A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[bigrebnc1775]

still beating that dead horse?

It's only a dead horse in your mind

It is only in your mind that sodomy, on its own, is illegal. The highest court in the nation ruled.

Is sodomy illegal? Have people been charged with it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is with regard to equal access/equal protection of the law, where both classes of persons were illegally excluded for no other reason than who they are.


Loving is on point because it demonstrates a state’s willful violation of its citizens civil liberties absent any compelling rationale, which is the same case for same-sex couples.

Illegal acts do not have protected rights.

Still on this? SCOTUS ruled, deal with it.

A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorder’s Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer

 

[WinterBorn]

It's only a dead horse in your mind

It is only in your mind that sodomy, on its own, is illegal. The highest court in the nation ruled.

Is sodomy illegal? Have people been charged with it?

No, sodomy on its own is not illegal. People have been charged with it in addition to charges of rape, sexual assault and child molesting.

You have been shown the SCOTUS ruling. That means all anti-sodomy laws were struck down.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is only in your mind that sodomy, on its own, is illegal. The highest court in the nation ruled.

Is sodomy illegal? Have people been charged with it?

No, sodomy on its own is not illegal. People have been charged with it in addition to charges of rape, sexual assault and child molesting.

You have been shown the SCOTUS ruling. That means all anti-sodomy laws were struck down.

A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorder’s Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer

 

[WinterBorn]

Illegal acts do not have protected rights.

Still on this? SCOTUS ruled, deal with it.

A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorder’s Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer

from: 16-6-2. Sodomy; aggravated sodomy. (from Georgia Criminal Code)

"A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. A person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he or she commits sodomy with force and against the will or the other person."

So someone was arrest for forcing sodomy on them? Sounds like you are proving my point.

 

[WinterBorn]

Is sodomy illegal? Have people been charged with it?

No, sodomy on its own is not illegal. People have been charged with it in addition to charges of rape, sexual assault and child molesting.

You have been shown the SCOTUS ruling. That means all anti-sodomy laws were struck down.

A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorder’s Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer

It boils down to this, since the SCOTUS ruled, if anyone gets arrested and convicted of sodomy (without it being aggravated, involving minors, or involving rape) their conviction will be tossed out and a huge lawsuit will follow.

When the SCOTUS says it ain't illegal, it ain't illegal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, sodomy on its own is not illegal. People have been charged with it in addition to charges of rape, sexual assault and child molesting.

You have been shown the SCOTUS ruling. That means all anti-sodomy laws were struck down.

A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorder’s Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer

It boils down to this, since the SCOTUS ruled, if anyone gets arrested and convicted of sodomy (without it being aggravated, involving minors, or involving rape) their conviction will be tossed out and a huge lawsuit will follow.

When the SCOTUS says it ain't illegal, it ain't illegal.

Sodomy is still sodomy

 

[WinterBorn]

A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorder’s Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer

It boils down to this, since the SCOTUS ruled, if anyone gets arrested and convicted of sodomy (without it being aggravated, involving minors, or involving rape) their conviction will be tossed out and a huge lawsuit will follow.

When the SCOTUS says it ain't illegal, it ain't illegal.

Sodomy is still sodomy

Indeed it is. And the SCOTUS ruled that you cannot be prosecuted for it.

All of the stories you have posted are about something different than what happens between consenting adults, whether they are gay or straight.

I find it hilarious that you want to see sodomy made illegal again. Who in their right mind would want it to be illegal to get a blowjob or to go down on his partner?

 

[WinterBorn]

A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorder’s Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer

It boils down to this, since the SCOTUS ruled, if anyone gets arrested and convicted of sodomy (without it being aggravated, involving minors, or involving rape) their conviction will be tossed out and a huge lawsuit will follow.

When the SCOTUS says it ain't illegal, it ain't illegal.

Sodomy is still sodomy

Sodomy is still sodomy. But what sodomy is not is illegal between consenting adults. The sooner you grasp that fact, the sooner we can get back to an actual discussion of relevance to the topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It boils down to this, since the SCOTUS ruled, if anyone gets arrested and convicted of sodomy (without it being aggravated, involving minors, or involving rape) their conviction will be tossed out and a huge lawsuit will follow.

When the SCOTUS says it ain't illegal, it ain't illegal.

Correct. Many states likely still have their ‘sodomy’ laws on the books, un-enforced; prosecution and conviction pointless.

Sodomy is still sodomy. But what sodomy is not is illegal between consenting adults. The sooner you grasp that fact, the sooner we can get back to an actual discussion of relevance to the topic.

Unlikely. For a conservative to acknowledge the facts of settled law is to acknowledge defeat.

 

[daws101]

A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorder’s Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer

It boils down to this, since the SCOTUS ruled, if anyone gets arrested and convicted of sodomy (without it being aggravated, involving minors, or involving rape) their conviction will be tossed out and a huge lawsuit will follow.

When the SCOTUS says it ain't illegal, it ain't illegal.

Sodomy is still sodomy

just for expediency, so we don't have to go through this in the future, could you please tell us how many times do you need to be bitch slapped with the facts before you admit you're wrong?

 

[WinterBorn]

just for expediency, so we don't have to go through this in the future, could you please tell us how many times do you need to be bitch slapped with the facts before you admit you're wrong?

Planning to post repeated bitch slaps the first time? lol

 

[daws101]

just for expediency, so we don't have to go through this in the future, could you please tell us how many times do you need to be bitch slapped with the facts before you admit you're wrong?

Planning to post repeated bitch slaps the first time? lol

bitch slaps should be applied only in cases of terminal denial and stupidity

 

[WinterBorn]

I have a solution.

How about we separate the religious ceremony/institution from the civil one?

Everyone who gets married, gays and straights, without a religious ritual, gets the standard civil union licence. This gets them all the benefits.

Everyone wanting a religious ceremony can have one. If you want the 1,400 benefits given by the gov't, you get a civil union licence too.

How about that? And we will even let the religious ceremony be called a "marriage" and the civil union will find another name.

 

[garyganu]

I have a solution.

How about we separate the religious ceremony/institution from the civil one?

Everyone who gets married, gays and straights, without a religious ritual, gets the standard civil union licence. This gets them all the benefits.

Everyone wanting a religious ceremony can have one. If you want the 1,400 benefits given by the gov't, you get a civil union licence too.

How about that? And we will even let the religious ceremony be called a "marriage" and the civil union will find another name.

Winterborn, That is what my OP is about. If you call gay unions anything else besides marriage, there will be very little opposition to it. I suggest that we call it "garriage".

Even the ancient Greeks didn't call gay unions, Marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have a solution.

How about we separate the religious ceremony/institution from the civil one?

Everyone who gets married, gays and straights, without a religious ritual, gets the standard civil union licence. This gets them all the benefits.

Everyone wanting a religious ceremony can have one. If you want the 1,400 benefits given by the gov't, you get a civil union licence too.

How about that? And we will even let the religious ceremony be called a "marriage" and the civil union will find another name.

Winterborn, That is what my OP is about. If you call gay unions anything else besides marriage, there will be very little opposition to it. I suggest that we call it "garriage".

Even the ancient Greeks didn't call gay unions, Marriage.

Except mine did not differentiate between gay and straight. It provides the gov't benefits for a gov't licenced union. And marriage will be reserved for religious based marriages, without any of the gov't benefits.

If you want both a religious ceremony and the gov't benefits, you get the gov't licence and find a religious organization that will marry you.

 

[garyganu]

I have a solution.

How about we separate the religious ceremony/institution from the civil one?

Everyone who gets married, gays and straights, without a religious ritual, gets the standard civil union licence. This gets them all the benefits.

Everyone wanting a religious ceremony can have one. If you want the 1,400 benefits given by the gov't, you get a civil union licence too.

How about that? And we will even let the religious ceremony be called a "marriage" and the civil union will find another name.

Winterborn, That is what my OP is about. If you call gay unions anything else besides marriage, there will be very little opposition to it. I suggest that we call it "garriage".

Even the ancient Greeks didn't call gay unions, Marriage.

Except mine did not differentiate between gay and straight. It provides the gov't benefits for a gov't licenced union. And marriage will be reserved for religious based marriages, without any of the gov't benefits.

If you want both a religious ceremony and the gov't benefits, you get the gov't licence and find a religious organization that will marry you.

Just don't change anything about traditional marriage and call gay marriage something else and nobody will mind besides the radical gay activists who are never satisfied..

The local governments can offer Marriage Licenses and Garriage Licenses. Everything will be the same except the name. Just as we have a different word for man and woman, husband and wife, we should have a different word for same sex unions and opposite sex unions. Maybe we should have a separate words for gay unions and lesbian unions. Perhaps Garriage, Larriage and Marriage. What's unfair about that?

 

[WinterBorn]

Winterborn, That is what my OP is about. If you call gay unions anything else besides marriage, there will be very little opposition to it. I suggest that we call it "garriage".

Even the ancient Greeks didn't call gay unions, Marriage.

Except mine did not differentiate between gay and straight. It provides the gov't benefits for a gov't licenced union. And marriage will be reserved for religious based marriages, without any of the gov't benefits.

If you want both a religious ceremony and the gov't benefits, you get the gov't licence and find a religious organization that will marry you.

Just don't change anything about traditional marriage and call gay marriage something else and nobody will mind.

The local governments can offer marriage certificates and Garriage certificates. Everything will be the same except the name. Just as we have a different word for man and woman, we should have a different word for same sex unions and opposite sex unions. Maybe we should have a separate words for gay unions and lesbian unions. Perhaps Garriage, Larriage and Marriage. What's unfair about that?

Separate but equal? You are wanting to offer something to homosexuals to preserve what you have.

I am separating the religious from the civil. With the civil there is no need to have a separation for gays and straights.

 

[garyganu]

Except mine did not differentiate between gay and straight. It provides the gov't benefits for a gov't licenced union. And marriage will be reserved for religious based marriages, without any of the gov't benefits.

If you want both a religious ceremony and the gov't benefits, you get the gov't licence and find a religious organization that will marry you.

Just don't change anything about traditional marriage and call gay marriage something else and nobody will mind.

The local governments can offer marriage certificates and Garriage certificates. Everything will be the same except the name. Just as we have a different word for man and woman, we should have a different word for same sex unions and opposite sex unions. Maybe we should have a separate words for gay unions and lesbian unions. Perhaps Garriage, Larriage and Marriage. What's unfair about that?

Separate but equal? You are wanting to offer something to homosexuals to preserve what you have.

I am separating the religious from the civil. With the civil there is no need to have a separation for gays and straights.

I am only suggesting a separate word. If we can have a separate word for man and woman, for straight and gay, for husband and wife; Why cant we have separate words for gay and straight unions? After all, the license will have to change the wording for "husband and wife" for the gay unions. Why can't the straight unions retain the word marriage and the words "husband and wife"? The garriage or larriage can use the words "life-partner", "life-mate", wife and wife, or husband and husband.

 

[koshergrl]

Except mine did not differentiate between gay and straight. It provides the gov't benefits for a gov't licenced union. And marriage will be reserved for religious based marriages, without any of the gov't benefits.

If you want both a religious ceremony and the gov't benefits, you get the gov't licence and find a religious organization that will marry you.

Just don't change anything about traditional marriage and call gay marriage something else and nobody will mind.

The local governments can offer marriage certificates and Garriage certificates. Everything will be the same except the name. Just as we have a different word for man and woman, we should have a different word for same sex unions and opposite sex unions. Maybe we should have a separate words for gay unions and lesbian unions. Perhaps Garriage, Larriage and Marriage. What's unfair about that?

Separate but equal? You are wanting to offer something to homosexuals to preserve what you have.

I am separating the religious from the civil. With the civil there is no need to have a separation for gays and straights.

Please stop with the false allegory "separate but equal". This issue is not the same as a race issue. Gays are NOT being prevented from participating in marriage. They have CHOSEN not to participate in marriage, but still want to be called *married*...without actually being married.

They want to change the meaning of the word, both to marginalize/trivialize traditional marriage and to afford themselves the status our society affords to hetero married couples.

But they are NOT excluded from it as blacks were excluded. They want to create something new and force it upon us as *marriage*. Blacks were not about creating a new society, they only wanted to be able to participate in the society that already existed.