Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

Cute Tink said:

You do seem fond of mentioning things irrelevant to the topic.



Europe is not the US. There are differences between how the laws work in those locations. Atheists cannot force a church to marry them under the guise of religious discrimination. A mixed race couple cannot force a church to marry them under the guise of racial discrimination. What makes you think homosexuals will have any success forcing a church to marry them under the guise of discrimination?

Click to expand...

You. brought it up.

Onther wacked out. unregulated coment is people with different skin colors getting married. As if that is a problem for who? You?

conamer said:

You. brought it up.

Onther wacked out. unregulated coment is people with different skin colors getting married. As if that is a problem for who? You?

Click to expand...

It was a problem for over 90% of the population in the 50s.

Queller said:

Nobody's asking you to say that. In fact you can still condemn homosexuality all you want. The problem comes when you try to deny other people the same rights you have based on nothing more than your condemnation.

That's fine, you don't have to accept it.

Click to expand...

Hmmm....Ok.

I honestly don't view marriage as a right...not even for heterosexuals. Limits must occur. That's my honest opinion.

Yes, I totally, and completely respect your opinion.

RileyG said:

Hmmm....Ok.

I honestly don't view marriage as a right...not even for heterosexuals. Limits must occur. That's my honest opinion.

Yes, I totally, and completely respect your opinion.

Click to expand...

Just so long as we all respect the Supreme Court's opinion... and they do view marriage as a right.

..meaning that any limit placed on them must pass Constitutional muster.

Maren said:

The Mormon Church's policy on Priesthood was not changed due to lawsuits or legislation; I can't recall their tax exempt status ever being seriously threatened. The lawsuits I know of, against the Mormon's Priesthood policy were all won by the Mormon's -- though the ones I know of were by women's groups, not based on race. Instead, the change likely had more to do with public pressure, as well as their desire to expand in Brazil.

I suspect you may be thinking of Bob Jones University, who actually did lose their tax exempt status because of their racial policies. And it is worth pointing out that this is a religious university, not a religion that lost its tax exempt status.

Click to expand...

Actually, there was substantial effort on the part of the IRS to act against the Mormons. I never said they actually lost their tax status, but given the government's inability to do anything about their racial views, it was definitely on the table. It is unlikely that homosexual groups will not push for similar actions against religious groups.

TLK Valentine said:

Just so long as we all respect the Supreme Court's opinion... and they do view marriage as a right.

..meaning that any limit placed on them must pass Constitutional muster.

Click to expand...

The supreme court also upheld separate but equal, until they didn't. You do realize that the supreme court can change it's opinions, right? The notion of marriage as a right is pretty stupid. Rights are unilateral guarantees exercised by individuals. The nature of marriage, requiring at least one other party to go along with it, makes it something that cannot be guaranteed to anyone.

AztecSDSU said:

The supreme court also upheld separate but equal, until they didn't. You do realize that the supreme court can change it's opinions, right? The notion of marriage as a right is pretty stupid. Rights are unilateral guarantees exercised by individuals. The nature of marriage, requiring at least one other party to go along with it, makes it something that cannot be guaranteed to anyone.

Click to expand...

Are you arguing that straight people shouldn't have the right to marry because it takes more than one person to get married?

AztecSDSU said:

Actually, there was substantial effort on the part of the IRS to act against the Mormons. I never said they actually lost their tax status, but given the government's inability to do anything about their racial views, it was definitely on the table. It is unlikely that homosexual groups will not push for similar actions against religious groups.

Click to expand...

Let's discriminate against a group today for what they MAY do tomorrow.

RileyG said:

Hmmm....Ok.

I honestly don't view marriage as a right...not even for heterosexuals. Limits must occur. That's my honest opinion.

Yes, I totally, and completely respect your opinion.

Click to expand...

Why must limits occur? Assuming informed adult consent, what other limit do you think there must be?

RileyG said:

Hmmm....Ok.

I honestly don't view marriage as a right...not even for heterosexuals. Limits must occur. That's my honest opinion.

Yes, I totally, and completely respect your opinion.

Click to expand...

But the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental civil right, therefore by law it is. It doesn't matter how you view it.

But the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental civil right, therefore by law it is. It doesn't matter how you view it.

Click to expand...

The supreme court is very often wrong, especially when it's "justices" are adherents to European social-democratic thought (modern liberalism) to the exclusion of the republican natural-rights philosophy held by the authors of our founding documents which they claim to interpret.

You are right, it is the law. Our country is on a downward spiral to European-style social democracy, to the utter detriment of us all. America is dying. People en mass now elect representatives in order to vote away other people's property and give it to themselves. I've just about abandoned all hope in America.

Welcome to democracy, one of the worst and most idiotic forms of government ever conceived.

Armoured said:

Why must limits occur? Assuming informed adult consent, what other limit do you think there must be?

Click to expand...

Why must "informed adult consent" be a limit?
And there you have your answer, because of morality, for the sake of children, etc.

ALoveDivine said:

The supreme court is very often wrong, especially when it's "justices" are adherents to European social-democratic thought (modern liberalism) to the exclusion of the republican natural-rights philosophy held by the authors of our founding documents which they claim to interpret.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court's opinion often differs from your own -- that does not, in and of itself, make them wrong.

You are right, it is the law. Our country is on a downward spiral to European-style social democracy, to the utter detriment of us all. America is dying. People en mass now elect representatives in order to vote away other people's property and give it to themselves. I've just about abandoned all hope in America.

Click to expand...

You may want to consider leaving before it sinks into the sea, then.

Welcome to democracy, one of the worst and most idiotic forms of government ever conceived.

Click to expand...

The worst form of government, except for all the others, according to Winston Churchill.

Zeena said:

Why must "informed adult consent" be a limit?
And there you have your answer, because of morality, for the sake of children, etc.

Click to expand...

So, no answer at all, then?

You may want to consider leaving before it sinks into the sea, then.

Click to expand...

If we end up with yet another Democrat in the White House in 2016, and the GOP doesn't win the senate, I may well leave this country. Because it will be doomed.

The worst form of government, except for all the others, according to Winston Churchill.

Click to expand...

I've got a better one, how about a Constitutional Republic! You know, that model of government that was supposed to be ours? That model intended to protect individual rights within the context of a democratically elected limited government of specific enumerated and delegated powers, reserving a high degree of sovereignty to the states?

Much better than rule based on the irrational passing whims and passions of a mob, which is democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Zeena said:

Why must "informed adult consent" be a limit?
And there you have your answer, because of morality, for the sake of children, etc.

Click to expand...

As I've posted before, the age of consent is actually a recent invention. You'll find that it doesn't exist in the Bible - Mary was a child when she was betrothed to Joseph.

The first age of consent laws treated women as property of their future husbands and applied only to women. They existed to ensure her virginity for her future husband. It took a long time for society to realize that little boys could be raped. It wasn't until the 1970's that the language of the law was over-hauled to include boys.

The age of consent has slowly risen over time. In 1880, the age of consent in the USA varied from 7 to 12 depending on the state! SEVEN! You could legally have sex with second grader in 1880!

Children and Youth in History | Age of Consent Laws
Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The real question is "Why must consent be required?" and the answer is "Forced marriages violate the rights of the person who doesn't give consent."

Is this the argument you want to take up? Do you really want to paint yourself as a proponent of forced marriages and child marriages?

ALoveDivine said:

If we end up with yet another Democrat in the White House in 2016, and the GOP doesn't win the senate, I may well leave this country. Because it will be doomed.

Click to expand...

Need help packing?

I've got a better one, how about a Constitutional Republic! You know, that model of government that was supposed to be ours? That model intended to protect individual rights within the context of a democratically elected limited government of specific enumerated and delegated powers, reserving a high degree of sovereignty to the states?

Click to expand...

High degree of sovereignty -- but not absolute. The states can't outlaw same sex marriage because our Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, says they can't.

Seems like you don't get your way under this model either -- so is America still doomed?

Much better than rule based on the irrational passing whims and passions of a mob, which is democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Click to expand...

I take it you don't vote, then?

ALoveDivine said:

If we end up with yet another Democrat in the White House in 2016, and the GOP doesn't win the senate, I may well leave this country. Because it will be doomed.

Click to expand...

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Click to expand...

I'd much rather liberals just pack up and leave for Europe, you'd be right at home over there. Modern social-democratic ideals are completely foreign to everything this country stands for.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court may currently say, the federal government is to only have very limited and specifically delegated powers.

Ironically these include everything Obama refuses to do, like protecting our national security and defending the borders. Everything the constitution does not delegate to the federal government is what Obama loves to do, like redistributing wealth and regulating everyone and everything half to death.

Thankfully I think it is very likely that the GOP will win the senate, and we stand a good chance of having a Republican in the White House in 2016. Why? Because Obama couldn't be more of a dismal and pathetic failure if he tried.