[Kolzilla41]

Please show me where marriage is a right?

[ATrain]

Please show me where marriage is a right?

It's not written in the Constiution of the United States, but the right to marry tends to be universally recognized as a basic human right.

[LUconn]

As I'm sure you've heard many times before, you HAVE the right to get married.

[back2back]

alum82, you are incorrect....WIC makes a valid point

[jbock13]

As I'm sure you've heard many times before, you HAVE the right to get married.

Not true. ATrain is correct.

[back2back]

Loving v Virginia (Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right)

Zablocki v Redhail (Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that marriage is a fundamental right)

Turner v Safley (Missouri even decided that prisoners have the right to marriage)

Yes, marriage it is a right.

[LUconn]

Please elaborate. And keep in mind Im not debating what rights are. I simply mean atrain has the same "right" to marry that I do.

[ATrain]

I have the same right to marry any consenting unmarried female age 18 or over for any reason we choose (a joke, money, power, fame, whatever) and THEN divorce for any reason and repeat...however, I do not have the same right to get married to someone I would desire to commit the rest of my life to.

[jbock13]

Alum82, your comments may have some credibility if you

1. Blindly repeat and accept anything that supports LU
2. Stop with the liberal conspiracy nonsense

Believe it or not, you don't have to be a liberal to disagree with some things LU does.

Let me just say that I like Liberty. I'm not a hater by any means. There's just some questions that need answering. That's all. Nothing will ever be perfect.

[LUconn]

I have the same right to marry any consenting unmarried female age 18 or over for any reason we choose (a joke, money, power, fame, whatever) and THEN divorce for any reason and repeat...however, I do not have the same right to get married to someone I would desire to commit the rest of my life to.

Correct. You can probably find a similar juxtaposition with any right (lets stop arguing the semantics of what a right is in this conversation. We all know what we mean). There's limitations to all of them. And on top of that you can get into whether or not this is something the state should be sanctioning at all, and if so, why they would be encouraging this type of thing. And I think you can see where that would be headed.

[LUconn]

LUConn, I'm not embarrassed by this, but I do disagree. And it makes us look pretty ridiculous. My fiancé, a Christian Conservative, is a 3L at a pretty respected law school and she almost spit her drink out laughing about this. It's a joke. So, just as it is patriotic to voice dissent against out government when it is wrong, it is my love for my Alma mater that causes me to speak out when I believe our school is in the wrong on something.

How could you not be embarrassed to hold an LU degree in light of that entire post? I'm not in law school but then again, neither is Staver. What is it that you guys find so funny? Is the the objective grading of a subjective question? Is it the instruction of civil disobedience in a case of clashing morality?

[ATrain]

I have the same right to marry any consenting unmarried female age 18 or over for any reason we choose (a joke, money, power, fame, whatever) and THEN divorce for any reason and repeat...however, I do not have the same right to get married to someone I would desire to commit the rest of my life to.

Correct. You can probably find a similar juxtaposition with any right (lets stop arguing the semantics of what a right is in this conversation. We all know what we mean). There's limitations to all of them. And on top of that you can get into whether or not this is something the state should be sanctioning at all, and if so, why they would be encouraging this type of thing. And I think you can see where that would be headed.

And I think you learned in GNED that that is a slippery slope argument which would send this thread wildly off-topic, which is the tradition on this board.

[back2back]

the real questions are

why do homosexuals have such a hard time with state's prohibiting same-sex marriage?

And

Why do heterosexuals have such a problem with people of the same-sex getting married?

[jbock13]

There are many legal problems with gay marriage. Promsicuity (sorry for the misspell) is rampant. Also, states recoginize hetro marriage for the benefits the state will receive from procreation.

I look at it this way. Every state should have to right to decide by popular vote or legislator votes. Some states will accept gay marriage, some won't.

Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Do I believe they should serve in the church? No. But we as christians should not legislate our morality on otheres, especially because we too are sinners.

[back2back]

Promiscuity is not just a problem in the gay community, it is a problem period.....

Also, that is not a legal problem. You are correct with states deciding what is recognized as marriage, and several of those laws have been held unconstitutional.

Luckily, the legislature is the best way to preserve a state's definition of marriage and represents the will of the people.

[ATrain]

WARNING:

If the will of the people were to be preserved, then we'd still have segregated schools in the South.

If we want to make the procreation argument, then why shouldn't the state include a mandate that every heterosexual marriage produce a child within 5 years or else its considered null and void?

[thepostman]

I am fine with the legalizing of gay marriage...I doubt I would vote for it, but if it happens, it happens...but comparing homsexuality with race is not something I am willing to do. Call me intolerant if you will, its just the way I feel..

[Cider Jim]

If the will of the people were to be preserved, then we'd still have segregated schools in the South.

Spoken by a guy who probably knows a little about the educational history of Farmville, VA in the 1960s.

[jbock13]

If the will of the people were to be preserved, then we'd still have segregated schools in the South.

Spoken by a guy who probably knows a little about the educational history of Farmville, VA in the 1960s.

Agree. That comment that in the present day, the southern schools in the South would still be segregated is about the most ignorant comment I've heard in a long time.

[alum82]

Just some quick clarifications: BYD, I didn't call you a liar. I said you used a ploy. I don't doubt that FF members asked you to comment on this or that because they didn't have the guts to do it. But, that doesn't mean that LU would have retaliated against them or that they thought LU would. Some people are just wusses but, when you say that FF members PMed you to post this or that, you are implying that there was some evil force lurking in the background that would have annihilated the poor folks who were scared to comment. That is the ploy. Another point: Law firms don't check with law schools when they make a hire. They look at grades. Somebody here said the former law students who wouldn't use their names were afraid of not getting good employment references from Staver. Also, some of you guys need to be a little more skeptical of LU critics like Posner when they write scandalous pieces like the one mentioned above. Doesn't it make you a little suspicious that he didn't get Staver's side of all the silly accusations. Seriously, do you really believe that students would get a poorer grade at LU if they didn't agree with the teacher about civil disobedience? And do you really believe that these "anonymous" students who were quoted would know what grades all the other students got. If these wuss former students who were too cowardly to use their names were afraid to disagree with their teachers because they feared a bad grade, then that is their problem. I doubt if they will go far in life if they continue such cowardly practices throughout their careers. With friends like some of you who fall for this Posner-type journalism, LU doesn't need any enemies.

[back2back]

alum82, so at a Christian University, it is okay to lie on exam about your personal beliefs in order to obtain good grades? Yeah, Christ loves that...

Why can't you take BYD at his word? I see you choose not to take him at his word, so you are calling him a liar. but I want to know why?

[jbock13]

Just some quick clarifications: BYD, I didn't call you a liar. I said you used a ploy. I don't doubt that FF members asked you to comment on this or that because they didn't have the guts to do it. But, that doesn't mean that LU would have retaliated against them or that they thought LU would. Some people are just wusses but, when you say that FF members PMed you to post this or that, you are implying that there was some evil force lurking in the background that would have annihilated the poor folks who were scared to comment. That is the ploy. Another point: Law firms don't check with law schools when they make a hire. They look at grades. Somebody here said the former law students who wouldn't use their names were afraid of not getting good employment references from Staver. Also, some of you guys need to be a little more skeptical of LU critics like Posner when they write scandalous pieces like the one mentioned above. Doesn't it make you a little suspicious that he didn't get Staver's side of all the silly accusations. Seriously, do you really believe that students would get a poorer grade at LU if they didn't agree with the teacher about civil disobedience? And do you really believe that these "anonymous" students who were quoted would know what grades all the other students got. If these wuss former students who were too cowardly to use their names were afraid to disagree with their teachers because they feared a bad grade, then that is their problem. I doubt if they will go far in life if they continue such cowardly practices throughout their careers. With friends like some of you who fall for this Posner-type journalism, LU doesn't need any enemies.

There's so many qualifiers in your argument, I don't even know where to begin

Just accept that some people disagree with you, just like some disagree with BYD, and move on. You don't have to be a 100% straight homer for everything LU does to still love our school.

[Kolzilla41]

Just some quick clarifications: BYD, I didn't call you a liar. I said you used a ploy. I don't doubt that FF members asked you to comment on this or that because they didn't have the guts to do it. But, that doesn't mean that LU would have retaliated against them or that they thought LU would. Some people are just wusses but, when you say that FF members PMed you to post this or that, you are implying that there was some evil force lurking in the background that would have annihilated the poor folks who were scared to comment. That is the ploy. Another point: Law firms don't check with law schools when they make a hire. They look at grades. Somebody here said the former law students who wouldn't use their names were afraid of not getting good employment references from Staver. Also, some of you guys need to be a little more skeptical of LU critics like Posner when they write scandalous pieces like the one mentioned above. Doesn't it make you a little suspicious that he didn't get Staver's side of all the silly accusations. Seriously, do you really believe that students would get a poorer grade at LU if they didn't agree with the teacher about civil disobedience? And do you really believe that these "anonymous" students who were quoted would know what grades all the other students got. If these wuss former students who were too cowardly to use their names were afraid to disagree with their teachers because they feared a bad grade, then that is their problem. I doubt if they will go far in life if they continue such cowardly practices throughout their careers. With friends like some of you who fall for this Posner-type journalism, LU doesn't need any enemies.

Are you able to guarantee this doesn't happen? I would choose the wording a little better before assumptions are made that this type of thing can't happen.

[alum82]

alum82, so at a Christian University, it is okay to lie on exam about your personal beliefs in order to obtain good grades? Yeah, Christ loves that...

Why can't you take BYD at his word? I see you choose not to take him at his word, so you are calling him a liar. but I want to know why?

Say what? I didn't say it was ok to lie on exams. I said the students who did that were wusses. What planet do you live on?

[alum82]

Just some quick clarifications: BYD, I didn't call you a liar. I said you used a ploy. I don't doubt that FF members asked you to comment on this or that because they didn't have the guts to do it. But, that doesn't mean that LU would have retaliated against them or that they thought LU would. Some people are just wusses but, when you say that FF members PMed you to post this or that, you are implying that there was some evil force lurking in the background that would have annihilated the poor folks who were scared to comment. That is the ploy. Another point: Law firms don't check with law schools when they make a hire. They look at grades. Somebody here said the former law students who wouldn't use their names were afraid of not getting good employment references from Staver. Also, some of you guys need to be a little more skeptical of LU critics like Posner when they write scandalous pieces like the one mentioned above. Doesn't it make you a little suspicious that he didn't get Staver's side of all the silly accusations. Seriously, do you really believe that students would get a poorer grade at LU if they didn't agree with the teacher about civil disobedience? And do you really believe that these "anonymous" students who were quoted would know what grades all the other students got. If these wuss former students who were too cowardly to use their names were afraid to disagree with their teachers because they feared a bad grade, then that is their problem. I doubt if they will go far in life if they continue such cowardly practices throughout their careers. With friends like some of you who fall for this Posner-type journalism, LU doesn't need any enemies.

Am I able to guarantee what wouldn't happen? Sorry, I must be missing something.

Are you able to guarantee this doesn't happen? I would choose the wording a little better before assumptions are made that this type of thing can't happen.