This is not true at all.

If something breaks your morals it is wrong for you and you shouldn't do it. Your morals have nothing to do with other people's lives.

I care about discrimination of all kinds. I fight it daily at many levels. And I am of the least discriminated group.

??????????????????????

Question: Should we allow same-sex marriage?

My answer: No, there are laws that do not permit it. The law that has been agreed upon is that authority and it is a good law, I agree. Whether they are of the opposite sexes, age and sound mind should be considered before marriage is allowed by the state.


Now do I make sense?

Aw but a law can be changed and this one should be so that same sex couple can marry as long as they are of age and sound mind.

OK, we can officialy throw out "prior laws" as a rebutal now, correct?

So why would we still discriminate against age and mental capacity if we were to allow same-sex marriage?

The last time the laws were changed it was to allow different races to marry and you see how that went.

So same sex should be allowed just the same.

Some laws are put into place that seem good at the time but they turn out not to be. Being of age and sound mind is a good law and will stay. Making married couples have to be male and female is not a good law and needs to be changed. It doesn't serve us well.

You can't make it be so and really chaps your hide.

Sorry but same sex adults should be allowed to marry if they choose and are of sound mind and of age.

And I am now done with you because you go on rants that make no sense and you think you are proving something and you are not.

I will continue to fight for same sex marriage and you can continue to do whatever it is you do.

tata

Would anyone else like to discuss the OP?

It is about how religious folks do not trust their god enough to let him judge adults that make choices that are not harmful to anyone but the religious feel are wrong.

NO - becasue you are making ascertions that do not necessarily exist.

There NEVER was such a law until the enactment of DOMA at the Federal level.

At that point some states began including the verbiage related to DOMA into their state constitutions.(marriage is only between one man and one woman)

DOMA has since been repealed at the Federal level.

Since DOMA was repealed - there is no Federal precedent to support the actions of States to add the marriage clause to their own constitutions.

The Constitutionality of the States power to include such verbiage within their constitutions is now in question.

One issue pertains to the 10th Amendment:



In other words when Federal Constitution is silent, States have the power to invoke state law as long as the law does not conflict in any way with the powers delegated via the U.S. Constitution.

Throughout U.S. history many such challenges have arisen. Obviously our forefathers could not see into the future – but they intelligent enough to understand this limitation and so they provided several features which would allow for change in the Constitution (amendments – which is why we have so many) and the enactment of new law, and a U.S. Supreme Court whose duties are specifically to maintain the integrity of our Constitution through interpretation based on facts and previous precedent.

In the case of same-sex marriage v. States, there are also other matters of Constitutionality called into question.



Specifically “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…”

When marriage is denied to a couple that are not otherwise prohibited by law to be married, they are being denied privileges and immunities that other married couples are entitled to. Also, unless the Supreme Court takes up the case (no matter the outcome) same-sex couples feel they are being deprived of their liberty without due process of law.

The liberty being deprived has to do with another part of the Constitution.



There seems to be adequate legal precedent to indicate that States cannot include the DOMA like language within their constitutions without overriding the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Hence - the “law” of which you refer to is not a Federal law, it is only a law within some states AND the legality of States to invoke such a law is in question.
In the states that do not have a conditional marriage law, there is NO LAW that prohibits same-sex marriage.
So neither Dragoness or anyone else who supports same-sex marriage is necessarily requesting that the people override, or overlook, any law.

What that amount to Pan is that you cannot LUMP same-sex marriage in with any other category of couples who ARE otherwise limited by law in choosing whom they may marry. If the recent additions of Marriage clauses in state constitutions had not been added (on the fly) there would be no law prohibiting same-sex marriage at all.

Excellent Redy!

I learned something from that post, thanks!

NO - if you want to discuss marriage within a particular category, then discuss it with all the possibilities and limitations that are included within that catagory.

There can be no legitimate or logical discussion when attempting to assign all the exact same parameters to every case. That is why each category is a separate issue from the others.

All you will end up doing it arguing over issues that are not inclusive of every case.

Therefore, if you have a problem with same-sex marriage, discuss marriage as it pertains to same-sex couples.

If there is an issue between marriage and incest, discuss marriage as it pertains to incest. And so on.

To have a logical discussion and MINIMIZE the abilily of people to MANIPULATE that discussion, it's important to KEEP focused on the topic.

So choose a topic, or go with the one the OP has used - in this case the OP has chosen to use same-sex marriage.

Attempts to manipulate any poster by confusing the issues and purposely throwing in unconnected information is simply bad form. There is a certain decorum that most intelligent poeple conform to when agreeing to take part in a discussion.

One of the basic elements of any discussion is to remain ethical, and that means that manipulation of facts, or of people, whom you know to be unaware of facts, is not considered ethical.

Of course not everyone is aware of how ethical discussions should take place.

I can only hope the lession has come accross.

Sorry, your thread has been taken so far off course, I'm sure I am partially to blame for that.

But I do thank-you for creating the thread, becasue I've gained new insight through others and through the personal research I've done while looking into so many of the points brought up.

Your welcome and thank you for all the information you have shared.

I learn each and everyday thanks to people like you

I was guilty, I was guilty...

It was an interesting way to see exactly how one determines truth.

Be that as it may...

Di,

Game, set, match!

and you too

Oh yeah,

I think it became more than apparent that those who oppose had no grounds other than religious ones. Well, and then the occasional destroying the meaning and the purpose of communicating ideas through denying that another has the right and the ability to have their own meaning!



Great thread Dragoness!

What "critical thought process" did you use to change the subject of the OP? The topic is "JUDGING OTHERS", same-sex marriage is the example.... How covertly dishonest of you.
Now I'm not calling you a liar, it's possible you did not read or possibly not understand the words that you quoted up there. Perhaps you truly believe the OP is about gay marriage.






The confusion is yours, the OP is about judging... To try and change the subject is simply bad form.
Any intelligent person can recognise the connections among judging the marriage of different "clasifications" of peoples. I was the last person to bring up those examples, not the first. Can you follow decorum?





So is telling someone else not to judge and then judging yourself ethical? Is asking someone for their opinion and then berating them for presenting it ethical? Is a sactimonious, holier-than-thou attitude ethical? Is telling someone they have no right to force their beliefs on you while you force theirs on them ethical? Is covert dishonesty ethical? Is blatant dishonesty ethical? Is being bigoted towards the religious ethical? Is changing the subject of the OP ethical?






Yes, that much is quite obvious.





That was a "lesson"??? I'm sorry, but I don't like the curriculum, it's full of arrogance, fallacies and contradictions...

Is not the same thing as this:



...of you is the operative phrase here.

One is about the person, the other is about the content. The significant difference being had in what that means. One accuses the person of deliberate dishonesty, and the other denotes that the content is based upon less than truthful information which the person is necessarily unaware of.

Thus one is an attempt at revealing truth that is unknown to the poster, and the other deliberate accuses the poster of dishonesty.

That is as clear as I can possibly make it.

Claims without substance are empty.

Point out the fallacy.

Arrogance is a subjective measure of another's attitude, so that assessment is out because it is against the forum rules. Besides that it is extremely hard to prove of another anyway. That is usually demonstrated by the perpetrator for all to see, and so it need not be pointed out.

Redy wrote:


Peter Pan replied:


The Original OP:


Indeed, I have not been careful with my words – I will be happy to amend them below:

To have a logical discussion and MINIMIZE the ability of people to MANIPULATE that discussion, it's important to KEEP focused on the topic.

So choose ‘one’ example that demonstrates judgments based on religious morals that are counter-intuitive to Constitutional values and hence civil law, or go with the one the OP has used - in this case the OP has chosen to use the example of same-sex marriage.

I must admit, based upon the ensuing misunderstanding(s), that "covert dishonesty" was a poor choice of words for this particular audience. It also helps to remember that those who look to be offended will often find a way to be, even if that requires forcing reality to fit preconception, in order to not have to face the fact that not everyone judges using the same yardstick.

Habitual thought becomes automatic. Habitual judgment of others in terms of good and evil can often result in thinking that everyone else does the same and therefore such a person will often feel that they are being judged in the same way, regardless of whether or not that is true.

I hold that holding everyone as equally valuable constitutes being the base of a moral code, and that necessarily translates into being ethical as well.

Trust is the key to Ethics.