[Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy] What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defence

My point was actually introduced to me by an AP Gov/Pol teacher who went to the University of Washington (a heavily liberal school).

 

That's weird, given that it's been a major issue going back about 20 years, which is why DOMA was passed in the first place.

 

Nothing. Just as is the case now.

Nothing. Same as it's always been, which is why we constantly amend the Constitution when we decide things like slavery or only men voting are no longer "current". Were you you're horrified that the Constitution was dismantled to make these changes?

 

I meant before the 60's, my bad. Should've specified..

 

Do you know why incest is illegal? Perhaps if you understood the why you wouldn't have an irrational need to present it as a slippery slope.

 

No you didn't. You specifically stated that liberals made it an issue because of the crappy economy:

Liberals have made this an issue to drift away from the topic of the economy. Due to Obama's poor record as a President, they had to spew hate speech to win an election.

You were talking about 2008 and after. But yes, you're right - it wasn't an issue *50 years ago*. Not sure why that's relevant - lots of things weren't an issue 50 years ago.

 

Different situation buddy. Slavery, Civil Rights movement, are not the same as gay marriage. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/

 

DOMA is not part of the Constitution. In fact, whether it is a permissible statute under the Constitution is presently before the Supreme Court.

 

People used similar arguments to oppress interracial marriage many years ago. Gay marriage is divides society into two groups - those who are humanistic and see only true equality is fair and represents the best of humanity. And those who are living in the past and holding on to their prejudice and hatred of what is different. History has run this course many times.

The day will come that people will look back at those who opposed gay marriage as nothing more than bigots.

 

Of course not - they were much bigger and broader changes to the fabric of society. If you're concerned that gay marriage will lead to the dismantling of the Constitution, you should be incensed about the much bigger and more radical changes we've already made. The Constitution was completely dismantled when we took away the ability of people to own other people and doubled the voting population, right?

 

I hardly think an issue of giving people their equal rights was created solely in order to distract from the economy.

 

The classic 'bigot' argument. I have had enough of it. What about the bigotry from the left? I have been told by my liberal peers that my God does not exist. THAT IS BIGOTRY! You think right wingers are bad to gays by just disagreeing with their lifestyle? Go look in the middle east! THEY KILL PEOPLE FOR BEING GAY! You are an ignorant liberal who only listens to what the media tells you! Do your own research and stop watching MSNBC!!

 

You're a little bit all over the place here. Saying God does not exist isn't bigotry. It's a different belief. Saying you aren't allowed to worship God might be a form of discrimination. Liberals, however, don't do that. Any place that kills people for being gay is doing something terrible. It's a human rights violation, that I think all liberals would recognize.

Liberals believe that Right wingers are free to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. However liberals believe that just because Right wingers disagree with it there shouldn't be laws that keep the people right wingers disagree with from enjoying the same rights the people who right wingers do disagree with.

Just so you know it isn't just disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle that bothers liberals. That's probably the least of it. It probably is when other Americans beat, murder, and bully people because of their homosexual lifestyle that is highest on the list.

Wanting to deny one group citizens the rights others have based on who they are and nothing more, is bigotry. I'm sorry if calling out that bigotry bothers you. I love calling out that bigotry and hope that it continues to have a big spot light shone on it, so that we can weed it out as much as possible from our society. Bigotry like that doesn't fit in.

 

You're serious? One group tries to deny another group rights based on their sexuality and that's not bigotry but claiming that gods don't exist is bigotry? You should quit while you're way behind.

 

I wasn't being serious

 

I'm thinking you missed the class where he introduced something called "the rhetorical question."

If the Supreme Court allows gay marriage, there won't be any change to the Constitution. Rather, the Court will be reviewing the rules and amendments within the Constitution and determining whether allowing or forbidding gay marriage is permissible within said rules and amendments. Because there is no specific section dealing with marriage, the courts instead have to look at the other parts and see if the rights and values that they enumerate support or discourage gay marriage.

This is a very standard example of judicial review, and has been going on for 2 centuries. If your professor is truly worried about the implications of judicial review, then he's way behind the ball here.

 

lol

Is this dude serious?

 

Let's just hope no one takes him seriously. That's when really bad things start happening.

 

That's because you're probably a rational human being that isn't consumed with hatred and/or stupid religious views.