BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Civil Rights Liberty and Justice for ALL not just Heterosexuals

I just meant that considering all the lively discussion I've seen on this site, and the statements/person the "idiot" remarks were in response too, that the reprimand was a little harsh - that the offense wasn't so bad. I guess I should have just said that!

I'm glad she's not banned, don't think that's called for. I thought trolls were not welcome here as others (maybe the same guy) have been banned. I had seen some of his other posts and put him in the troll category.

Personally, , I would prefer my inherent Rights any day over civil rights. The founding fathers knew what that meant and defended it.

And what are your 'inherent' rights, Burness? By inherent, I mean the ones you were born with.

Yes, you are incorrect. After FDR usurped the power of the states severely, it seems like people forgot what a federalist type republic really is, or what powers go to where. Bureaucratic details and services are all the business of the states, where as the security of our liberties is the responsibility of the federal government. Yet now it seems to be completely reversed. Bureaucracies are bleeding out of the federal government, and people are talking about the integral and inalienable right of liberty as if it's an issue of individual state sovereignty.

Absolute nonsense.

What's further nonsense is that my party which always calls for limited government is calling for the government to make a specific definition of the concept of marriage. That's directly inconsistent with conservative ideals, we are always conservative of the government's powers and that is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. The issue is not to define marriage as between a man or a woman or as to make a definition including everyone, it's not an issue relating to the government at all. It's a solely religious ideal, and so those who do not believe in homosexual marriage, can marry the opposite sex. Those who do, are free to be married at their own establishments.

Religious liberties as well as every other liberty causing no harm are specifically guaranteed to us. Not only that but we are entitled to them regardless of what any government definition says, regardless of what any sovereignty says. Our rights are ours independently of the saying of any authority, even Divine
Providence. Laws made are accountable first to reason and morality, before the government, and so when the government becomes destructive of its ends of law, it relinquishes any moral authority.

It shocks me every moment people aren't rioting in the street while issues like this are still in question. While things like prostitution and other free enterprises are still illegal. People honestly talk about this as if it's even remotely acceptable that it's even an issue concerning the law, it's absolute nonsense.

Every right we have, we are born with. The government has nothing to do with it. There is no distinction between inalienable and civil rights. The government does not confer rights onto the people. It is our ability to comprehend and understand the desire for them that makes them ours, and they are ours regardless of what any sovereignty says. Not the government of the United States and not God himself.

I find the argument that homosexuals don't produce children, therefor have no need for marraige to be silly at best. What about adoption and/or artificial insemination?

What about heterosexuals who either don't want or are unable to have children. It happens.

I also find the argument against gay marraige because the people want to "protect the sanctity of marraige" very absurd. As far as I can tell, right now, the divorce rate is quite high, and those are ONLY heterosexual marraiges. There are only two people who can harm the sanctity of my marraige --I'm one, my husband is the other.

Personally, I think anything that promotes postive relationships, willingness to work out problems, etc., a good thing.

The reason it becomes a civil rights issue is that marriage is a legal process. It is a process which is government recognized and regulated- not solely a religious ceremony. Therefore, when legal issues, such as those pertaining to inheritance, child custody, medical issues etc are affected by the inability of a same sex couple to marry, it then becomes a civil rights issue. It is not a church denying rights. It is the government. It affects gay couples in the same manner that denial of equal rights to blacks with regards to voting and so on did in the past. It denies us Constitutional Rights and it is a roadblock to a happy life thrown up by legal constraints.

In response to this poster - it is an old tired refrain regarding the production of children. If this were the actual legal definition of marriage, you could not have older couples marry, men who have had vasectomys marry, women unable to bear children marry, couples with health problems which are genetically passed on marry... Nonsensical.
You would also have to then debate the merit of allowing a couple to remain married if they are in fact not producing children.
Another argument to be made regards the " survival of our species". One could easily state that overpopulation is going to be our downfall, and those NOT contributing children are in fact the ones we should be supporting. One could also argue that those producing children who are inheriting their health problems, or those who are producing children with mental or emotional problems are in fact also not contributing to furthering the survival of our species.
Clearly this cannot be a criteria that can be applied to the reasoning behind marriage. There are holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.
How is the state providing resources and time promoting and protecting heterosexual relationships? Can you please cite specific examples and sources?
How does the state determine that heterosexual relationships, collectively and individually, are in fact actually benefitting society? What is the measurement used? how do they handle the 50% divorce rate? How do they view the damage done to the children these marriages are supposedly all about, by the divorce rate? How about spousal abuse? How about extramarital affairs? If the state is, as you say, spending resources on protecting marriages, how can you explain not only the existence of more negative than positive unions, but the fact that there seems to be no screening process in place and not a single punishment involved for those who have "failed" the state.
I think my local Congressional representative would be very confused if I were to ask him how I can tap into one of these state run resources promoting/protecting marriage.
My church would know of such resources, I imagine, as the religious opponents certainly have organized various groups and grassroots movements. But the government? I am waiting with baited breath to learn what the state of Iowa, for example, offers its citizens to protect their marriage on a state gov. level. Should be interesting!
Lastly, can you cite your source for the governments definition of what constitutes the basis for marriage? I can easily find it being legally defined as a civil contract between a man and a woman to become husband and wife.I canot seem to find the references to it being a benefit to society. I am simply on pins and needles to learn of your sources!
Lastly, with regards to the tone and timbre of your post. You are entitled to speak freely. Freedom of speech is not only for gay people after all. You are entitled even to speak in a manner that thinly veils homophobia. Just please be prepared - when you appear to cite laws and regulations and legal definitions- to cite your sources. You are not merely giving an opinion in your post. You are making claims as to a legal defintion of a topic being discussed. To move from it being an opinion to a fact, you must give us credible proof of this.
I would hope that in the future, if you or any other poster writes a post such as this which does appear to be an attempt to denounce and enflame, that the moderator intervene by asking that the sources be cited. This forum concerns legal issues - civil rights- and though one can have an opinion about those rights, one should not be allowed to simply make up laws and rules concerning civil rights and have them stand unchallenged. Then we are not truly discussing legal aspects whatsoever, and it makes the forum lose a great deal of credibility.