Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
★fnord★ wrote:
Yes I'm aware I'm currently engaged myself lol. I'll be married September 6th next year. What you've got to understand is that you can get married but the government does not have to recognize the marriage which makes it a privilege. The government does in fact bestow rights upon its citizens. If it didn't why would we need the bill of rights lol. Of course we're born with them but only because the government put these rights in place. -
Let me ask you something here, if the government came out and said ,"marriage is now illegal" could they truly stop you from being married? Absolutely not, everyone has the right to marriage. Now let's change it a bit. Imagine the government said marriages will not longer be recognized by the government. What could you do about it? Yea you can still get married but there's nothing that can be done about that. That's because the government does not have to offer that perk to the people. That makes it a privilege and not a right. Which would be why it's not unconstitutional.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Precisely, marriage and privilege don't go hand in had at all. However, almost every aspect of marriage, aside from the union itself, does not have to be offered to Americans or anyone else. It's there simply because the government feels it should be.The word 'privilege' does not apply to marriage, it just doesn't. Any analogy to a privilege is a tortured one at best. That dog don't hunt.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
No, just no. Read the constitution, inalienable rights are natural rights and can not be infringed upon by the government. You can have a non-legal wedding ceremony that the government doesn't recognize, but that doesn't allow you to leap to the conclusion that a legal marriage is somehow a privilege. That's flawed logic. The government is required by the constitution to recognize all legal marriages. It can't not because it is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.★fnord★ wrote:
✂️What you've got to understand is that you can get married but the government does not have to recognize the marriage which makes it a privilege. The government does in fact bestow rights upon its citizens. If it didn't why would we need the bill of rights lol. Of course we're born with them but only because the government put these rights in place. -
★fnord★ wrote:
I'm going to assume the double negative wasn't intentional since you don't agree with my point since everything you said was in contrast to my opinion. With that being said let me ask at what point did the right to be legally recognized as a unified couple become an inherited right that everyone has the right to?🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
It can't not because it is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.★fnord★ wrote:
✂️What you've got to understand is that you can get married but the government does not have to recognize the marriage which makes it a privilege. The government does in fact bestow rights upon its citizens. If it didn't why would we need the bill of rights lol. Of course we're born with them but only because the government put these rights in place. -
Ojibwe wrote:
Oh please explain I would love to hear this lol.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Now I know you're full of shit if you believe this little nugget.Ojibwe wrote:
I'm a legally recognized Native American so I could be getting a free check from the government, although I don't because I don't need it. Point is though that not everyone gets the privileges I was born with and vice versa.Do you think the government should only be able to give those privileges to straight couples? White couples? Rich couples? Or to everyone?
-
Ojibwe wrote:
An ignorant stereotype? My grandfather literally lived and died on a Choctaw Indian reserve in Mississippi. My uncle had both of his sons college paid for by the tribe and my sister in law gets a check from her tribe every month lol. Are you not aware that this is a thing?Do your own research if you're so Native. Oh wait, that's harder than spouting ignorant stereotypes.
-
Sister in law is Cherokee btw.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
No, that's exactly how I meant to say it. 'The government can't not (recognize all legal marriages)'. Listen, I'm tired of arguing with the willfully ignorant. It's pointless. The information I referenced is all out there. Google the definition of "constitutionally limited representative republic" and carefully read the exact wording of the constitutional amendments, paying special attention to the words "shall make no law" and "shall not infringe". If you're willing to attempt to make a valid point or logically refute anything I've said, I'll be around. Congrats on your pending nuptials!★fnord★ wrote:
I'm going to assume the double negative wasn't intentional✂️🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
★fnord★ wrote:
✂️ -
Haha I love how you simply feel its a right people are born with rather than prove to me at where you've seen somewheres that it's stated that all legal rights associated with marriage are inalienable rights offered to all Americans. Listen if you show me where this knowledge comes from I while applogize and hop out of the forum. You can make an assumption mixed in with statements saying we as Americans are born with inherited rights and just throw in whatever you want. So as far as I can see the ignorance is coming from yourself, but as I said show me some proof. A legitimate and reputable source that I can reference and I wil by all means apologize and retract my statements.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Yea I see what I did there now, just bad wording there haha. Either way the point stands, is it right that I was born with the right to that money and others weren't?🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
That's not from the government, That's per cap from their individual tribes. Has nothing to do with the government and only a small minority of tribes pay per cap for its members.Ojibwe wrote:
An ignorant stereotype? My grandfather literally lived and died on a Choctaw Indian reserve in Mississippi. My uncle had both of his sons college paid for by the tribe and my sister in law gets a check from her tribe every month lol. Are you not aware that this is a thing?Do your own research if you're so Native. Oh wait, that's harder than spouting ignorant stereotypes.
-
I forgot to answer your last question. The inherited, inalienable right to be legally recognized as a unified couple has existed as long as written history has, being that it is an inalienable natural right. In the US, it was not recognized as an inalienable right until the early 1970's, in court decisions striking down anti-miscegenation laws. That's what I've been saying; inalienable rights exist whether the government recognizes them at not. A regular right doesn't suddenly become an inalienable one when a document calls it such. It always was inalienable, that's what inalienable means. Okay, happy travels.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
As a native I'm surprised you are against same sex marriage. Your ancestors did it long before white people came along. Not only that, gay people were looked up to. They were considered "two spirited" and honored for it.Haha I love how you simply feel its a right people are born with rather than prove to me at where you've seen somewheres that it's stated that all legal rights associated with marriage are inalienable rights offered to all Americans. Listen if you show me where this knowledge comes from I while applogize and hop out of the forum. You can make an assumption mixed in with statements saying we as Americans are born with inherited rights and just throw in whatever you want. So as far as I can see the ignorance is coming from yourself, but as I said show me some proof. A legitimate and reputable source that I can reference and I wil by all means apologize and retract my statements.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Ok I'm sorry ask holocaust victims about their inalienable rights. Perhaps the native Americans of the past could comment on them. How about we bring some slaves and ask of they had any inalienable rights. The government could absolutely take your rights away, there's plenty of people who would disagree with you.I forgot to answer your last question. The inherited, inalienable right to be legally recognized as a unified couple has existed as long as written history has, being that it is an inalienable natural right. In the US, it was not recognized as an inalienable right until the early 1970's, in court decisions striking down anti-miscegenation laws. That's what I've been saying; inalienable rights exist whether the government recognizes them at not. A regular right doesn't suddenly become an inalienable one when a document calls it such. It always was inalienable, that's what inalienable means. Okay, happy travels.
-
But DM.
It may not be a "right" as you say. But they are allowing one group of people to do it and ignoring another. Which the government isn't allowed to do. So until they legalize it across the board to everyone or take it away. It's against the constitution. Plain and simple. There is no refuting that. -
You must have a lot of faith in the government to think they honestly couldn't take your rights away lol.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Why can't a felon possess a firearm? My mother went to prison on drug charges and now she can't own a firearm. We couldn't even have one in our home for protection. The right to bear arms is literally stated word for word in the constitution and yet a criminal whose crime had nothing to do with a firearm can no longer own one. This is fair correct? You can't take words from the constitution and use them as a 100% bullet proof source.But DM.
It may not be a "right" as you say. But they are allowing one group of people to do it and ignoring another. Which the government isn't allowed to do. So until they legalize it across the board to everyone or take it away. It's against the constitution. Plain and simple. There is no refuting that. -
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
I said nothing of the sort. I said they are allowing one group that "right" or "privilege" and denieing it to another. Which is against the constitution. Hence why more and more states are legalizing it due to it being "unconstitutional". Not sure why you can't see that.You must have a lot of faith in the government to think they honestly couldn't take your rights away lol.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Lol things change right? Let me remind you Native Americans weren't exactly the most educated people to tread planet earth. I'm proud of my roots but I don't share the exact feelings of past Natives🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
She broke the law first. She forfeited her rights right then and there. So yes, it's fair. I know the gov can take away rights. But only when it is reasonable.〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Why can't a felon possess a firearm? My mother went to prison on drug charges and now she can't own a firearm. We couldn't even have one in our home for protection. The right to bear arms is literally stated word for word in the constitution and yet a criminal whose crime had nothing to do with a firearm can no longer own one. This is fair correct? You can't take words from the constitution and use them as a 100% bullet proof source.But DM.
.
But that has nothing to do with my first statement. Gay people haven't broken any laws for being gay. -
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
The case in Utah was because Utah state constitution was found to provide a right of marriage laws to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. That's has nothing to do with the constitution created by the federal government.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
I said nothing of the sort. I said they are allowing one group that "right" or "privilege" and denieing it to another. Which is against the constitution. Hence why more and more states are legalizing it due to it being "unconstitutional". Not sure why you can't see that.You must have a lot of faith in the government to think they honestly couldn't take your rights away lol.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
I'm glad I never used my native background in support of my anti gay marriage feelings lol.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Yes, of course it's right. Would you say it's wrong for France to do the same thing?Ojibwe wrote:
Yea I see what I did there now, just bad wording there haha. Either way the point stands, is it right that I was born with the right to that money and others weren't?🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
That's not from the government,Ojibwe wrote:
Are you not aware that this is a thing?Do your own research if you're so Native. Oh wait, that's harder than spouting ignorant stereotypes.
And Seeker is correct. Gay marriage has been recognized in native America for millennia.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Natives were extremely smart. They hunted to live, they fed off the land but never destroying it. They survived side by side with the earth and animals. We came along and destroy everything in our path. You think a forest is better off with a shopping mall and parking lot? Better off with an alcohol store and fast food joints? I'd rather live back then, then here and now.〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Lol things change right? Let me remind you Native Americans weren't exactly the most educated people to tread planet earth. I'm proud of my roots but I don't share the exact feelings of past Natives🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
-
No but being educated in the area of agriculture and hunting doesn't make you a genius. If it did southerners would be considered stupid at all haha. It's impressive by all means but I would consider them geniuses by any means.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Why not? To survive side by side with nature and animals and never harming the ecosystem. Yet nowadays governments spend billions on trying to solve how we can do that? Yet we are smarter? Spending millions on "going green" yet natives did that for centuries without going Harvard. But we are smarter?No but being educated in the area of agriculture and hunting doesn't make you a genius. If it did southerners would be considered stupid at all haha. It's impressive by all means but I would consider them geniuses by any means.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
I never said that rights couldn't be violated. Only that in this country we go to great lengths in our constitution to limit our government from infringing on our inalienable rights. It's really difficult to take you seriously when you can't grasp simple concepts and distinctions. Do you really believe that you have no rights until someone else gives them to you? What a sorry existence that would be. This Supreme Court decision from 1967 Loving v. Virginia, affirmed that marriage is a "fundamental human right". Before you go all undertoe on me, the words fundamental, natural and inalienable are interchangeable with regards to human rights:You must have a lot of faith in the government to think they honestly couldn't take your rights away lol.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1 -
I'm aware fnord. You speak like I live in fear of my government, that's not the case. Just tell me that if the government decided to take away your rights what could you do about it? What higher entity would you call upon for support.
-
What I'm trying to get at here is that fnord you're absolutely right. Marriage is fundamental, I've never stated otherwise this entire time. Please read what I say. Marriage cannot be taken away. Whether or not the government recognizes a marriage is what's in question here. The court decision upheld the individuals right to marriage, that's it.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Thanks for wasting my time explaining something to you that you already knew. I'm sure you'll understand why I will no longer be responding to anything you say. I don't like playing childish games, especially not with a topic this important. Grow up.What I'm trying to get at here is that fnord you're absolutely right. Marriage is fundamental, I've never stated otherwise this entire time. Please read what I say. Marriage cannot be taken away. Whether or not the government recognizes a marriage is what's in question here. The court decision upheld the individuals right to marriage, that's it.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Does the fact that I'm right anger you that much? Yet I'm the child? Plus how is you telling me something I already know a waste of time and my fault? I'm sorry I know what I'm talking about fnord. We're having a healthy discussion here don't get so flustered.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Thanks for wasting my time explaining something to you that you already knew. I'm sure you'll understand why I will no longer be responding to anything you say. I don't like playing childish games, especially not with a topic this important. Grow up.What I'm trying to get at here is that fnord you're absolutely right. Marriage is fundamental, I've never stated otherwise this entire time. Please read what I say. Marriage cannot be taken away. Whether or not the government recognizes a marriage is what's in question here. The court decision upheld the individuals right to marriage, that's it.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC