So you are saying a marriage license is strictly a license to engage in heterosexual missionary position sex. I did not know that.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

[quote=kinetic;834155]



However, there isn't any biological reason to promote behavior like sodomy with a license. None.

QUOTE] Something that apparently you and many other people either don't know, or just conveniently ignore, it that Sodomy (anal Sex) even occures in Hetro-sexual relationships (especially of note is that period of time when a woman is in the latter stages of pregnancy.) But happens with many Hetro couples. (So I guess it is licensed. HUH???)

Further, All Gay relationships do not include Sodomy (at least with the old style definition of sodomy.) Some are limited to oral Sex, or (so-called) dry sex, or simply fondling.

Sorry, I got pulled into a meeting about 20% through a train of thought and posted before I intended to.

The point I was driving towards is that if the 14th Amendment were as sweeping, and was "substantive" rather than procedural with regard to "due process", and in the application of, rather than the substance of laws (with regard to "equal protection"), then it would have made the subsequent amendments 15th and 19th Amendments utterly and completely unneccesary. Therefore, the it is pretty clear that the 14th Amendment was not understood to have that more expansive meaning that modern courts have manufactured.

What reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendement is there that would have it mean that there is a right to marriage, but not a right to vote?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

You are putting words in my mouth. What I said was the government doesn't have an obligation or reason to license any non one-woman one-man couples or groups for anything. When you change my words to mean something else entirely, you are being dishonest.

When you reply please let me know what grounds would you use to deny family members from a license, three men from a license or five women from a license. Thank you.

__________________
United We Stand.

However, intercourse can ONLY occur with one-woman and one-man. Behavior, such as sodomy, has been grounds for divorce.Again, I have to repeat my claim because it is being missed over and over, math, biology, history and science and the biological design of the human species reproductive system supports ONLY one-woman one-man marriages.

Further, on what grounds would you deny four men from a license? Six women? Any number of individuals?

__________________
United We Stand.

kinetic;834555]However, intercourse can ONLY occur with one-woman and one-man.
RESPONSE That is plain flat utter garbage. Where do you get the Idea that idea, now if you mean Vaginal/Penil intercourse, It is still not quite right because artificial devises can be used, thus it is still intercourse.


Again, I have to repeat my claim because it is being missed over and over, math, biology, history and science and the biological design of the human species reproductive system supports ONLY one-woman one-man marriages.
RESPONSE The only way it might have been "MISSED" is that AT NO TIME Have you explained how those issues have IN ANY WAY specifically supports ANY form of marriage. it is an irrelevant strawman. If I am wrong about that, kindly explain HOW any of them are valid.


Further, on what grounds would you deny four men from a license? Six women? Any number of individuals?[/quote]
RESPONSENone, as long as One of the persons is designated as the primary spouse of each of the parties.

I see what you're driving at, I think. I think the 15th and 19th amendments were necessary because Congress (and by extension, the people) felt that "it's always been this way" was no longer enough justification to keep denying people of any race or sex to vote. It kept happening all over the country. They felt it was necessary to place it in the constitution because that would have a stronger effect than just a court ruling.

Chief Justice Earl Warren thought that the 14th amendment gave everyone the right to marry:

But if the Congress didn't need a court ruling to put anything pertaining to the 14th Amendment in place, it could have created laws enforcing its provisions:

So why go through the tremendously difficult process of passing and ratifying a Constitutional Amendment to say something if a previous amendment already said it, rather than just acting legislatively pursuant to the prior amendment.

The reason is because the 14th Amendment DID NOT grant "substantive due process" or substantive "equal protection" in the way modern courts (starting MOST notoriously with the Warren Court. It didn't grant a right to vote to either blacks or women. If it didn't do something then, it doesn't now absent another amendment.

Laws should be interpreted and applied as they were reasonably understood at the time they were written/ratified, and cannot have hidden meanings. Can you honestly say that you believe that at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, that anyone understood it to extend a right to same-sex marriage? Please, it never would have been ratified.

That is why this is a matter for the people to resolve, through their elected representatives. Just as they did with giving blacks the right to vote (and notice how the 15th Amendment was never understood to give black WOMEN a right to vote) and sufferage.

As for the Loving decision, I would submit that it WAS (with regards to the rational) a tremendous overreach and misinterpreation by the Supreme Court, but that the outcome was correct. I say this because it should have been settled in the Platiff's favor based on the "full faith and credit clause", where the marriage LEGALLY performed in another state is required to be recognized in another state unless Congress has specifically made provisions otherwise (as is the case with gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act).

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

You understood perfectly well what I meant.

Only one-woman one-man couples can procreate naturally. No other combination of individuals are able to.Math, biology, history and science are all valid. Without the biological design of the human species reproductive system you wouldn't be here at all. Only one-woman one-man couples are supported by the evidence of math, biology, history and science.Exactly as I suspected. You have no reason to deny anyone, four me, six women, a brother and sister, four brothers, an aunt and niece or any number of individuals family members or otherwise a marriage license because you have no rules to guide you.

You have ruled out science, history math, biology and morality so all you have Left is Anarchy, Confusion, Disorder and Chaos.

There are no rules, folks. Anything goes! It would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous.

__________________
United We Stand.

Have you yet realized that trying to explain sanity to the insane will NEVER EVER work ?

I admire your persistence and effort though

[
kinetic;834636]You understood perfectly well what I meant.
RESPONSE How is it that a person can totally disagree with you and you say they know what you mean, or that we agree, (as you have done) or some other such. I am disagreeing with you in that your comment was everyrthing less than accurate.

Only one-woman one-man couples can procreate naturally. No other combination of individuals are able to
RESPONSE OH, so now you add the word NATURALLY. That changes everything.

Math, biology, history and science are all valid. Without the biological design of the human species reproductive system you wouldn't be here at all. Only one-woman one-man couples are supported by the evidence of math, biology, history and science.
RESPONSE So you have said many times, but not once have you explained HOW any of them are involved in marriage. If anything it would be the otherway arround.


Exactly as I suspected. You have no reason to deny anyone, four me, six women, a brother and sister, four brothers, an aunt and niece or any number of individuals family members or otherwise a marriage license because you have no rules to guide you.
RESPONSE That is correct, and neither do you. your trumped up Idea that science, history, math or biology have anything to do with it is hilarious. and those so-called rules are no guide to anything except your delusions. However, You have now added "morality" to the mix, and that is the only thing you have mentioned heretofor that is even relevant.

You have ruled out science, history math, biology and morality so all you have Left is Anarchy, Confusion, Disorder and Chaos.
RESPONSEConfusion, Disorder and Chaos. Are involved in most everything, but do you realize that your insistance on dictating the inclusion of history, math, biology, history and morality into marriage is in it'self a form of Anarchy??

Since you want to talk about science then use science to prove how procreation is a positive. From what I can tell humans are pretty good at fucking everything up.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Laws should be interpreted as they stand. The first amendment confers the right to free speech, that the founding fathers never considered that one day we'd have the internet doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to the internet.

When passing a law which protects people from removing equal protection of the laws to any citizen, it is not necessary for them to conceive and enumerate every single possible violation. To do so, would be undoing as they would be unable to enumerate every possibility.

I am aware that homosexual conduct takes place with individuals who have a pyschological conflict. Patience is helful when being asked the same questions over and over.Thanks. Those who oppose marriage laws and are willing to destroy American culture should be confronted with the facts. We have an oblgation to pass along the knowledge regardless if it is understood or not.

__________________
United We Stand.

Actually, without science, history math, biology and morality so all you have Left is Anarchy, Confusion, Disorder and Chaos.

If you eliminate the biological design of the human species from the marriage debate, and have no morals, there isn't anything to use as a guide. Grotesque behavior is a result when math, religion, science, history, biology and morality have been rejected.

One who engages in immoral behavior does so by avioiding rational and reasonable explanations like science, for example.

__________________
United We Stand.