Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYa but there will be more and more gay marriages, and that has a direct impact on your heterosexual marriage.
I don't understand your point. My heterosexual marriage is more likely to fail now? My understanding is marriage only fails when there is separation and divorce.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI'm sure you have scientific evidence to support your position? I'll wait.
And to add to that, someone who is gay is only capable of being attracted to, and loving (in that way) the same sex.
There is no sexual orientation that only allows someone to love more than one person at once.
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumphttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519#.UctXKjtwrcw
I'm sure you have scientific evidence to support your position? I'll wait.
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6612#.UctXzjtwrcw
There definitely is scientific evidence that being gay is affected by pure genetics and environmental factors. Over all, there is definitely scientific evidence that it is not merely a choice.
As to whether loving multiple people? I don't know what genetic or other sources that may have. I don't know if there has been any actual studies done on that.
2 edits
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeIn Hollingsworth, also decided today, the Court made an anti-States rights decision holding that State law as to who has legal standing to challenge a ruling is not binding on federal Courts on US Constitutional issues. The ruling in that case in essence says that a State government can refuse to enforce initiatives passed by popular vote pursuant to State Constitutions and not have those determinations reviewed by Federal Courts. This is a most striking doctrine.
The States cannot make interracial marriage illegal. See Loving v. Virginia. The Windsor decision, which was just released today by the US Supreme Court, was a States rights decision. The Supreme Court ruled that States can define what marriage is and the Federal government cannot preempt that decision. The Supreme Court did not addres decision was a "smokescreen." Again, the Supreme Court Justices are not political hacks...
1 edit
We all too often so stereotype our opponents that we fail to recognize when they are actually agreeing with us. I might be wrong, but I don’t think that either Eladar or MMM are trying a “bait-and-switch” here. I read them as actually agreeing, in this case, with their more liberal (progressive: whatever term one wishes to use) brethren—and simply expanding the reasoning. Sometimes “right libertarians” and “left libertarians” do agree. [Note: I consider myself on the left side of that formulation.]
Originally posted by vistesdYou are surely wrong regarding Eladar. He is simply adopting the fall back right wing position i.e. it would be better for the government to recognize no marriages than it would be for it to recognize same sex as well as different sex ones.
We all too often so stereotype our opponents that we fail to recognize when they are actually agreeing with us. [b]I might be wrong, but I don’t think that either Eladar or MMM are trying a “bait-and-switch” here. I read them as actually agreeing, in this case, with their more liberal (progressive: whatever term one wishes to use) brethren—and simply ...[text shortened]... “left libertarians” do agree. [Note: I consider myself on the left side of that formulation.][/b]
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThe Court expressly declined to rely on principles of federalism:
The States cannot make interracial marriage illegal. See Loving v. Virginia. The Windsor decision, which was just released today by the US Supreme Court, was a States rights decision. The Supreme Court ruled that States can define what marriage is and the Federal government cannot preempt that decision. The Supreme Court did not addres ...[text shortened]... decision was a "smokescreen." Again, the Supreme Court Justices are not political hacks...
Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide
whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation
of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.
The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of
central relevance in this case quite apart from principles
of federalism.
at p. 18
It then found that DOMA was a violation of the "liberty" protected by the 5th Amendment:
What has been explained to this point should more than
suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the
necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons
who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires
the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against
denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the
Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the
power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,
the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more
specific and all the better understood and preserved.
at p. 25
Asserting that this is simply a "States right" case is misleading at best.
Originally posted by no1marauderReally? Nice to see that you are here to tell me what I believe.
You are surely wrong regarding Eladar. He is simply adopting the fall back right wing position i.e. it would be better for the government to recognize [b]no marriages than it would be for it to recognize same sex as well as different sex ones.[/b]
If I thought the US should enforce my religious beliefs, then I'd say we should keep homosexuality in itself illegal. I don't think that the US government should make homosexuality illegal.
Yes, I believe marriage should not confer special perks. I think people should be judged as people, if they are married or not.
