Gay Marriage and the consent of the governed - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

HuskyMan · #31 02-02-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel4me

The tone and rhetoric you are regurgitating from 20 years ago is showing it's age gramps. Your talk about a teacher disclosing to his class about his "lifestyle choices" reeks of not only hate but a complete lack of understanding about this issue.

I don't want to comment any further on this issue with you unless you go "back to school" for some re-education. I no more "chose this lifestyle", as boring as it is, than you chose your propensity to stick it in a woman.

PS I don't try to make people angry necessarily, but when i see people especially the older set, try to comment of the issue without the foggiest understanding of the issue that faces us NOW, not a totally unrelated RANT about 20 years ago, my blood begins to boil. If YOU were singled out for discrimination and you were told you could not ever marry, how would you feel about that??
'
'

you present a valid point. recently a man in Colorado applied for a marriage license so that he could marry his horse. unfortunately, city hall denied his application thereby violating his rights to "equal protection under the law" under the so-called 14th amendment. what about his rights? weren't they denied?

kerry · #32 02-02-2010, 10:46 AM

I didn't find Tom's comments offensive. I thought they were descriptive of his own evolution on the topic.

Kuan · #33 02-02-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

violating his rights to "equal protection under the law"

What law is that? The one that says that heterosexuals may marry horses?

#34 02-02-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

you present a valid point. recently a man in Colorado applied for a marriage license so that he could marry his horse. unfortunately, city hall denied his application thereby violating his rights to "equal protection under the law" under the so-called 14th amendment. what about his rights? weren't they denied?

It will be interesting to see how the court decision is written.

#35 02-02-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

you present a valid point. recently a man in Colorado applied for a marriage license so that he could marry his horse. unfortunately, city hall denied his application thereby violating his rights to "equal protection under the law" under the so-called 14th amendment. what about his rights? weren't they denied?

Ahhh this old gem again

. I love to hear this one. Something along these lines always gets brought up. Two consenting adults I belive sums it up. A horse cannot give consent. Your example is silly and frankly has been used many times by people who cannot think of a rational argument or defense of thier position.

Also this is about human rights. The consitution doesn't address animal rights. If you are so worried about that poor horse then I suggest you contact PETA immediately

Diesel4me · #36 02-02-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

you present a valid point. recently a man in Colorado applied for a marriage license so that he could marry his horse. unfortunately, city hall denied his application thereby violating his rights to "equal protection under the law" under the so-called 14th amendment. what about his rights? weren't they denied?

Why is there ALWAYS the person in a discussion that brings up beastialy? Where are YOUR morals, sir? Do YOU want the right to marry a farm animal? I feel grateful for not knowing a specimen such as yourself. No one i know wants the right to marry an animal, but i get that if you think about it, long and hard, you'll firgure out a way to fool your wife and get some side action with your choice of animal. Good luck with that.

Carleton Hughes · #37 02-02-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel4me

Why is there ALWAYS the person in a discussion that brings up beastialy? Where are YOUR morals, sir? Do YOU want the right to marry a farm animal? I feel grateful for not knowing a specimen such as yourself. No one i know wants the right to marry an animal, but i get that if you think about it, long and hard, you'll firgure out a way to fool your wife and get some side action with your choice of animal. Good luck with that.

His name's Wilbuuuuuuurrrr.....

HuskyMan · #38 02-02-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helpplease

Ahhh this old gem again

. I love to hear this one. Something along these lines always gets brought up. Two consenting adults I belive sums it up. A horse cannot give consent. Your example is silly and frankly has been used many times by people who cannot think of a rational argument or defense of thier position.

Also this is about human rights. The consitution doesn't address animal rights. If you are so worried about that poor horse then I suggest you contact PETA immediately

some horses make the decision to never allow a rider upon their backs, while others allow themselves to be saddled. therefore, it appears that a horse might possess the capacity to "consent". I'm going to assume you are talking about the federal constitution and not a re-written state constitution. the so-called 14th amendment provides for "equal rights" to PERSONS (persona or "the mask"). one of the parties was a cowboy who supposedly enjoys "equal rights" and "civil rights" under the so-called 14th amendment and was told that he would not be granted a marriage license. were not his "civil rights" violated? what if HIS definition of "marriage" is two consenting parties who happen to be breathing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona

LUVMBDiesels · #39 02-02-2010, 11:12 AM

Can we keep this civil?

HuskyMan · #40 02-02-2010, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel4me

Why is there ALWAYS the person in a discussion that brings up beastialy? Where are YOUR morals, sir? Do YOU want the right to marry a farm animal? I feel grateful for not knowing a specimen such as yourself. No one i know wants the right to marry an animal, but i get that if you think about it, long and hard, you'll firgure out a way to fool your wife and get some side action with your choice of animal. Good luck with that.

don't call me out on "morality" on a thread whose focus is homosexual "unions".

MTI · #41 02-02-2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

My question is simple. We all like to quote form the Founding documents whenever they support our position, and ignore them otherwise. After the listing of RIGHTS in the Declaration of Independence, that document goes on to state,"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

How can any government claim legitimacy if it governs against the will of the mass of its people--at least in any society making the claim to be a free society?
This is stuff of despots and tyrants.

( Please do not discredit this by saying I got it from ____, or ____. It is the work, however flawed, of my own little mind.)

If one is going to cherry pick the Declaration, these words provide context.

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

History has taught us many lessons about the "tyranny of the majority" and repeatedly history has shown that our society, while sometimes slow to act and resistant to change even by the use of violence, does advance against prejudice, bigotry and stereotypes. It is part of why we are, for good or bad, who we are as a nation.

#42 02-02-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel4me

Why is there ALWAYS the person in a discussion that brings up beastialy? Where are YOUR morals, sir? Do YOU want the right to marry a farm animal? I feel grateful for not knowing a specimen such as yourself. No one i know wants the right to marry an animal, but i get that if you think about it, long and hard, you'll firgure out a way to fool your wife and get some side action with your choice of animal. Good luck with that.

Don't bother, everyone understands why this is a idiotic argument. A more interesting argument is the comparison of gay marrage to multiple marrage. Is there a valid argument that multiple marrages are harmful to society, or is this just another form of discrimination. I think that is a question that will have to be addressed when the old meaning of the term is abandoned.

Chas H · #43 02-02-2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

What law is that? The one that says that heterosexuals may marry horses?

Laws don't work that way. Laws don't confer permission on us. Laws prohibit illegal actions. There is possibly a law prohibiting marriage between humans and animals. Is there a law giving permission to men and women to marry?

#44 02-02-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

don't call me out on "morality" on a thread whose focus is homosexual "unions".

You are correct people shouldn't call you out on "morals", because you have none. Nor appearently do you have the ability to discuss a subject rationally. Implying that gay marriage is akin to beastiality is frankly childish. And shows said inability to construct a useful argument.

#45 02-02-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

some horses make the decision to never allow a rider upon their backs, while others allow themselves to be saddled. therefore, it appears that a horse might possess the capacity to "consent". I'm going to assume you are talking about the federal constitution and not a re-written state constitution. the so-called 14th amendment provides for "equal rights" to PERSONS (persona or "the mask"). one of the parties was a cowboy who supposedly enjoys "equal rights" and "civil rights" under the so-called 14th amendment and was told that he would not be granted a marriage license. were not his "civil rights" violated? what if HIS definition of "marriage" is two consenting parties who happen to be breathing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona

No horses still cannot consent to a sexual union with a person, your argument is still childish and silly. Your rider on the back analogy only goes so far to show some horses don't like people on their back. It doesn't even come close to suggesting that they can rationally appreciate the ramifications of a sexual relationship with a person.