional to put an amendment in to give presidents only 2 terms.

Hoochman : THIS IS NOT THE SAME. It's not adding an amendment, it's making a law outside the Constitution, which does not have any basis in our Constitution, and harms no one, and as such cannot be fairly passed. Give it a rest, you're cutting it close. Take a longer break from this thread, or I'll have to force you to.

Hoochman : well if denying prop 8 in unconstitutional for the reason marriage of not in the constitution, then allowing it would be the same thing. can't have it both ways. but really there is no legal grounds for prop 8 and as i have said, you can NOT discriminate, so this law is unconstitutional.
EDIT: Elara: yeah you're right, sorry about that.

bigNATE :
metal572 :



The Fed constitution has no power to interfere with a state government. The constitution only tells what the feds can and can't do. And yes the president thing is the same because presidential term limits were not defined at all before the amendment came in. It was outside of the constitution. You can't bring the constitution into it unless it takes a stand. And there is currently legislation brought forward to amend that would have marriage defined. If you were right than quite few laws out there wouldn't be here.

Hoochman : Do you not understand how lawmaking works? You can't just outlaw something with no basis other than the Bible, unless your country is strictly Christian. America was founded on Christian-or at least almost Christian-principles, but is not solely a Christian nation. Homosexual marriage cause no harm to other people, no one gets hurt, no one's mental stability is compromised; and it's not spoken against in the Constitution. So what are your grounds for banning it? Christians hate it? Well, what about all the atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, and whatever other religions there are in our country? They won't take well to that. While I disagree with homosexual marriage, it is in unfair law. So it CANNOT BE PASSED.

Why the hell does it matter? Don't we have more important matters than gay marriage. I don't care if gays get married but it doesn't seem like it should be this debated.

bigNATE : Yes I know how law making works. Other wise I wouldn't be here. I know it isn't in the constitution. That's why it can go both ways, Either a law can be amended to the constitution to allow same sex marriage or a law can be put in the constitution to ban same sex marriage. What do I have against same sex marriages? 1) Homosexuality will only increase 2) It is gonna be the biggest downfall of morals since abortion became legal some 30 or so years ago, another thing, if we don't stop or at least slow down our moral decline soon, than Sodom and Gomorrah deserves an apology for being destroyed. 3) It would be a fist in the face to the founding fathers after what they fought and died for. And in response to your statement, no one gets hurt, I think the destruction of a nation causes a lot of people to get hurt and affected.

Hoochman : No, you obviously don't, then.
This is not something that can be judged simply on the Bible... as tonetone put it:
"
And I could see gay marriage being illegal if this were a christian or any other religious nation. But it isn't, so despite what most politicians say, this is supposed to be a nation that is open to all systems of beliefs and principles. "

No one is physically harmed at all by homosexuals being married. On that basis, and because the Constitution says nothing to it, it is unjust to make a law that is based solely on religious teachings when this country isn't led by a single religion.

And I'm serious this time. One more post in this thread before the weekend and I will take up the possibility of a banning with the mods. This last post wasn't as bad, but ones before it were verrrrry close to flaming.

chugchu : Very well put!! I was just talking about this with a coworker recently. He told me, "Why the hell are we making such a big deal out of these petty issues [like gay marriage]? When can we start focusing on real national issues like improving the economy, greening our nation, foreign relations..."

I absolutely agree. This shouldn't even be a dispute in the first place. Especially for 2010.

I think the biggest reason gay marriage is an issue is not the morality of it, but the fact that they get tax breaks for being married. As I said earlier, I believe the tax breaks for marriage are wrong and the reason being that I believe marriage to be a religious union. the reason it would be bad for gays to get the tax breaks is that they cannot procreate together. The tax breaks are an investment by the government, where the couple is encouraged to have children who will grow up and pay more taxes. Gay couples do not contribute in this manner, and adopted children would grow up anyways. I would like to repeat that the tax break law is unconstitutional in my eyes and should not have existed in the first place. Tax breaks on caring for a child are fine, however.

I have nothing against gay people and they should have the right to marry each other too. Back in the day a black guy couldnt marry a white chick and we've come a long way from that. This is just the next step. go progress..

marriage is not a right.

A right is something you have/get NO MATTER WHAT. Like, the right to life. You have that no matter what. There are laws designed to protect that right.

Marriage is not a right. There are thousands of people out there who want to get married and can't. Not because the government didn't give them the green light but because they couldn't find anyone that would marry them.

I'm not saying gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, but let's drop this "marriage is a right" garbage right now. It's not a right, it's a privilige.

1) The Constitution of the United States is the absolute law of the land, and as such supersedes any and all conflicting laws that a state may pass. Hence why there is such a huge stink right now about the medical marijuana issue in California.

2)Hoochman, have you never taken a logic class? Because that entire "homosexuality will increase" post was full of so many fallacies that it made my head spin. Also, hey look, gay marriage has been legal in other states for awhile, and the world didn't end! OMFG! *fake shock*

3)bdfalc0n07: I agree, this should not be an issue.

4) Just a note on the election of this bill. In California's state constitution it specifically states that to make an amendment to the constitution you need a 3/4 majority of the vote (that means 75%). Prop 8 passed with somewhere around 51% and was upheld as passing through methods that I still have trouble understanding. Normal laws, yeah, majority wins... but this was an amendment to the state constitution and it should not have passed because it did not have 75%.

5)Bignate: I would like to point out that the pagan religions and the practice of marriage predate the writing of Genesis, but as you said, this is a discussion for another time.

Elara-All you've ever spouted is fallacy and wishful thinking. And yes it will increase if Gay marriage is legalized considering more people find it justifiable if legalized and The effects I'm speaking of are long term effects.

Really? I'm sorry, but I'm not the one spouting slippery slope fallacies here. Gay people are gay no matter what the law states. More might come out of the closet because they might see the world as less hostile, but they were still gay.

Now please, enlighten me to any logical fallacies that I have stated. Otherwise, I will thank you kindly to stop flaming and making false accusations because you can't come up with a valid counterargument.

Come now, Disagreeing with you isn't flaming, but calling me a racist and a bigot is. A good 90 percent of what you said is wrong. Example includes how you think my statement about homosexuality increasing is wrong.

This won't increase the amount of gay people at all, all this will do is encourage more people that are gay to be open about it. Also I don't see any post where she called you a racist or a bigot.

I'm done with watching people go back and forth and claim that the other person is flaming and the flame baiting and such.

Prop 8 is unconstitutional.... which it pretty much is.

This thread is now done.