Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _Kishkumen »

Well, leave it to the online purveyors of conservative religious pornography, Meridian, to walk right off of the map:

http://ldsmag.com/justice-roberts-just-who-do-we-think-we-are/

Maurine Proctor wrote:If the people vote on an issue, they can talk and lobby and convince each other and vote again another day if sentiments change. Once the Supreme Court has arrogantly defined something as a new Constitutional right, the debate is closed and out of our hands.


Let's see how Maurine's logic works.

I am concerned about the problem of the world's rapidly growing human population. Clearly, we must do something to stem the tide of human proliferation and destruction of the planet. So, I want to put on the table the question of a heterosexual's alleged "right" to marry.

Since, as conservatives have repeatedly observed, marriage is for the purpose of creating and raising children, then allowing heterosexual marriage with all of the same perks as other marriages is essentially a ticking time bomb. How can people of sense and good conscience stand idly by while heterosexuals have children, fail to take proper care of them, and thus destroy the planet?

As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out, we can't leave the interpretation of the Constitution up to the Supreme Court. We need to submit all of its rights, freedoms, and powers to regular referenda in our democratic society. Therefore, I propose, for everyone's sake and the future of the planet, that we collectively consider and then vote on limiting the right of heterosexual people to marry. If we can stop the flagrant misuse of marriage by reckless heterosexuals who have all but completely destroyed this sacred institution through their selfishness and disregard for others, then we may be able to save the planet.

Now, personally, I am not for outlawing heterosexual marriage. I am not a nutcase. But I think it is fair to ask whether we should perhaps make heterosexuals take special classes, pass exams, pay certain fees, and so forth, before they are issued marriage licenses. After all, we issue driving and hunting licenses, no? Some might say that they have a right to drive or a right to hunt bears, and maybe they do--to an extent, but we do not let them do so will-nilly. The potential consequences would be disastrous. People would be killed. Bears would be hunted to extinction. Yet, here we are, allowing heterosexuals to propagate their way to our collective oblivion, and we don't do anything to control this destructive force.

The right to life is a very fundamental right indeed, and heterosexual marriage is threatening that right every day. Sadly, conservatives utterly oppose having any kind of public discussion or vote on the right of heterosexuals to marry. We need to make our voices heard regarding the reckless lunacy of these irresponsible people and fight to place the right of heterosexuals to marry on the ballot in all 50 states.

All of the above is satire.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_The Erotic Apologist
_Emeritus
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:07 pm

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _The Erotic Apologist »

Should heterosexuals have the right to marry? Well, yes and no--ugly heterosexuals should definitely not have the right to marry.
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _Kishkumen »

The Erotic Apologist wrote:Should heterosexuals have the right to marry? Well, yes and no--ugly heterosexuals should definitely not have the right to marry.


And this is something Maurine would have us all vote on.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _EAllusion »

The Constitution of the United States and its amendments were voted on.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _Kishkumen »

EAllusion wrote:The Constitution of the United States and its amendments were voted on.


Duh.

Kishkumen wrote:We need to submit all of its rights, freedoms, and powers to regular referenda in our democratic society.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _LittleNipper »

Homosexuals have always had the personal right to link themselves to whomever they so choose by whatever means they themselves concocted. Unfortunately, they wanted in on marriage of the sort that general society once established for itself. In the United States, this tended to follow the biblical model.

A homosexual has the right to establish a company and hire whomever, promoting whatever, and accepting however. This some right was once the framework upon which this country prided itself. It was once obvious that God exulted what was good and suppressed that which was evil.

However, we now at an age that demands everyone gets equal acceptance, no matter how spoiled certain behavior patterns are proven to be. In fact, citizens who would just rather be left alone are now being obligated to support, accept and assist those outside the "fold," as it were, who want to be apart without having to abide by the rules and regulations established by social standards inside those various traditional communities.

The government has since about 1945 taken control of education to one degree or another ----- even in private institutions. This is the problem. If I happen to hire a homosexual, unknowingly, I am now obligated to extend healthcare (if I provide any) to anyone such an individual claims to be "married" to. I am now being obligated to provide various services that may force me to assist in homosexual celebrations which I may find questionable.

No one is saying that a company cannot provide whatever form of benefits it so desires to whoever that company chooses. However, this also means that individuals and their privately owned companies should have the freedom to associate or disassociate with whomever they chose for whatever reason. Chick- Fil-a is under no mandate to be open on Sundays. It doesn't presently matter to them that they might be considered insulting to Jews on Saturday or to people traveling on the "LORD's Day." There are other places to go.

This is what I find as wrong presently with the way our government is working. If Blacks didn't wish to sit in the back of the bus, they stopped riding the bus. The bus company found that it needed its black ridership to survive. The bus company really had no reason to not allow passengers to sit on a first-come first-serve basis.

Traditional marriage has survived thousands of years without committing to those who may not even believe in God. So, why is the government now becoming manipulative in favor of those who now demand what they themselves choose to be. Most homosexuals, if questioned will admit to being bi-sexual. That means that choice of partnership is not entirely psychological but social.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _moksha »

Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador have introduced important legislation called the First Amendment Defense Act that would prevent any agency from denying a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license, or certification to an individual or institution for acting on their religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.


This would cover the Church's butt in terms of hiring and firing supporters of same sex marriage and exclude over the limit lobbying expenses from IRS scrutiny. Still, when it comes to set in stone legislation that would prohibit the Church from once again practicing polygamy once it is declared legal... well Sen. Mike Lee could simple sponsor "do overs" legislation.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_hobo1512
_Emeritus
Posts: 888
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _hobo1512 »

The Erotic Apologist wrote:Should heterosexuals have the right to marry? Well, yes and no--ugly heterosexuals should definitely not have the right to marry.

Personally, I would rather the ugly ones marry and breed as opposed to the stupid ones.

Just sayin.....
_Nomomo
_Emeritus
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:42 am

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _Nomomo »

The Proctors are seriously deluded sick people.
The Universe is stranger than we can imagine.
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Should Heterosexuals Have the Right to Marry?

Post by _huckelberry »

LittleNipper wrote:.. However, this also means that individuals and their privately owned companies should have the freedom to associate or disassociate with whomever they chose for whatever reason.

.. If Blacks didn't wish to sit in the back of the bus, they stopped riding the bus. The bus company found that it needed its black ridership to survive. The bus company really had no reason to not allow passengers to sit on a first-come first-serve basis.



One could wonder why civil rights were a struggle. Blacks should have used only freemarket influence instead of legal recourse. One could imagine that if only Blacks had learned to ask politely than slavery would have been closed down without the nasty federal government getting involved in our rights to property and fee association. Once the federal government started deciding what is and what is not owned by people it was only a matter of time before they started deciding other issues like who was actually married.

Then having the federal government stir up trouble on southern university campuses, a shame. If only the government learned christian respect for rights of property, rights of free association, and respect for Christian privileges.

Can you imagine a Christian having to deliver flowers to a marriage ceremony that the Christian did not approve of? The indignity! The loss of respect.

Almost as painful as having to sit at a lunch counter with individuals of color.
Post Reply