The U.S. Constitution

[Socrates]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Jun 8 2005, 08:29 PM']The Constitution says that the Federal Government cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex.  By "sex" they mean male or female.  Those are the only two sexes.  Gay marriage and Gay rights are not provided or protected by the Constitution.  That is why there has been talk to amend the Constitution outlawing gay rights.  Many states have taken it upon themselves to outlaw it through a simple vote of the people or through the legislature, like Texas.
[right][snapback]607606[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually the anti-discrimination stuff you cited was not originally in the Constitution. (may be in a recent ammendment post-1960s - I'd have to check). Anyway, the laws you cited regard hiring policies of the Federal Government - and are thus not even related to the issue of the constitutionality of recognizing "gay marrriage."

(Your point's valid - just thought I'd clarify about the Constitution.)

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Mate el Feo']At this point, a Pandora's Box opens up.[/quote]

Well, why exactly would those things you listed be bad? No one is getting hurt, they'll just be happy together.

As far as I know your computer doesn't have a mind or will so that would not work out, though.

[quote name='KizlarAgha']beastiality and pedophilia.[/quote]

Yes. Those things are totally different matter.

[quote name='Socrates']Two men or two women cannot. The procreation and raising of children is the natural purpose of marriage.[/quote]

But it's a arbitrary definition of marriage. Besides, gays can procreate and raise children.


[quote name='Socrates']The different genders have different roles in nature.[/quote]

I find this remark odd. When I ask about acting on my desires I'm often answered by theists that that's only what animals do and humans are above that. Now you say we must behave according our roles, but isn't that exactly what animals are supposed to do? Humans can reason and act outside of their natural roles. Isn't that what catholic priests do anyway (celibacy)? Indeed, if we have natural roles, would it not be logical that our natural desires were the indicators on how to behave (lust)?

[Jesus Freak]

How do two gay people procreate naturally?

[Matty_boy]

Explain how gays can procreate without assistance from a person of the opposite sex? Also, the Constitutional amendment about discrimination is applicable to all areas, not just hiring practices.

The First Amendment is freedom of established religion, speech, press, etc.

The Fourteenth Amendment is the whole "due process" amendment where they can't take you or your stuff without due process. Plus more about running and holding positions in Congress.

The Fifteenth Amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The Ninteenth Amendment is "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Those are all that deal with discrimination. There are two ways you can look at the Constitution. The first is the strict constructionism which looks at the way the Constitution was written in the time period, looks at what the authors meant when they wrote it by using the Federalist Papers as a guide. (The Fed Papers are basically like the Catechism for the Constitution.) The second way is the living organism approach which basically holds the belief that the Constitution can be changed to fit modern day values and norms. I prefer the strict constructionist approach because it follows more to natural law and holds the government and the people more accountable. The living organism approach is what brought us Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and a whole mess of other abominations against humanity. It brought us the "right to privacy" which lies in the "shadows and penumbras" of various amendments of the Constitution.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jun 9 2005, 12:02 PM']But it's a arbitrary definition of marriage. Besides, gays can procreate and raise children.[/quote]


A man and a woman making love can procreate children. That is what marriage is about. Engaging in homosexual acts can never do this.

If the definition of marriage that has always existed is arbitrary, then all definitions are arbitrary. Marriage can then mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.

[quote]I find this remark odd. When I ask about acting on my desires I'm often answered by theists that that's only what animals do and humans are above that. Now you say we must behave according our roles, but isn't that exactly what animals are supposed to do? Humans can reason and act outside of their natural roles. Isn't that what catholic priests do anyway (celibacy)? Indeed, if we have natural roles, would it not be logical that our natural desires were the indicators on how to behave (lust)?
[right][snapback]607936[/snapback][/right].[/quote]

A celibate priest does not act according to a female role, but merely abstains from sexual intercourse. And a celibate priest is by definition not married, so this has nothing to do with the issue of "gay marriage."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Jun 9 2005, 01:40 PM']Explain how gays can procreate without assistance from a person of the opposite sex?  Also, the Constitutional amendment about discrimination is applicable to all areas, not just hiring practices. 

The First Amendment is freedom of established religion, speech, press, etc. 

The Fourteenth Amendment is the whole "due process" amendment where they can't take you or your stuff without due process.  Plus more about running and holding positions in Congress. 

The Fifteenth Amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 

The Ninteenth Amendment is "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 

Those are all that deal with discrimination.  There are two ways you can look at the Constitution.  The first is the strict constructionism which looks at the way the Constitution was written in the time period, looks at what the authors meant when they wrote it by using the Federalist Papers as a guide.  (The Fed Papers are basically like the Catechism for the Constitution.)  The second way is the living organism approach which basically holds the belief that the Constitution can be changed to fit modern day values and norms.  I prefer the strict constructionist approach because it follows more to natural law and holds the government and the people more accountable.  The living organism approach is what brought us Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and a whole mess of other abominations against humanity.  It brought us the "right to privacy" which lies in the "shadows and penumbras" of various amendments of the Constitution.
[right][snapback]607993[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The so-called "strict constructionist" approach is the only real way to interpret the Constitution. The laws mean what they say as intended by their framers - nothing more, nothing less.

The "living document" approach basically means the Constitution can mean whatever some judge wants it to mean, thus rendering the Constitution worthless.

They're basically saying the Constitution is a living organism which can evolve into a monster completely different than what it originally was.

This is what has happened. We are living under the tyranny of unelected federal judges who feel free to "interpret" the law to mean whatever fits their own ideas, rather than according to what the law actually states.

The limits of the 10th ammendment are now completely ignored by activist federal judges who wish to impose their own liberal values on all the states.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Jesus Freak']How do two gay people procreate naturally?[/quote]

The same way everyone else does. All you need is some semen in the vagina. There are many ways of getting it there.

[quote name='Socrates']A man and a woman making love can procreate children. That is what marriage is about. Engaging in homosexual acts can never do this.[/quote]

There are also heterosexual couples that can't have children. Are you banning marriage from them too?

I disagree. Marriage is not about having children, it's about partners committing to eachother.

[quote name='Socrates']Marriage can then mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.[/quote]

Doesn't it already? We certainly don't agree about it's meaning.

[quote name='Socrates']The so-called "strict constructionist" approach is the only real way to interpret the Constitution. The laws mean what they say[/quote]

Are you reading the constitution like you would read the eternal word of God? The laws mean what some men meant hundreds of years ago. There was different culture, different social structure, different ethics, so of course gay marriage wasn't put in the constitution. But it doesn't matter whether the constitution supports gay marriage or not, since there is no reason to ban it now. We know better.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jun 9 2005, 06:34 PM']The same way everyone else does. All you need is some semen in the vagina. There are many ways of getting it there.
[/quote]

Biology lesson: Semen only comes from a male. Only a female has a vagina. Thus the child is concieved by a man and a woman (and sex is the only natural way of getting the sperm into the vagina). The child was therefore not concieved by two homosexuals engaging in "anal sex" or any other homosexual acts.

[quote]There are also heterosexual couples that can't have children. Are you banning marriage from them too?
[/quote]

No. The act of heterosexual lovemaking is open to life and having children, even if one of them is unable through no fault of his/her own to conceive. Homosexual acts by their very nature cannot conceive life.

[quote]I disagree. Marriage is not about having children, it's about partners committing to eachother.
[/quote]

Marriage traditionally has always been about having children. The purpose of marriage is children and the family. The importance of the family is why marriage is legally recognized. Your definition is vague to the point of ridiculous. A man can be committed to his business partner. A man can be committed to his son. A man can be committed to his mother or brother. None of these things (while good) should constitute a marriage.

[quote]Doesn't it already? We certainly don't agree about it's meaning.
[/quote]

The fact that you and others want to change the definition of marriage from what it's always been does not mean marriage was always meaningless. If marriage means nothing or anything, why even bother to argue about it?

[quote][quote name='Socrates']The so-called "strict constructionist" approach is the only real way to interpret the Constitution. The laws mean what they say[/quote]

Are you reading the constitution like you would read the eternal word of God? The laws mean what some men meant hundreds of years ago. There was different culture, different social structure, different ethics, so of course gay marriage wasn't put in the constitution. But it doesn't matter whether the constitution supports gay marriage or not, since there is no reason to ban it now. We know better.
[right][snapback]608203[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I read Constitution as it was written, not as something which can be changed to whatever I want it to mean.

The Constitution says nothing about "gay marriage," and the laws regarding this belong to the states or the people respectively, as stated by the 10th ammendment. There is no "Constitutional right" to "gay marriage." The federal government has no Constitutional right to force the states to accept "gay marriage" or any other laws giving special legal recognition to homosexuality.

Edited June 10, 2005 by Socrates

[Matty_boy]

Again, how do two homosexuals procreate without the assistance of a member of the opposite sex?