Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by fxashun

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Not really. What i am speaking of here is whether you believe your constitution should say that ONE type of group is OK but the other is BETTER.

TO allow homosexuals to be open about their sexual preference and EXCLUDE them ( by constitutional amendment ) from calling their union a marriage is precisely that.

But the way i see it you can't have "all men are created equal" AND "some people can marry but others can't" int he same constitution.

Originally Posted by fxashun

I disagree, all any politician will have to do is bring up the case in New Jersey or Vermont where they have civil unions and the "homosexual activists"(the ones from the other thread no doubt) are pushing for full marriage. It's stuff like that that makes me proud that my state passed an amendment banning anything, because if civil unions won't solve the issue, then I'll just as well grant nothing to save the aggravation.

Originally Posted by fxashun

All men are not created equal, some men have demonstrable defects, that's why we have the term "birth defect". And all men CAN marry, a woman, even if they are born with a "defect".

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

no doubt some have "defects". But should their "defect" mean an absence of certain rights?

Depends on which "rights" you are referring.

The choice of partner is an individual decision, and not subject to judgement by a third party. This is because there is no evidence to suggest that THEM making use of this right will harm OTHERS.

I don't subscribe to the "whatever doesn't kill me" mindset that statement represents.

All men ARE created equal, and if a man and a woman have the right to call their union a "marriage", then who decided that it was a right exclusively reserved for heterosexuals?

Common sense. The same common sense that tells you murder theft is wrong. You don't need a law for that.

The fact is that NOBODY decided it. It was just always so. However when the question was brought up in THIS day and age, arguing that gender should not be the decisive factor in calling in a "marriage", then it was a FIRST.

That's not the fact. The FACT is that the homosexual union is self evidently as wrong as black milk.

Now this question has to be looked at from a civil rights perspective. Homosexuals are equal members of the state. Their choice of partner does not adversely affect anybody else. Their preference is also not subject to censure, simply because they are exercising a BASIC right which is the pursuit of happiness ( assured by your constitution ). If that pursuit does NOT conflict with the pursuit of others then it cannot be discriminated against. But the fact is that it IS. But that is because of the personal opinions of those that don't like homosexuality ( for religious, cultural or purely biological reasons ). However LEGALLY they do NOT have the right to discriminate.

That goes back to my previous "whatever doesn't hurt me" that I don't agree with. Consent and legal are too fluid to base this decision on. In some countries that have depended on those flaccid concepts, we now have specifically legalized zoophilia. It is not a "basic" right to the pursuit of happiness if your "happiness" is based on a defective urge. You do not have the basic right to marry your sister. You do not have the basic right marry a cat. There are abnormal humans that have the urge to do both. It is not because of "personal" reasons that I don't like homosexuality. It is because there is no logical reason for homosexuality to exist, and to call the obviously correct human union by the same term as the homosexual union is absurd.

Therefore they are entitled to the same legal safeguards and obligations as do heterosexual couples. They are ALSO entitled to call it "marriage". The concept of marriage is NOT the exclusive premise of heterosexuals.

Just don't call it a "marriage" The exclusive ability to procreate IS solely a heterosexual capability. "Civil rights" allows all heterosexual people to get married regardless of disability. But allowing gay people to "marry" to to legitimize a abnormal situation that has no reason for existing and has no scientific, moral, or logical reason for existing. Why would any one deem that acceptable?

Fact is that i DON'T get why anybody would stick to their own gender. But i also know that my personal likes or dislikes is not to make the basis for legislation that would prevent them for calling their union what they wish.

Originally Posted by englishsunflower

In the case of the 2 states above as I see it the states will not or can not uphold the law. As I said in the other thread if the state will not up hold the law it will never work.Also as I read it the wording on the law is not the same as the U.K.It has to many loop holes in it.
I also said in the other thread that it will also never work if it is done state by state.The Gov has to step in and make a law that will give everyone the same rights. I know before you say it that that will not happen in the near future but with the right Gov. it could happen.
Yes you are right that there will be some that will not be happy until it is called marriage but there will also be others that will not be happy till all the gays are put on a island somewhere.(Corse the isle of Lesvos aka Lesbos in the Greek isles is rather nice in my book)You can't make everyone happy but you can make most happy.

Originally Posted by fxashun

So instead of making sure the laws are upheld, just skip it and push for marriage, damn what everybody else says.
Most people would like a fair Civil union law. So that's obviously not what THEY are shooting for.

Originally Posted by englishsunflower

Where did you read in my post that I was for marriage instead of civil partnership.You know better,we have been through this before.I don't care what its called as long as its the same rights as marriage like it is in the U.K.
Its really easy.Adopt the law from here and make it law there.Almost everyone wins.All but the hardheaded ones that want all or nothing.

Originally Posted by fxashun

[/b]
I know we fundamentally agree...But that was why I just pointed out the part of your post that I disagreed with and that is being violated in the states we mentioned.

Here here.

Originally Posted by englishsunflower

I really wasn't calling you hardheaded I was saying that there are some that are hardheaded though,on both sides of the coin. To me there are some that just will not compromise no matter what.

Yes we've noticed that sunflower



Those make it hard for the others who just want to make it right for all.

So you're saying that when people disagree with you it makes it more difficult for you to get your own way??





I do agree that the states mentioned need to inforce the law.If they don't they are in comtempt of the law and the supreme court needs to inforce what the state will not.