Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,169 Year: 5,426/9,624 Month: 451/323 Week: 91/204 Day: 7/26 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 304 (317206)
06-03-2006 1:09 PM


In a discussion of civil rights and gay marriage in another thread, Faith made the claim that, at least in the US, marriage was a privilage rather than a right.
After a little research, I found that this was an unfounded claim, at least according to the United States Supreme Court.
The following is an excerpt from the 1963 Loving v. Virginia descision of that court:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Interestingly, the objections of the state of Virginia were expressed thusly by the Judghe who found them guilty:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Sounds familiar to Faith's and others' arguments; it isn't "natural", God never meant for marriage to be like that, etc.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 06-03-2006 1:14 PM nator has replied
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 1:31 PM nator has replied
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 12:23 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 304 (317209)
06-03-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
06-03-2006 1:14 PM


Re: Basic Civil Rights
quote:
So its a basic civil right for any two consenting adults to become married? (Or should be)
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 06-03-2006 1:14 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 3:23 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 304 (317255)
06-03-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
06-03-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Basic Civil Rights
quote:
It is really really strange, considering the adamant conviction expressed on this point by so many here, that this nation which GAVE us the first amendment, and was known throughout the world for its experiment in civil rights, and practically synonymous with the word "freedom" got by just fine for the first 200 years of its existence during which it LEGALLY PROHIBITED both pornography and homosexual acts.
...and interracial marriage and allowing women and blacks to vote and own property, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 304 (317256)
06-03-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
06-03-2006 1:31 PM


quote:
I believe I was adapting to various things you said. If you said it was a right then I said it was a right that one had to be qualifed for, etc.
Yes, that's what you and I said in the other thread.
I don't believe that this thread's OP misrepresents you at all.
quote:
Also, the comparison between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to interracial marriage is false.
That is a matter of interpretation, and clearly, better legal minds than you (namely, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts) have found a different one than yours.
quote:
Marriage was called a right in that legal case for heterosexual couples.
Of course, the decision says "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,", not "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of heterosexuals and not gays."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 1:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 4:20 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 304 (317514)
06-04-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by iano
06-03-2006 6:31 PM


Re: Laws
quote:
I could say "Gays cannot be married and that is not to be interpreted". But I wouldn't say that.
Your "sister" says that, though, and you do not oppose her, but support her, when she does.
That's the same as you saying it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iano, posted 06-03-2006 6:31 PM iano has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 304 (317515)
06-04-2006 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
06-04-2006 12:36 AM


quote:
The fact that no culture on earth has ever recognized gay marriage has been my argument.
So, what you are saying is that no culture on Earth is allowed to have gay marriage as a unique feature, nor change to include it, is that correct?
And the reason for this is simply "because it's always been this way".
Correct?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 12:36 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 7:32 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 304 (317516)
06-04-2006 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
06-04-2006 2:58 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
quote:
Of course gays want marriage, it will supposedly legitimize them. It won't, it will only make marriage a ridiculous travesty.
How so, specifically?
Can you provide some likely scenarios or examples of what you predict will happen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 2:58 AM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 304 (317517)
06-04-2006 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
06-04-2006 3:05 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
quote:
Gays have no reason whatever for marriage.
Love and committment have no place in marriage, I agree.
It is a fairly recent phenomena to make love and attraction and mutual respect a factor in whom to marry. I support going back to the traditional reasons to marry; forming alliances between families and business interests, consolidating fortunes, and also for pumping out lots of offspring in order to have lots of hands to work the farm.
quote:
Marriage has always been for the sanctifying of heterosexual unions, with the potential of childbearing. No such thing exists between gays. The idea that two men need the protection of the state for their "relationship" is sick.
So, is it your opinion that unassisted procreation is the main and compelling justification for any marriage?
Marriage is to be about breeding only?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 3:05 AM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 304 (317519)
06-04-2006 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
06-04-2006 3:31 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
quote:
Marriage is between heterosexuals because of the POTENTIAL for children, AS I SAID. It doesn't matter whether they have them or not.
There is NO POTENTIAL for children if the heteros have been sterilized, or have been through menopause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 3:31 AM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 304 (317521)
06-04-2006 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
06-04-2006 4:52 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
quote:
Your comparison of normal people with abnormal people is bogus. To compare a sexual aberration with race is sick.
Does your gay friend know that you believe hem to be "abnormal" and an "abberation"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 4:52 AM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 304 (317524)
06-04-2006 7:38 AM


It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
Faith, you have done your best to hide your real reasons for opposing gay marriage by coming up with all sorts of reasons that sound fairly benign and irreligious, but you are starting to let us see your real feelings.
You oppose gay marriage because you believe homosexuality to be "sick", "abnormal", and "an abberation". It has nothing to do with "common sense" and everything to do with religious prejudice and bigotry.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by iano, posted 06-04-2006 8:27 AM nator has replied
 Message 64 by iano, posted 06-04-2006 8:28 AM nator has not replied
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 12:39 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 65 of 304 (317536)
06-04-2006 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by iano
06-04-2006 8:27 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
quote:
You assertion that the anti-gay marriage stance is purely the result of religious prejudice is a flawed one. The secular world says otherwise. They may not prevent gays getting married for they might well be convinced by the 'civil rights' type arguement you put up. But abnormal and abherant they can still hold it to be.
You are correct.
It doesn't have to be religious prejudice and bigotry that Faith is expressing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by iano, posted 06-04-2006 8:27 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by iano, posted 06-04-2006 8:56 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 105 of 304 (317723)
06-04-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
06-04-2006 5:20 PM


like what?
quote:
What is threatened is the meaning of marriage as an institution in the society, and the integrity of the society itself. I figure when people have lost their bearings to the point that they can even consider marrying people who have no reason whatever for marriage except their own whims and feelings, the society is about to self-destruct, just come unglued, just stop functioning, be vulnerable to all kinds of destructions from within and without.
This is dire-sounding, yet very vague.
I'll quote you, and my reply, from a previous message that you didn't answer:
quote:
Of course gays want marriage, it will supposedly legitimize them. It won't, it will only make marriage a ridiculous travesty.
How so, specifically?
Can you provide some likely scenarios or examples of what you predict will happen?
In addition, you ignored several of my other questions to you, which I'll list here for your convenience:
quote:
The fact that no culture on earth has ever recognized gay marriage has been my argument.
So, what you are saying is that no culture on Earth is allowed to have gay marriage as a unique feature, nor change to include it, is that correct?
And the reason for this is simply "because it's always been this way".
Correct?
quote:
Gays have no reason whatever for marriage.
Love and committment have no place in marriage, I agree.
It is a fairly recent phenomena to make love and attraction and mutual respect a factor in whom to marry. I support going back to the traditional reasons to marry; forming alliances between families and business interests, consolidating fortunes, and also for pumping out lots of offspring in order to have lots of hands to work the farm.
[quote]Marriage has always been for the sanctifying of heterosexual unions, with the potential of childbearing. No such thing exists between gays. The idea that two men need the protection of the state for their "relationship" is sick.[/qupte]
So, is it your opinion that unassisted procreation is the main and compelling justification for any marriage?
Marriage is to be about breeding only?
quote:
Marriage is between heterosexuals because of the POTENTIAL for children, AS I SAID. It doesn't matter whether they have them or not.
There is NO POTENTIAL for children if the heteros have been sterilized, or have been through menopause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 5:20 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 304 (317725)
06-04-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by crashfrog
06-04-2006 6:00 PM


Re: Faith is wrong
quote:
Why wouldn't that be personal, Faith? Do you really think that nobody here is a gay parent? Nobody who reads this site is the child of gay parents? Is it just that you don't get how the internet works, or something?
I have several close friends who were raised by gay parents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2006 6:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 157 of 304 (317851)
06-05-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rob
06-04-2006 9:04 PM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
quote:
That is why the same people who argue against the sacredness of marriage and the role it plays in human developement, are 'often' the same people who hope (you know you do) that the terrorists will kick our evil, Christian, imperialist pig butts.
What a ridiculous thing to think.
It must be very convenient to make up imaginary enemies to rail against, but I am afraid you are, in fact, tilting at windmills.
Tell me, which organizations supportive of gay marriage have also professed the desire for the terrorists to win?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 9:04 PM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024