Obama himself believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but at the same time he can't abandon the equal treatment he has been fighting for, this is politics out here. I also believe is is unfair for any individual or government to start invading people's privacy or telling them what to practice. To all these conservative so-called christains out there, here is my question: How will the prophecies you are all referring to be fulfilled if these thing aren't happening now?

Sagamite: If something is natural and normal, you can't ban it and it shouldn't face morality rules. That is fundamental human rights.

If something is natural but abnormal, it is open to societal morality rules. Even though it is arguably human rights but might not be.

If something is unnatural but normal, it is open to societal morality rules. It is not human rights.

If something is unnatural and abnormal, it potentially should open the door to a psychiatrist's office. It is not human rights.

Morality rules are useful tools societies employ to make their society sane.

It is not rocket science, just simply making sense.

Your disagreement with gay rights rests on cultural perception. You are making use of languages such as "normal" "natural" "acceptable". Taboos is the exclusive language of culture and its overtly subjective. Deviant behaviour ranges from pedophilI.a to homosexuality, however in other cultures, pedophili.a, incest are SEEN as normal and acceptable, deviant behaviour goes from alcohol intake and sale, women performing masculine gender roles, tattoos, abortion, pacifism.

At the end of the day, you place culture/morality in its chameleon nature over the constitution and the modern idea of freedom.

Kay 17:
Your disagreement with gay rights rests on cultural perception. You are making use of languages such as "normal" "natural" "acceptable". Taboos is the exclusive language of culture and its overtly subjective. Deviant behaviour ranges from pedophilI.a to homosexuality, however in other cultures, pedophili.a, incest are SEEN as normal and acceptable, deviant behaviour goes from alcohol intake and sale, women performing masculine gender roles, tattoos, abortion, pacifism.

At the end of the day, you place culture/morality in its chameleon nature over the constitution and the modern idea of freedom.

Natural is an exclusive language of biology.

Normal is a language of ambiguity that can range from culture to biology.

I am sure there are several people/countries that regard polygamy, in[i]c[/i]est or adolescent-relationships as outside the "sophisticated", "cool", "funky" constitution and the modern idea of freedom.

Lesson: It is normal and healthy to use morality to devise laws. AND every country does it. So cut the BS of our ideology is more "sophisticated" and "modern" and "urban" and "progressive".

It is surprising how most of you come up with some pompous ideological rules to defend homosexuality, only to find out your own ideology breaks those rules.

Sagamite:

Natural is an exclusive language of biology.

Normal is a language of ambiguity that can range from culture to biology.

I am sure there are several people/countries that regard polygamy, in[i]c[/i]est or adolescent-relationships as outside the "sophisticated", "cool", "funky" constitution and the modern idea of freedom.

Lesson: It is normal and healthy to use morality to devise laws. AND every country does it. So cut the BS of our ideology is more "sophisticated" and "modern" and "urban" and "progressive".

It is surprising how most of you come up with some pompous ideological rules to defend homosexuality, only to find out your own ideology breaks those rules.

Transgender is an expression of identity, you might consider it unnatural, but a person has such freedom.

Like medical care and plastic surgery, both aren't natural, right?

Romans 1:18-32

King James Version (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

@topic,

Can someone please explain to me how marriage is a right - whether homosexual or heterosexual for that matter.

There is nothing like the right to marry!!!!!

@topic,

Rights are God-given. They are not conferred on people by individuals, groups or government. The marriage status is conferred by the government and therefore a privilege, not a right.

As the debate on the definition of marriage rages on, it is important to make this very important distinction. This debate has nothing to do with rights. It has everything to do with privileges!

Sagamite:

Shut up person!

Just when I thought the master person wouldn't reply "guilty conscience" couldn't help but prevail that he had to reply - just like I'd though he would. Master person


@Tayo-D, I don't know where you got the idea that rights are God given, and therefore the govt instituted rights are not but a privilege. I really don't know how you summed up your opinion. The U.S. Constitution is VERY CLEAR and made no mistake. Rights are not conferred upon, they are earned when has been achieved. Just like how most first son in major tribes have authority in the family in the absence of the father, OR access to family wealth or estate, the son does not attend any ceremony for the right to be conferred upon him, but, being the "FIRST SON" had earned him that right to authority. Again, just like the voting, every U.S. citizen has a right to vote. If you're not U.S. citizen, you cannot vote.

Same rule applies, every resident or U.S. citizen has a right to marry, the contention is that the DOMA act defines marriage between a man and woman, and the fed ONLY recognizes the rights under that act to heterosexual couples. When folks are about to become married, they go to clerks office and obtain a marriage license and go to court to make it legal.

They have earned that right to file taxes (lower taxes liability) together as a couples, hold estate together, have retirement and saving plans together, immigration (man/woman can file for their spouse), Family leave, et al. This is a right "GUARANTEED" under the Constitution NOT a privilege which ISN'T guaranteed. Their rights cannot be removed/revoked/refused else they will challenge it, but if it was a privilege, marriage or not, then it means it can be revoked at ANY time and can neither be challenged.

@manny4life,

The U.S. Constitution is VERY CLEAR and made no mistake. Rights are not conferred upon, they are earned when has been achieved.

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Below is taken from America's Declaration of Independence.
"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."

You have rights based on your creation not on the benevolence of a government.

Kay 17:

Transgender is an expression of identity, you might consider it unnatural, but a person has such freedom.

Like medical care and plastic surgery, both aren't natural, right?

And your point is?

manny4life:
Just when I thought the master person wouldn't reply "guilty conscience" couldn't help but prevail that he had to reply - just like I'd though he would. Master person


@Tayo-D, I don't know where you got the idea that rights are God given, and therefore the govt instituted rights are not but a privilege. I really don't know how you summed up your opinion. The U.S. Constitution is VERY CLEAR and made no mistake. Rights are not conferred upon, they are earned when has been achieved. Just like how most first son in major tribes have authority in the family in the absence of the father, OR access to family wealth or estate, the son does not attend any ceremony for the right to be conferred upon him, but, being the "FIRST SON" had earned him that right to authority. Again, just like the voting, every U.S. citizen has a right to vote. If you're not U.S. citizen, you cannot vote.

Same rule applies, every resident or U.S. citizen has a right to marry, the contention is that the DOMA act defines marriage between a man and woman, and the fed ONLY recognizes the rights under that act to heterosexual couples. When folks are about to become married, they go to clerks office and obtain a marriage license and go to court to make it legal.

They have earned that right to file taxes (lower taxes liability) together as a couples, hold estate together, have retirement and saving plans together, immigration (man/woman can file for their spouse), Family leave, et al. This is a right "GUARANTEED" under the Constitution NOT a privilege which ISN'T guaranteed. Their rights cannot be removed/revoked/refused else they will challenge it, but if it was a privilege, marriage or not, then it means it can be revoked at ANY time and can neither be challenged.

Shut up, person!

Or you want me to give you another assignment to make you look like an ediot?

Oya give examples to these, foool:

Sagamite: If something is natural and normal, you can't ban it and it shouldn't face morality rules. That is fundamental human rights.

If something is natural but abnormal, it is open to societal morality rules. Even though it is arguably human rights but might not be.

If something is unnatural but normal, it is open to societal morality rules. It is not human rights.

If something is unnatural and abnormal, it potentially should open the door to a psychiatrist's office. It is not human rights.

ramalot:

First off, that is not how you spell 'm0r0n' M0R0N!

Not once in all you rabid comments on this thread, have you made an argument that is not wholly centered on short-sightedness.
'normal' is a very relative term based on society etc.
For instance, you could sit in your little church premises and drink bottles of beer during events and occasions, and it is perfectly 'normal'.
On the other hand, attempting the exact same thing in the premise of a mosque in Kano or Saudi could leave your head hanging on a stick.

These differences in perception and actions are what make people 'different.' To him, you are a despicable waste of life. Reason? -you drink alcohol and eat pork.

If you cannot realize AND ACCEPT that the world is bigger than your individual definition and way of things, then you might as well kill yourself coz YOU CANNOT MAKE THE ENTIRE WORLD BELIEVE ALL THE SAME SH!T YOU BELIEVE, AND LIVE THE SAME WAY YOU LIVE. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

To this end, you either live and let live, or as i earlier suggested- KILL YOURSELF!

You are a person!

And since when did zero become part of the alphabets? Which school failed you, cretin?

You are a cretin!

So natural is also a relative term based on society?

Foool! You think when I tell you not to give me grasping at straws arguments, that was an insult?

It is an advice because I will use it to slaughter you!

Sagamite:

You are a person!

And since when did zero become part of the alphabets? Which school failed you, cretin?

You are a cretin!

So natural is also a relative term based on society?

Foool! You think when I tell you not to give me grasping at straws arguments, that was an insult?

It is an advice because I will use it to slaughter you!

Mr. brainless. It is obvious you are unintelligible by every standard.
As i have said before, i am not here to advocate the choices of anyone, nor am i attempting to alter your bigotry .
If anyone chooses to do what they do, and this action IN NO WAY harms any party involved directly or indirectly. Then good for them.
We all think and live differently as evidenced by such arguments. SO again, if you absolutely cannot live with that.. it's on you

Sagamite: If something is natural and normal, you can't ban it and it shouldn't face morality rules. That is fundamental human rights.

If something is natural but abnormal, it is open to societal morality rules. Even though it is arguably human rights but might not be.

If something is unnatural but normal, it is open to societal morality rules. It is not human rights.

If something is unnatural and abnormal, it potentially should open the door to a psychiatrist's office. It is not human rights.

Morality rules are useful tools societies employ to make their society sane.

It is not rocket science, just simply making sense.

Mr Sagamuu.

What is normal and natural still remains a function of the society you live in

Giving birth to twins was considered an abnormal and unnatural occurence not too long ago.

marrying your family memeber is considered normal in some cultures and family. Even in the bible people married their own close family.

Tayo-D:
@manny4life,

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Below is taken from America's Declaration of Independence.
"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."

You have rights based on your creation not on the benevolence of a government.

Its rhetoric which expresses that fundamental rights accrue by just being human. That its an inherent property of man.

Kay 17: Its rhetoric which expresses that fundamental rights accrue by just being human. That its an inherent property of man.

So why not extrapolate and apply that to the discussion, or better still apply it to Manny4life's outrageous assertion that rights are given to people by the State and not by their Creator.

Tayo-D:
So why not extrapolate and apply that to the discussion, or better still apply it to Manny4life's outrageous assertion that rights are given to people by the State and not by their Creator.

"God" could have meant Nature

Tayo-D:
@manny4life,

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Below is taken from America's Declaration of Independence.
"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."

You have rights based on your creation not on the benevolence of a government.

I guess that you are the one who doesn't or perhaps misunderstood what the quote said; it clearly said that they are endowed with "CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHT", certain being the key word and these are "human/natural rights". There are different types of rights, however, what we're talking about "right to marry", a legal right guaranteed by the Constitution, to preserve and protect. I'm glad you mentioned that part, but you never mentioned the "Bill of Rights" which are also unalienable YET created by human to preserve and protect, life and property. Or perhaps, you will try to convince me that the "Bill of Rights" is a privilege right?


No you have the basic right created by creator which is to live, and be free and die, but your rights have limits without other legal rights. After all, just because you have a right to live, pursue for happiness in the U.S. don't mean that you will come here without following the legal binding rights.

Tayo-D:
So why not extrapolate and apply that to the discussion, or better still apply it to Manny4life's outrageous assertion that rights are given to people by the State and not by their Creator.

My friend don't change your argument, what you clearly said was "GOD", though I believe GOD is GOD, creator of heaven and earth, but for the sake of the argument, creator doesn't necessary mean "GOD" it could mean anything or even an entity. So please, don't change your stance.

Kay 17:

"God" could have meant Nature

So? If you've read any of the Founder's writings, they clearly refer to God, nature's God or just nature. The point being that rights are endowed by a higher power and not by government. What governments can give are privileges. It's a privilege for the govt to bestow special status on some relationships such as marriage. For all you know, the government can choose to not issue any marriage certificates to both hete- and homo-sexuals and it won't be infringing on anybody's rights.

@manny4life,

I guess that you are the one who doesn't or perhaps misunderstood what the quote said; it clearly said that they are endowed with "CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHT", certain being the key word and these are "human/natural rights". There are different types of rights, however, what we're talking about "right to marry", a legal right guaranteed by the Constitution, to preserve and protect. I'm glad you mentioned that part, but you never mentioned the "Bill of Rights" which are also unalienable YET created by human to preserve and protect, life and property. Or perhaps, you will try to convince me that the "Bill of Rights" is a privilege right?

You keep getting yourself in a bind. There is nothing like a privilege right. Your right is something you have just by being a human being. What the government is constituted to do is to protect those rights and not grant them. That is why the constitution only gives the government enumerated powers. If anything at all, it is the people that limit the government and not the other way around. Just like driving, marriage is a privilege and it is given to you only if you meet certain criteria. Which is why we are not allowing 10 year olds to marry. If marriage was a right, then the government must be infringing on the rights of teens who are denied the privilege of that status because of the criteria the government wants. Are you getting the difference now?

No you have the basic right created by creator which is to live, and be free and die, but your rights have limits without other legal rights. After all, just because you have a right to live, pursue for happiness in the U.S. don't mean that you will come here without following the legal binding rights.

Your rights are only limited to the extent that you begin to infringe on the rights of another. Laws are made to ensure you do not infringe on the rights of others. What the law does is protect the God-given rights, not issue them.

Tayo-D:
@manny4life,

You keep getting yourself in a bind. There is nothing like a privilege right. Your right is something you have just by being a human being. What the government is constituted to do is to protect those rights and not grant them. That is why the constitution only gives the government enumerated powers. If anything at all, it is the people that limit the government and not the other way around. Just like driving, marriage is a privilege and it is given to you only if you meet certain criteria. Which is why we are not allowing 10 year olds to marry. If marriage was a right, then the government must be infringing on the rights of teens who are denied the privilege of that status because of the criteria the government wants. Are you getting the difference now?

Your rights are only limited to the extent that you begin to infringe on the rights of another. Laws are made to ensure you do not infringe on the rights of others. What the law does is protect the God-given rights, not issue them.

I meant to put a comma after the privilege and the "right" was supposed to denote a question. Now that's out of the way, you may want to rephrase the question. To be honest, you seem to be confusing yourself, you yourself clearly stated and excerpt from "The Declaration of Independence" "certain unalienable right" which are Life, Freedom and Pursuit for happiness".

You keep saying the government (yes all three tiers) is constituted to do is to preserve these right, YES, but Like seriously, I'm confused, isn't it the same Constitution that gave powers to the govt? Who drafted the Constitution that gave the govt the same enumerated powers to preserve and protect? GOD? Or the the govt just powers from heaven? Isn't it the same Constitution that was very CLEAR about the "Bill of Rights"? So what are you talking about? Yes, you have a right (natural/human) by being a human which is to live and be free and pursue happiness, no doubt the govt doesn't protect it, but there are Legal rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution. I have made this VERY CLEAR, I don't know how much further I can explain this

Mr. I just gave you the "Bill of Rights" which are unalienable and you're here telling me about driving and marriage? Oh btw, the right to marry (pursuit for happiness) is a right. Again, person(s) cannot limit the govt, but case precedents has shown that the govt has tried to limit people's rights. For instance, ask yourself, how was the "Miranda Right" was created?

Again, like I said, just like the right to procreate, the right to marry (fundamental right for pursuit of happiness)has no limitations, no one is denying you right to marry, however, there are age limitations in marriage. Going by your example, let me rephrase you; If marriage liberty was a right, then the government must be infringing on the rights of teens/adult who are denied the privilege of that status because of the criteria the government wants. Are you getting the difference now? In other words, just because you have a right to liberty, why are people in Jails?

You keep talking about God-given rights? Like seriously, stick to one - Creator or God. Not everyone believes in God. Your creator gave you rights, but yet you depend on that government whose enumerated powers depends on the Constitution to protect your rights? After all we all have right to liberty, freedom of movement, and pursuit for happiness, YET, why are people limited? Why do we have immigration? After all, immigrants living in the U.S. have those rights from their creator, YET, they have limited movement, they can't pursue happiness like others, they don't have the full liberty under the law, and you say they aren't limited?. After all, are we gonna argue that they infringe on others? Yet, the govt set limitations on freedom of movement - AZ immigration law that's currently pending @ SCOTUS.


BTW, I'm so done with this argument, it is what it is... Let's agree to disagree, you're welcome to believe what you will while I believe what I believe in... Cool?

@Manny4life,

I will try to untangle you from the jam you have put yourself. I think certain sentences betray your lack of understanding of this issue and I will address those directly.

YES, but Like seriously, I'm confused, isn't it the same Constitution that gave powers to the govt? Who drafted the Constitution that gave the govt the same enumerated powers to preserve and protect? GOD?

The citizens gave the govt the powers it has and can dissolve same govt at will. People (born with rights), precede the government which was instituted to protect those rights. Get that? The people already have rights before the govt was instituted. Governments don't give rights, they protect rights.

Mr. I just gave you the "Bill of Rights" which are unalienable and you're here telling me about driving and marriage?

The Bill of Rights was instituted as a consequence of a group of people infringing on the rights of another. Those people have rights prior to the govt stepping in. The govt only came in to protect their rights. There is a big difference.

Oh btw, the right to marry (pursuit for happiness) is a right.

Like I told you before, your rights end where mine begins. To claim that marriage is a right is to say that I will be infringing on your rights if I choose to not recognise your relationship. Taken a bit further, that means I must always approve of your relationships if I am to not infringe on your rights. Isn't that insane? Your pursuit of happiness must never infringe on my rights to pursue my happiness. The exercise of your rights infringes on my rights if I have to pay for it. This is what the gay community is asking for. They are saying that I have to subsidize their relationships in the pursuit of what they call their rights to marriage. Where is my right to not be burdened by you?

Again, person(s) cannot limit the govt, but case precedents has shown that the govt has tried to limit people's rights. For instance, ask yourself, how was the "Miranda Right" was created?

Of course Government, if left to itself will infringe on the rights of people. Why do you think we always call for limited govt? This is the wisdom behind enumerated powers - to check the tendency of the government to infringe on the rights it is meant to protect.

In other words, just because you have a right to liberty, why are people in Jails?

People are in jails because they infringe on the rights of others. If we are to go by your logic that marriage is a right, then everyone who does not recognise your marriage (homo or heterosexual), must be put in jail because they have infringed on your rights by not recognising your relationship. You do understand that what the advocates of gay marriage are asking for is to be recognised by the State. You have no right to demand that I give you a particular status.

Why do we have immigration? After all, immigrants living in the U.S. have those rights from their creator, YET, they have limited movement, they can't pursue happiness like others, they don't have the full liberty under the law, and you say they aren't limited?

Are you serious with this argument? People set up governments to protect their rights not that of other nations. Everybody may have God-given rights, but to protect those rights, people institute governments whose jurisdictions are limited to its borders. Again, enumerated!

Here you are talking about dissolving of govt whereas we're talking about rights? This shows you level of confusion Dude, no offense, but you are really confused. Who said govt gives right? If after all I've written, I've clearly stated, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and here you're saying the govt. I've clearly stated that human, natural, fundamental legal rights are guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution, YET you're still calling the govt gives rights. Is the govt (either of the tiers) the U.S. Constitution? Now I see how confused you are.

You keep saying the power to the people to create the govt aka "voting" (at east exec and legislative), question is, who gave the power to the people? Isn't it the same Constitution? Did the power to the people from from Heaven? How do the create/dissolve the govt without the voting process? I guess the fundamental right to a U.S. Citizen to vote is also a privilege. Who gave Congress enumerated powers (Constitutional rights) to make laws for the same people? Isn't it the Constitution? Well, I guess the Constitutional Rights to Congress is also a privilege.

Dude, I am so done with your arguments, it's blind. You spin in circles, thus, making no sense at all, as much as I love to continue to write epistles, unfortunately, it becomes boring when you have to say one thing like 5x, and most importantly, it doesn't benefit me. Perhaps, you can address your concern to U.S. Congress and tell them "The Bill of Rights" is indeed a privilege. ongress


Deuces...

Tayo-D:
@manny4life,

You keep getting yourself in a bind. There is nothing like a privilege right. Your right is something you have just by being a human being. What the government is constituted to do is to protect those rights and not grant them. That is why the constitution only gives the government enumerated powers. If anything at all, it is the people that limit the government and not the other way around. Just like driving, marriage is a privilege and it is given to you only if you meet certain criteria. Which is why we are not allowing 10 year olds to marry. If marriage was a right, then the government must be infringing on the rights of teens who are denied the privilege of that status because of the criteria the government wants. Are you getting the difference now?

Your rights are only limited to the extent that you begin to infringe on the rights of another. Laws are made to ensure you do not infringe on the rights of others. What the law does is protect the God-given rights, not issue them.

Marriage stems from the right to association and family life, consequently its a solemn agreement of matrimony between two persons. Its a human right and its an infringement on one's liberty if the State otherwise sets out to bar or restrict it.

State laws on marriage regularize and outline the processes, and also protects the rights of others; thus incest, pedophilia is prohibited. First the anticipated rights of a child in the marriage is a concern of the State, while pedophilia is to protect the person of the minor. Bestiality lacks the requisite consent.

The effect of the union is the reflection of the wishes of the married persons, such as that to be recognized as one.

The reluctance to accept/recognize gay marriages is cultural, not constitutional.

In ♍y view, I think d govt makes laws to "protect" citizens' fundamental human rights. A privilege is a special right/advantage that a particular person or group has. Technically, a special right to do or say things without being punished. By this, I do not subscribe to fundamental human right being a 'privilege'.

@topic: he may need to, personally, find out d impact of and the extent of Wilson Woodrow's "..'self determination'.." statement after WW I and how he, realizing his mistake, attempted to downplay his words.

If a particular behavior is perceived as a 'public nuisance' in any gathering of a people, such behaviors should not be supported. If more percent of america, priding herself as being as a multi-cultural society, disapproves of it, then its terrible of him to support it.


America has no way of life. Anything and everything is permissible. If more percentage of their population get hooked on drugs and clamor for legality, their government will oblige them.. for 'votes'.

^^
Iran is a better model??

What is "public nuisance"?

Iran also suffers from drug abuse, from your conclusion its a government policy!

Another politician in diguise. Or cld it be dat he's tired of his wife and needed another gender?

Jesus please come back quickly...

@manny4life,

I mentioned dissolving of govts in passing because in establishing the basis of the govt in the declaration of independence, the Founders clearly stated the supremacy of the people ahead of the govt. In other words, they wanted to make it clear that the govt.'s role is to serve the people and to protect their rights. The people gave the govt enumerated powers through the constitution. They have the power to take it away because they gave it. The people give the govt power not the other way around. By the way, you saying that the constitution gave power to the people is so dumb. The people came up with the constitution to limit what the govt can do to them. Even Obama acknowledges the fact that the constitution is full of what he calls "negative rights". It states what the govt may not do to the people and not declare what the govt has to do to/for them.

You want to sound intelligent but you just fall flat on your face. I wasn't referring to voting when I talked about people creating govt. There is a greater fundamental principle which is being alluded to. Go beyond the daily workings, and pay attention to the fundamental. That should straighten you up a bit.

I see your attempt to exit this debate based on a false inference. Where did I ever say that the bill of rights is a privilege? Please provide my quote here to back up your assertion if that is indeed true. It is clear you lack basic understanding of the terms that are being used, and I am not ready to school you on those. You will need to read some of the founders writings to understand this debate and deal with it using fundamental principles and not the daily workings.

LOL, @ I fell on my face, even later replies from others is supporting my view...

You keep saying the people, the people, I have asked you this, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE? HOW DO THE PEOPLE CREATE /DISSOLVE THE GOVT? Give me the process in this current day. HOW DO THEY STRIP THE GOVT OF IT'S POWERS? The Constitution was created "to, for and by" the people, so for you to say the Constitution gives power to the people is dumb, that really tells a lot.


Perhaps, you can enlighten me more, because I really want to hear this part... @ the questions I asked.

You know what, like I said, I'm so done with you.

If you want me to tutor you American History 101, perhaps you missed it during college, open another thread and we'll take it bit by bit. Meanwhile, address your concerns that the "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution is a privilege.

@Kay_17,

Marriage stems from the right to association and family life, consequently its a solemn agreement of matrimony between two persons. Its a human right and its an infringement on one's liberty if the State otherwise sets out to bar or restrict it.

You have a right to association. You do not have a right for others to recognize your association. That is the big difference here Kay. Gay couples are telling us that we have to recognize their relationships by all means. They have no right to require that of us or anybody. Like you I have the right to recognize some relationships where you do not. The govt also has the choice to recognize and not recognize some associations. For example, the govt recognizes the medical associations of Doctors and Nurses but not traditional herbalists. The herbalists have a right to their association, but they are not being discriminated against even though the govt does not give them the same recognition it gives to Doctors and Nurses. Get it?

State laws on marriage regularize and outline the processes, and also protects the rights of others; thus Inbreeding, pedophilia is prohibited. First the anticipated rights of a child in the marriage is a concern of the State, while pedophilia is to protect the person of the minor. Bestiality lacks the requisite consent.

In other words, you agree that this is a privilege because govts are not established to regularize rights but protect them. Marriage lives are regularized just as Drivers licenses. The State in its own wisdom establishes parameters to issue marriage and driver's licenses. It does to with a view to protecting the public and the State.

The effect of the union is the reflection of the wishes of the married persons, such as that to be recognized as one.

Their union is a reflection of their wishes. Asking the State to recognize it is bringing a third party into the equation. What about the wishes of the third party? In this case, the actions of the third party affect all of us because we all fund that third party. Now I will have no problem if the gay couples or even heterosexuals invite their families only as the third party to recognize their union. We do so in Naija as traditional marriages. That is their prerogative and I will not object to it. But asking that the govt recognize it is a different mater altogether.

The reluctance to accept/recognize gay marriages is cultural, not constitutional.

I agree. This is why I can't understand the insistence that the State issue them licenses! They are coming together because they feel their union is good for their own emotional well-being. To bring the State into it, they have to prove that the relationship is good for the State as well. I think they will find it hard to do that because the relationship represents a biological deadened as someone rightly pointed out. Why should the State subsidize a relationship that if practiced widely will lead to the demise of the State?

ramalot:

Mr. brainless. It is obvious you are unintelligible by every standard.
As i have said before, i am not here to advocate the choices of anyone, nor am i attempting to alter your bigotry .
If anyone chooses to do what they do, and this action IN NO WAY harms any party involved directly or indirectly. Then good for them.
We all think and live differently as evidenced by such arguments. SO again, if you absolutely cannot live with that -KILL YOURSELF SIR!

You are a cretin!

I asked you was zero taught to you as part of the alphabets in your feyingbole school?

Cretin!

dayokanu:

Mr Sagamuu.

What is normal and natural still remains a function of the society you live in

Giving birth to twins was considered an abnormal and unnatural occurence not too long ago.

marrying your family memeber is considered normal in some cultures and family. Even in the bible people married their own close family.

Stewpidity is not justification for defining natural.

If anyone said giving birth to twins is unnatural, then the person is stewpid.

That said, I don't think there was a time anyone said twins were unnatural. They just saw it as a bad omen.

I don't know why you are telling me about in[i]c[/i]est.


To ALL,

It seems some of you are just looking at any thing to scrape at to keep arguing.

When I give an argument, if anybody wants me to debate with them, I expect them to consume the logic.

CONSUME IT! Don't read it and vomit "I no go carry last" arguments. Think about the LOGIC! Consume it. That is, let it go through your head, don't sit your arse down and be thinking "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost". DON'T WASTE MY TIME!

If you can find faults in my arguments/points, highlight the faults and explain where I am wrong by clearly pointing out where the logical rules is broken.

If you can't. ACCEPT IT and don't come up with lame rigmaroles to waste my time!

I am assuming people understand the meaning of natural (moreso because I have already explained it severally). Please, all of you stop wasting my time and coming up with ridiculous conception of "natural". People igonrant of what is natural does not stop what is natural being natural, and what is not being unnatural.

This is what I said.

Sagamite: If something is natural and normal, you can't ban it and it shouldn't face morality rules. That is fundamental human rights.

If something is natural but abnormal, it is open to societal morality rules. Even though it is arguably human rights but might not be.

If something is unnatural but normal, it is open to societal morality rules. It is not human rights.

If something is unnatural and abnormal, it potentially should open the door to a psychiatrist's office. It is not human rights.

Morality rules are useful tools societies employ to make their society sane.

It is not rocket science, just simply making sense.

As a matter of fact, I really want to hear this part because it's really intriguing. I want to know how you're gonna flip it again. I really want to know the answers to the questions I asked you earlier. You're asking where did you say the "Bill of Rights" was a privilege? Look into your past quotes, you said the ONLY RIGHTS was that of the creator which the founding fathers acknowledged through the Declaration of Independence... Like duh? Isn't that what you said? You said that they are not rights BUT privileges. Look into your past quotes, perhaps when you say something, you forget so quickly that you ever said it.