Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

scpanther22

gay marriage

169 posts in this topic

I certainly don't see why "nutcases" are for some reason a case against gay marriage but not for straight marriage.

Because marriage is currently defined as such (in NC General Statute 51):"

A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:

(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and

b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or

(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe."

Notice the gender specifications, and singular pronunciations. That excludes most nutcases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it is a Constitutional right, just a state law, which is honored in every other state of the union, right?

As i posted earlier, I'm pretty sure the power of religiosity will allow for some major trumpage if push comes to shove.

Hell, if the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal can take illegal hallucinogenic drugs because they BELIEVE it is the only way they can understand God, and get that held up by the courts, I'm pretty sure religion will find a way to marry whomever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because marriage is currently defined as such (in NC General Statute 51):"

A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:

(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and

b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or

(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe."

Notice the gender specifications, and singular pronunciations. That excludes most nutcases.

Good thing to know that most nutcases are gay and can't get any minister to think they belong together. Wonderful detective work there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that churches can turn down a couple that wants to get married is because marriage is NOT viewed as a constitutional right. But once you change marriage into something that is viewed as a constitutional right, a church will NOT be able to turn down anyone, period. If you think that the scenario I pointed out will not happen then you sir are naive at best, or stupid at worst.

The only ones arguing for amendments to the constitution are those wishing to outlaw gay marriage permanently. You really are just throwing stuff up to see what sticks.

Look, I will only put up with a person arguing based purely on emotion while trying to masquerade it as logic if she's hot and I think I have a chance to get laid.

You can continue with your Oprah worthy "I don't care if it doesn't make sense, it's what I feel, damn it!" argument. I've got other things to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing to know that most nutcases are gay and can't get any minister to think they belong together. Wonderful detective work there.

Most nutcases aren't homosexuals, but most homosexuals are nutcases. Just kidding about that but again I see no reason to let homosexuals marry, like I see no reason to let polygamists marry 20 people, like I see no reason to let roommates get married, like I see no reason to let brothers and sisters get married, etc. etc. etc.

This is not a civil rights issue, and it is not a constitutional issue. Let's look at the constitutional amendment most gay marriage advocates point to for their proof of trampled rights, the 14th amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Let's take that piece by piece.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

No problem there because marriage isn't a privilege. In fact, I would be more inclined to call marriage a responsibility. There are privileges afforded to married couples that can be extended to same sex couples through civil unions.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

As far as I can tell, gays are allowed to live freely and own whatever they want.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Gays are afforded equal protection of the laws. They have all the basic rights that any other citizen of the US have. Marriage is NOT a right, this is where people get confused and no doubt many of you arguing for gay marriage are confused to no end here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only ones arguing for amendments to the constitution are those wishing to outlaw gay marriage permanently. You really are just throwing stuff up to see what sticks.

Look, I will only put up with a person arguing based purely on emotion while trying to masquerade it as logic if she's hot and I think I have a chance to get laid.

You can continue with your Oprah worthy "I don't care if it doesn't make sense, it's what I feel, damn it!" argument. I've got other things to do.

It makes sense to me, your point of view makes no sense to me. I'm not arguing from an emotional point of view, I'm arguing from a common sense point of view. Allow gay marriage and the floodgates will open for all the things I've already mentioned.

I'm kind of hot but you'd still have no chance with me even if I were gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow gay marriage and the floodgates will open for all the things I've already mentioned.

Ahh, the old "if we let gays marry we have to let people marry their dogs" argument. If we would have not allowed marriage to ingrain itself in our culture, and remained the free roaming men that we were all created biologically to be, none of this would be an issue. BAN MARRIAGE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any chance I can marry my own penis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites