Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[Redfish]

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

 

[protectionist]

The things I said in Post # 445 are 100% correct. The status of same sex marriage and other so-called gay rights notions are still up in the air.

I believe your exact words were:

"In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers."

Protectionist

With your argument being that 'queers aren't equal', so the equal protection clause doesn't apply to them. The USSC clearly contradicts your ignorant, pseudo-legal gibberish:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Once again, you're clueless. You don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently. And your argument is meaningless noise void of reason, explicitly contradicted by the courts. The rights of gays and lesbians are protected. And they fall clearly under the Equal Protection Clause.

Get used to the idea.

As for when the courts are getting around to the issue of gay marriage, that would be next month. With their ruling coming in June.

And when they rule against it, there goes the equal protection doesn't it ? (despite all your wishful thinking) Is this beginning to sink in now ?

Laughing.....you're so hopelessly uninformed that you couldn't accurately read rulings that the Supreme Court made on gay rights almost 20 years ago.

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Bizarrely and ignorantly insisting that the SCOTUS had 'not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers'. As 'queers' weren't 'equal'. And after that epic piece of pseudo-legal gibberish, where you not only made shit up on a topic you clearly didn't understand, but you literally ignored the United States Supreme Court on the position of the United States Supreme Court....

......you're gonna tell us what the court is going to rule in the future?

Whoa, there partner. You're still trying to master reading. You be might getting a little ahead of yourself trying to prophesy the future. As you still don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Read Scalia's dissent on 2013's Windsor v. US. Pay close attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable' on the SCOTUS' take on state gay marriage bans.

And then ask yourself why you feel compelled to babble ignorantly on topics that are simply beyond your grasp.

What I said before holds true. You can babble on all you like. Queers cannot be accorded equal protection of the law. Sex perverts aren't equal to normal people.

Allow me to clarify your position...you are asserting that gay citizens are not deserving of equal standing when it comes to citizens' rights?

For some particular rights, that is CORRECT.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

 

[Redfish]

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

Nope. Slippery slope fallacy.

Fallacies of logic don't prove anything but the weakness of your argument.

 

[Skylar]

What I said before holds true. You can babble on all you like. Queers cannot be accorded equal protection of the law. Sex perverts aren't equal to normal people.

What you said before is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish and a demonstration that you're hopelessly confused and out of your depth.

You say that gays cannot be accorded equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you. And has done so for nearly 20 years:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

You clearly don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. For crying out loud, even after I'd posted the above ruling for you, you still insisted that the USSC hadn't applied equal protection to gays.

Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

 

[Skylar]

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

And head......masterbation.....old people fucking......the list of 'abnormality' per the 'mammilian biological' argument goes on and on.

And is based on one, simple fallacy: That the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which is clearly nonsense. A valid purpose for sex is because it feels good. You can use it to bond with your partner. You can use it for relaxation. Or exercise. Or a litany of reasons.

Ignoring makes no more sense than insisting that the only valid purpose for eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends. Or you want to try something new. Or hey, what if you're in the mood for a pizza?

Why, per the 'mammilian biology' logic, those are all 'invalid' reasons to eat. Back in reality, they're all perfectly legit. As eating, like sex, can have many purposes. Not just the one convenient to the argument of gay marriage opponents.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

You might argue that, but most sane people would be able to find rational arguments against pedophilia and bestiality.

There's the whole consent thing you anti gay bigots forget about in your slippery slope fallacies.

why do you assume that the members of a polygamous or multiple partner marriage would not all consent to it?

the slippery slope is real, gay marriage WILL lead to the legalization of all forms of marriage. Its just another left wing step towards the destruction of our culture.

Wytch, its not about your sexual orientation, you are but a pawn in this. This is but one part of a left wing plan to bring the USA to its knees by destroying our culture, our economy, and our future.

Why don't you ever back up your claims with an argument. Make the legal argument that giving same sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples necessitates giving polygamists the same rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

And head......masterbation.....old people fucking......the list of 'abnormality' per the 'mammilian biological' argument goes on and on.

And is based on one, simple fallacy: That the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which is clearly nonsense. A valid purpose for sex is because it feels good. You can use it to bond with your partner. You can use it for relaxation. Or exercise. Or a litany of reasons.

Ignoring makes no more sense than insisting that the only valid purpose for eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends. Or you want to try something new. Or hey, what if you're in the mood for a pizza?

Why, per the 'mammilian biology' logic, those are all 'invalid' reasons to eat. Back in reality, they're all perfectly legit. As eating, like sex, can have many purposes. Not just the one convenient to the argument of gay marriage opponents.

We know for a biological fact that sex for humans is naturally for more than reproduction because of the simple biological fact that human females are receptive to sex even when they are not at or near ovulation.

That is rare in mammals. Mammals for whom sex is only a reproductive act have a cycle where females allow males to have sex with them only when they are in an ovulation period, commonly referred to as coming into season, or heat.

Humans with a 'normal' sex life have almost all of their sex for non-reproductive reasons.

 

[bodecea]

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

And I get that you are straight and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is the only normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion (as long as it's "straight" perversion) and making them the only de facto normal.

As for an amendment....nope. You'll have to get an amendment to RESTRICT your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens from equal protection under the law. Good luck.

 

[bodecea]

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

So...apparently is using breasts as anything but feeding infants.

 

[paperview]

Most people. ^

 

[Skylar]

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

And head......masterbation.....old people fucking......the list of 'abnormality' per the 'mammilian biological' argument goes on and on.

And is based on one, simple fallacy: That the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which is clearly nonsense. A valid purpose for sex is because it feels good. You can use it to bond with your partner. You can use it for relaxation. Or exercise. Or a litany of reasons.

Ignoring makes no more sense than insisting that the only valid purpose for eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends. Or you want to try something new. Or hey, what if you're in the mood for a pizza?

Why, per the 'mammilian biology' logic, those are all 'invalid' reasons to eat. Back in reality, they're all perfectly legit. As eating, like sex, can have many purposes. Not just the one convenient to the argument of gay marriage opponents.

We know for a biological fact that sex for humans is naturally for more than reproduction because of the simple biological fact that human females are receptive to sex even when they are not at or near ovulation.

That is rare in mammals. Mammals for whom sex is only a reproductive act have a cycle where females allow males to have sex with them only when they are in an ovulation period, commonly referred to as coming into season, or heat.

Humans with a 'normal' sex life have almost all of their sex for non-reproductive reasons

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

So...apparently is using breasts as anything but feeding infants.

Then those women using them to get free drinks are 'unnatural'?

 

[Seawytch]

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

You might argue that, but most sane people would be able to find rational arguments against pedophilia and bestiality.

There's the whole consent thing you anti gay bigots forget about in your slippery slope fallacies.

why do you assume that the members of a polygamous or multiple partner marriage would not all consent to it?

the slippery slope is real, gay marriage WILL lead to the legalization of all forms of marriage. Its just another left wing step towards the destruction of our culture.

Wytch, its not about your sexual orientation, you are but a pawn in this. This is but one part of a left wing plan to bring the USA to its knees by destroying our culture, our economy, and our future.

You didn't mention polygamy in the original bigoted screed I responded to, only the non consensual slippery slope fallacies.

Polygamist either have a valid argument or they don't, absent of any ruling on gays civilly marrying the non familial consenting adult of their choice.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

Yes.

 

[Redfish]

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

Uhhh, how exactly do you jump from homosexuality to birth control? Male/female sex is normal, preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. gay sex is not normal.

now, move on.

 

[Redfish]

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

You might argue that, but most sane people would be able to find rational arguments against pedophilia and bestiality.

There's the whole consent thing you anti gay bigots forget about in your slippery slope fallacies.

why do you assume that the members of a polygamous or multiple partner marriage would not all consent to it?

the slippery slope is real, gay marriage WILL lead to the legalization of all forms of marriage. Its just another left wing step towards the destruction of our culture.

Wytch, its not about your sexual orientation, you are but a pawn in this. This is but one part of a left wing plan to bring the USA to its knees by destroying our culture, our economy, and our future.

You didn't mention polygamy in the original bigoted screed I responded to, only the non consensual slippery slope fallacies.

Polygamist either have a valid argument or they don't, absent of any ruling on gays civilly marrying the non familial consenting adult of their choice.

your case makes their case, that is my only point.

 

[Redfish]

Feel free to work on that.

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

And head......masterbation.....old people fucking......the list of 'abnormality' per the 'mammilian biological' argument goes on and on.

And is based on one, simple fallacy: That the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which is clearly nonsense. A valid purpose for sex is because it feels good. You can use it to bond with your partner. You can use it for relaxation. Or exercise. Or a litany of reasons.

Ignoring makes no more sense than insisting that the only valid purpose for eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends. Or you want to try something new. Or hey, what if you're in the mood for a pizza?

Why, per the 'mammilian biology' logic, those are all 'invalid' reasons to eat. Back in reality, they're all perfectly legit. As eating, like sex, can have many purposes. Not just the one convenient to the argument of gay marriage opponents.

the abnormality is sex between two mammals of the same sex. and yes, before wytchey starts posting studies, monkeys do it too. but only the ones who do not have sex with the opposite sex.

 

[Skylar]

Look, bode. I get it that you are gay and have to defend your lifestyle and pretend that it is a normal human condition. But in so doing you are also defending all kinds of human perversion and making them de facto normal.

The only way to get what you want and prevent the other aberations of marriage would be to process a constitutional amendment allowing 2 person gay marriage and prohibiting all other forms of marriage that do not involve two people.

otherwise there is no legal barrior to calling all other forms of human groupings marriages.

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

And head......masterbation.....old people fucking......the list of 'abnormality' per the 'mammilian biological' argument goes on and on.

And is based on one, simple fallacy: That the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which is clearly nonsense. A valid purpose for sex is because it feels good. You can use it to bond with your partner. You can use it for relaxation. Or exercise. Or a litany of reasons.

Ignoring makes no more sense than insisting that the only valid purpose for eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends. Or you want to try something new. Or hey, what if you're in the mood for a pizza?

Why, per the 'mammilian biology' logic, those are all 'invalid' reasons to eat. Back in reality, they're all perfectly legit. As eating, like sex, can have many purposes. Not just the one convenient to the argument of gay marriage opponents.

the abnormality is sex between two mammals of the same sex. and yes, before wytchey starts posting studies, monkeys do it too. but only the ones who do not have sex with the opposite sex.

It happens all the time in nature. And the other animals don't freak the fuck out when it happens.

The worst thing you can say about homosexuality is that its not productive. And since no state requires anyone to have children or be able to have them, productivity in sex is irrelevant to the validity of a marriage.

Why would we exclude gays from marriage for their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?