Ron Paul Supporters. Please Wake Up.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332558833' post='2406878']
They're infringing on the rights of a child to a father and a mother.
[/quote]

now that just doesnt make any sense.
1) two gays getting married doesnt mean there will be any less children in the world, unless you honestly think they will go "oh wait, i cant get married? well, time to start being attracted to women and raising a family!"
2)or do you mean the slippery slope sorta thing with adoption? the way adoption/foster care works, and always has worked, gay people could probably adopt hundreds or thousands of children every year and not mean that a single less child goes to hetero parents.
At least they would have some caretakers who actually want them. better than no parents at all, same as a single parent, and way better than going through childhood and teen years bouncing from one horrible orphanage to foster home.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[4588686]

If you look at the constitution you will notice that everything applies to the government. 'Congress shall make no law..." This is a negative right. This is the sort of rights that our constitution gives us. You don't have a right to a house. You just have a right to the government not prohibiting you unjustly from obtaining a house.

[qfnol31]

You need to remind the government of this lack of a right:

http://www.fatherhood.gov/home
http://veryhilarious.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/take-time-to-be-a-dad-today-lion-king.jpg

I pass a sign like that last one every day.

Also, see laws that respect the rights of parents to keep their children or to ask for them back. Implicit in these laws is that the parents are naturally the best choice for the children as well.

Now for single parents: not all rights are directly enforceable. Some are and some aren't. The right not to have two fathers is enforceable. The right not to have two mothers, etc.


Finally, we aren't actually taking away a right. All men have a right to marry any woman of a certain age, under certain circumstances. All women have the same right. We haven't taken away the right to marry. And furthermore, no one has a right to marry whomsoever they want.

We don't allow a person to get married to another person while they are still married. Why can't a man have multiple wives? We don't say that 12-year-olds have a right to marry period, but you don't think that that's a bad thing, do you? They aren't really hurting anyone. Ought we throw that out too? By your logic, they're not hurting anyone so we've deprived them of a right.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1332559306' post='2406883']
now that just doesnt make any sense.
1) two gays getting married doesnt mean there will be any less children in the world, unless you honestly think they will go "oh wait, i cant get married? well, time to start being attracted to women and raising a family!"[/quote]That's not really an argument. Some countries don't allow single parents to adopt (China for instance) because it isn't in the best interest of the child much of the time. Sure it will work out sometimes, but it is not what it best for those children. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Adoption does not always work simply because a couple (or a single person, etc.) has removed a child from a foster home or orphanage and placed them into a loving home. I would know, my parents have adopted 10 times already. It is a non argument to say that these children are better off simply because they were adopted.

[quote]2)or do you mean the slippery slope sorta thing with adoption? the way adoption/foster care works, and always has worked, gay people could probably adopt hundreds or thousands of children every year and not mean that a single less child goes to hetero parents.[/quote]It's not a matter of numbers.
[quote]At least they would have some caretakers who actually want them. better than no parents at all, same as a single parent, and way better than going through childhood and teen years bouncing from one horrible orphanage to foster home.
[/quote]Again, this is a non argument that most people outside the scope of actual experience with adoptions do not see. Most people think that children are better off simply because they were adopted.

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332559590' post='2406885']
You need to remind the government of this lack of a right:

[url="http://www.fatherhood.gov/home"]http://www.fatherhood.gov/home[/url]
[url="http://veryhilarious.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/take-time-to-be-a-dad-today-lion-king.jpg"]http://veryhilarious...y-lion-king.jpg[/url]

I pass a sign like that last one every day.[/QUOTE]


?

You're an educated man. I think you know why this doesn't work. Of course, the state has an interest in promoting stable enviorments for children. That does not mean that any child has a right to a father. You don't. If you can find some Case where the USSC has announced that a child has a right to have a father I would be interested to see it.

[QUOTE] Also, see laws that respect the rights of parents to keep their children or to ask for them back. Implicit in these laws is that the parents are naturally the best choice for the children as well. [/QUOTE]

They usually are. Not always. This is why some children are removed from their biological parents. You're just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

[QUOTE]Now for single parents: not all rights are directly enforceable. Some are and some aren't. The right not to have two fathers is enforceable. The right not to have two mothers, etc. [/QUOTE]

There is no such right. At least not in this country. Which is a secular republic, rather than a Catholic theocracy.


[QUOTE] Finally, we aren't actually taking away a right. All men have a right to marry any woman of a certain age, under certain circumstances. All women have the same right. We haven't taken away the right to marry. And furthermore, no one has a right to marry whomsoever they want.[/QUOTE]

By this logic the state can outlaw interracial marriage. By this logic all Saudi citizens have equal religious rights too. Everybody has a right to be a Muslim. The court has long rejected this line of thought.

[QUOTE] We don't allow a person to get married to another person while they are still married. Why can't a man have multiple wives? We don't say that 12-year-olds have a right to marry period, but you don't think that that's a bad thing, do you? They aren't really hurting anyone. Ought we throw that out too? By your logic, they're not hurting anyone so we've deprived them of a right.
[/quote]

They're hurting the 12 year old. I don't have a problem with polygamous marriage so long as domestic violence is not present.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332560145' post='2406894']
?

You're an educated man. I think you know why this doesn't work. Of course, the state has an interest in promoting stable enviorments for children. That does not mean that any child has a right to a father. You don't. If you can find some Case where the USSC has announced that a child has a right to have a father I would be interested to see it.[/quote]There are some basic rights about which the Courts have not yet determined. A person has a right not to be enslaved, but it took SCOTUS almost 100 years to accept that, and then it was only by Constitutional Amendment that their opinion was changed.

I can talk about rights, but you cannot limit me to only what SCOTUS or our Constitution has determined. Certain human rights are inalienable and may be illuminated by my Catholicism, but I don't make these arguments simply on a Catholic basis.

[quote]They usually are. Not always. This is why some children are removed from their biological parents. You're just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.[/quote]Here I can pull out a SCOTUS ruling that child's rights are first. There is a hierarchy of rights as well, first being the right to life (not always accepted in our country, particularly before birth). Next is a child's right to safety. Then we can speak about stability, etc.

[quote]There is no such right. At least not in this country. Which is a secular republic, rather than a Catholic theocracy.

By this logic the state can outlaw interracial marriage. By this logic all Saudi citizens have equal religious rights too. Everybody has a right to be a Muslim. The court has long rejected this line of thought.[/quote]But now you have shown your slavery to the courts and our government. Rather than being free to determine rights, you are held back by court decisions.

Secondly, there is a difference to interracial marriage and heterosexual marriage that doesn't allow for your analogy. You would have to use interspecies marriage to come up with a more appropriate analogy, but then that would prove my point. The sexual distinction between men and women transcends even species differences. We recognize female and male dogs, dolphins, etc. In almost all animals this distinction is necessary and the union between male and female is something unique.

This is demonstrated by simple science: the union between a male and a female IN GENERAL (forget accidental differences; we're looking at the ideal and the general understanding here) offers the chance for life. This in itself is unique because no other natural union can compare. Therefore, as much as we can talk about the other reasons for marrying, the union between a male and a female will always have something no other relationship can. If you go into how two women can become pregnant, it's not the same action and therefore it's not on the same level. This last example would be analogous to saying that a person in a wheelchair is moving in the same manner a runner moves.

On top of this, I see sexual differences as extending further than the ability to procreate. Each sex brings something unique to a relationship. Unfortunately I cannot really make this argument because our society is bent on making sure that they don't bring something different, but in every marriage I have ever known between a man and a woman, each person had something different to offer simply because of their sex. Unfortunately, good empirical datum of this sort is unacceptable to most modern discussions.

[quote]They're hurting the 12 year old. I don't have a problem with polygamous marriage so long as domestic violence is not present.
[/quote]I won't really make this argument, but I would suggest that the gay couple and the polygamous couple are hurting themselves.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332558771' post='2406877']
Those are both instances on them infringing on the rights of others. How are two gay men marrying each other in some non-state ceremony infringing on your rights?
[/quote]

Agreed. Although two gay men marrying each other might be mortally sinful, damaging to the Church and society, and and all around bad idea, it doesn't infringe on any of my rights for them to do such a thing.

Really i want the government out of the marriage business in general. It isn't the place of the government.

[qfnol31]

The Church as a whole and the USCCB have said that the government does have a place in marriage theologically. In this matter, when it comes to the theology of law, many people on this site are have clearly disregarded what the Church has taught.

While politically there may be some merit to the claim that government should have no say, the Church wholly disagrees.

Edited March 24, 2012 by qfnol31

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332565148' post='2406935']
The Church as a whole and the USCCB have said that the government does have a place in marriage theologically. In this matter, when it comes to the theology of law, many people on this site are have clearly disregarded what the Church has taught.

While politically there may be some merit to the claim that government should have no say, the Church wholly disagrees.
[/quote]

That's fine. But the Church is not above the state. At least not legally. If you want to believe that it is then that's fine. But that is meaningless when you are speaking to somebody who does not recognize your Church as the Vicar of Christ.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332565746' post='2406938']
That's fine. But the Church is not above the state. At least not legally. If you want to believe that it is then that's fine. But that is meaningless when you are speaking to somebody who does not recognize your Church as the Vicar of Christ.
[/quote]Yep, I recognize this and will definitely try not to use the argument against your arguments. I see a potential religious problem here insofar as some Catholics use religion to justify their political position (for which I would probably be justly criticized if I tried to do so), a practice that is especially problematic in this particular instance since the Church in this case does not in fact support the position of many here theologically.

In some ways you and I are making a similar argument about the use of religion.

Edited March 24, 2012 by qfnol31

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332561193' post='2406905']
There are some basic rights about which the Courts have not yet determined.[/QUOTE]

Says who? You? Have you been elected to any office? Does the constitution grant you the right to determine which rights have and have not yet been determined?

[QUOTE]A person has a right not to be enslaved, but it took SCOTUS almost 100 years to accept that, and then it was only by Constitutional Amendment that their opinion was changed. [/QUOTE]

No, it did not. Because prior to the 13th Amendment there was no right in the constitution protecting individuals from being held in bondage. In fact, prior to the 13th Amendment the constitution explicitly recognized the institution of slavery. Prior to the later 19th century there was no right to not be enslaved for the courts to recognize.

[QUOTE] I can talk about rights, but you cannot limit me to only what SCOTUS or our Constitution has determined. [/QUOTE]

Yes I can. You don't live in a Catholic theocracy. You live in the United States and you are attempting to get the state to use its power to influence individuals regarding their personal sexual conduct. If you want to say that gays can't mary in a Catholic Church or have their union recognized by the Catholic Church then you can refer to whatever you want. But if you want to use the power of the state then you are ipso facto limited, ultimately, by the Constitution.

[QUOTE] Certain human rights are inalienable and may be illuminated by my Catholicism, but I don't make these arguments simply on a Catholic basis. [/QUOTE]

Ok. Then prove to me that they exist with arguments not resting on a Catholic basis.

[QUOTE] Here I can pull out a SCOTUS ruling that child's rights are first. There is a hierarchy of rights as well, first being the right to life (not always accepted in our country, particularly before birth). Next is a child's right to safety. Then we can speak about stability, etc. [/QUOTE]

?

[QUOTE] But now you have shown your slavery to the courts and our government. Rather than being free to determine rights, you are held back by court decisions. [/QUOTE]

No. I am held by the laws of the state I chose to live in. That's how a state works.

[QUOTE] Secondly, there is a difference to interracial marriage and heterosexual marriage that doesn't allow for your analogy. You would have to use interspecies marriage to come up with a more appropriate analogy, but then that would prove my point. The sexual distinction between men and women transcends even species differences. We recognize female and male dogs, dolphins, etc. In almost all animals this distinction is necessary and the union between male and female is something unique.

This is demonstrated by simple science: the union between a male and a female IN GENERAL (forget accidental differences; we're looking at the ideal and the general understanding here) offers the chance for life. This in itself is unique because no other natural union can compare. Therefore, as much as we can talk about the other reasons for marrying, the union between a male and a female will always have something no other relationship can. If you go into how two women can become pregnant, it's not the same action and therefore it's not on the same level. This last example would be analogous to saying that a person in a wheelchair is moving in the same manner a runner moves.

On top of this, I see sexual differences as extending further than the ability to procreate. Each sex brings something unique to a relationship. Unfortunately I cannot really make this argument because our society is bent on making sure that they don't bring something different, but in every marriage I have ever known between a man and a woman, each person had something different to offer simply because of their sex. Unfortunately, good empirical datum of this sort is unacceptable to most modern discussions.[/QUOTE]

My analogy works fine. By your logic the state can ban interracial marriage. In fact your argument was used to defend the bans. After all, the bigots argued, everybody has the right to marry an individual of the same race.

[QUOTE] I won't really make this argument, but I would suggest that the gay couple and the polygamous couple are hurting themselves.
[/quote]

Ok

[4588686]

That bigot comment was not referring to you. I was referring to the arguments used by the courts and others to reconcile the 14th Amendment with the bans on interracial marriage.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Hasan

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332565746' post='2406938']
That's fine. But the Church is not above the state. At least not legally. If you want to believe that it is then that's fine. But that is meaningless when you are speaking to somebody who does not recognize your Church as the Vicar of Christ.
[/quote]
What's ironic is that the existence of marriage laws has placed the Church under the thumb of the state, in this case. Priests will not administer the Sacrament without a permission slip from the government.

[add]

A man and woman and get a license to get married, can get married in the church
same-sex couples can get a license to get married, cannot get married the church
A Catholic man and woman can get divorced, cannot get divorced in the church
Same-sex couples can get a divorce.  End of story

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332588237' post='2406977']
A man and woman and get a license to get married, can get married in the church
same-sex couples can get a license to get married, cannot get married the church
A Catholic man and woman can get divorced, cannot get divorced in the church
Same-sex couples can get a divorce. End of story
[/quote]

Yeah, except that THAT story isn't based on reality. There is no "sa[color=#000000]me-sex [/color][color=#000000]marriage" in [/color][color=#000000]most states.[/color]

[add]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332599670' post='2407005']
Yeah, except that THAT story isn't based on reality. There is no "sa[color=#000000]me-sex [/color][color=#000000]marriage" in [/color][color=#000000]most states.[/color]
[/quote]
the concept of "sa[color=#000000]me-sex [/color][color=#000000]marriage" isn't based on ( institution of marriage) reality, either[/color]

Edited March 24, 2012 by add

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332601364' post='2407025']
the concept of "sa[color=#000000]me-sex [/color][color=#000000]marriage" isn't based on reality, either[/color]
[/quote]


OOOOO snap, you're so witty and s[color=#282828]mart!

But really, leave the gays alone. Let the[/color][color=#282828]m do what they want and put the[/color][color=#282828]m out of your [/color][color=#282828]mind. [/color]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332566450' post='2406940']
Says who? You? Have you been elected to any office? Does the constitution grant you the right to determine which rights have and have not yet been determined?

No, it did not. Because prior to the 13th Amendment there was no right in the constitution protecting individuals from being held in bondage. In fact, prior to the 13th Amendment the constitution explicitly recognized the institution of slavery. Prior to the later 19th century there was no right to not be enslaved for the courts to recognize.

Yes I can. You don't live in a Catholic theocracy. You live in the United States and you are attempting to get the state to use its power to influence individuals regarding their personal sexual conduct. If you want to say that gays can't mary in a Catholic Church or have their union recognized by the Catholic Church then you can refer to whatever you want. But if you want to use the power of the state then you are ipso facto limited, ultimately, by the Constitution.

Ok. Then prove to me that they exist with arguments not resting on a Catholic basis.[/quote]

I'll let another man speak for me:
[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]

While this statement and document don't hold the weight of law in our country like the Constitution, none of these rights is really mentioned in the Constitution. Yet you'll have a hard time finding people arguing against the Declaration of Independence in court. What's my point here? It's that certain rights are inalienable and self-evident and I don't necessarily have to have the weight of the law behind me to make an argument for them. I know I haven't proven anything here, except the basis that I can argue for rights without recourse to law.

Interestingly enough, the Declaration of Independence proves that people have a right to liberty (a right not to be enslaved) without the Constitution backing them up. The way our country got around this in the first place was to define people as less than people. Again, this is self-evidently contradictory. You can't legitimately define a person as not a person or less than a person. To do so is completely unjust. Our country came around to realize this after a while.

What does all this mean? Certain rights are implied and can be determined on a rational basis before the government recognizes them. As a rational people we are bound to recognize these rights and ought to make sure that they are not infringed.

If you're willing to accept that rights exist outside of Catholic or political discourse and can be recognized without recourse to either, then we can talk about how to recognize these rights.

[quote]No. I am held by the laws of the state I chose to live in. That's how a state works.[/quote]You are bound to follow laws, but that wasn't my comment. What I meant was that if the courts or the government don't define rights for you, you don't accept these rights. Rational discourse can make use of laws, but I don't think that rights are solely determined by the government before they exist. I believe that there are rights in a political sense and human rights that are inalienable, as stated by the Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers believed the same thing, and I'd like to say that they were right in that respect.

[quote]My analogy works fine. By your logic the state can ban interracial marriage. In fact your argument was used to defend the bans. After all, the bigots argued, everybody has the right to marry an individual of the same race.[/quote]I don't believe that the analogy is legitimate, no matter who used it or how they used it. Sexual differences don't fall under the same category of type/species distinctions. This particular distinction (between men and women) is so great that it transcends the differences between whole species and even genera. If I look at a dolphin I can tell you which one is male and which one is female. That's how great the differences are between men and women.

And just to make sure I don't get trapped in a corner: I don't think that the difference between men and women is merely physical, though it is evidenced by the physical differences.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1332522736' post='2406181']
just because someone is motivated by blind fury, doesn't mean the object of their fury is IPSO FACTO 'good'.


srsly.. it's been a while since someone's inserted IPSO FACTO in a while.. hope y'all don't mind that I stepped up.
[/quote]

1:50-2:15:

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkACOU_dF80"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkACOU_dF80[/url]

[4588686]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332640898' post='2407396']
1:50-2:15:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkACOU_dF80[/media]
[/quote]

Archie Bunker was an American Hero.




[img]http://www.relictees.com/Archie%20Bunker-STIFLE%20Ink-medium.jpg[/img]