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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If human sex is as much or more for pleasure than for reproduction, why would same sex sexual activity be perverted?

 

[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.

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.

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

 

[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.

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.

Argue with saintmichael. He says birth control is abnormal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a man gets a vasectomy so he'll never produce any more, or any, children but will still be able to have all the sex he can get,

and that's fully in compliance with 'nature'?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Except it doesn't. Polygamy is more closely associated with heterosexuality. If they have a valid argument as you seem to think they don't, they have it absent any ruling on gays marrying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

Your 'argument ' in fact fails as a fallacy.

The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with 'polygamy,' 'plural marriage,' or 'bigamy,' all of which are red herrings.

Unlike 'polygamists,' same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, so the issue before the Court concerns the states refusing to allow gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, in violation of the 14th Amendment, not whether same-sex couples are eligible to marry.

'Polygamists' are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts because the laws aren't written to accommodate three or more persons, and that won't change when un-Constitutional marriage bans are invalidated.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Argue with saintmichael. He says birth control is abnormal.

There's a reason it's called "artificial" birth control.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If human sex is as much or more for pleasure than for reproduction, why would same sex sexual activity be perverted?

The Purpose of Sex is procreation... with the behavior comes a sense of pleasure.

So what you see in the above query is the conflation of the temporal effect of pleasure as the PURPOSE of Sex.

ROFLMNAO!

Yet ANOTHER example of the disordered mind grappling with the ever so impenetrable complexity of 'cause and effect'.

LMAO! You can NOT make this stuff UP!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your 'argument ' in fact fails as a fallacy.

LMNAO!

No it's not. You should truly ask someone what fallacy means... because every time you're found using it, you're pointing to valid reasoning and just declaring it otherwise.

Sexual Abnormality is a perversion of human reasoning. There is nothing in the US Constitution which provides any protections for behavior which comes as a consequence of perverse reasoning. But... the US Constitution DOES provide protections for sound reasoning to reject perverse reasoning.

And it does so up to an including the destruction of those who willfully set their perversion above the well-being of the innocent. And it counts that protection as being 'essential to the state of freedom'.

 

[Skylar]

If human sex is as much or more for pleasure than for reproduction, why would same sex sexual activity be perverted?

The Purpose of Sex is procreation... with the behavior comes a sense of pleasure.

Procreation is a purpose. But not the only purpose. Bonding, recreation, stress relief, exercise, even religious rites. And each of these purposes is valid and rational.

You keep making the same mistake, assuming that there can be only one purpose for each thing. Its a foolish mistake, like insisting that the only purpose in eating is fueling the body. But what if you like a particular food, or want to have dinner with your family, or are just in the mood for pizza?

Each is a legitimate reason to eat, satisfying a unique purpose. And demonstrate the plurality of eating, as the previous examples demonstrate the plurality of purpose in sex.

Debunking your claims yet again.

 

[Skylar]

Your 'argument ' in fact fails as a fallacy.

LMNAO!

No it's not. You should truly ask someone what fallacy means... because every time you're found using it, you're pointing to valid reasoning and just declaring it otherwise.

Your reasoning obviously isn't valid. You are offering your assumptions and subjective personal opinions as facts. And they fail the fact test. As we can demonstrate they are false with the existence of numerous other reasons to have sex that have nothing to do with children or procreation. There's also ample sex among those who can't have children, those who are too old to have kids, those who are on birth control.

All of which stands as testament of the absurdity of your claim that sex can only serve one purpose. It serves many purposes.

There is nothing in the US Constitution which provides any protections for behavior which comes as a consequence of perverse reasoning.

The constitution protects people. And gays and lesbians are people. As long as they are US citizens, they have the same rights and protections as anyone else.

And as the Romer v. Evans decisions demonstrates, the rights of gays and lesbians are protected under the constitution. Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the rights of gays and lesbians.

And it does so up to an including the destruction of those who willfully set their perversion above the well-being of the innocent. And it counts that protection as being 'essential to the state of freedom'.

I asked you how a gay couple getting married would effect you. What it took from you. What right that you lost.

You couldn't cite a single effect. Simply destroying your 'essential to freedom' argument. Gay marriage deprives you of no freedom, nor any right. It simply doesn't effect you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

That you perceive gay sex as being 'abnormal' is subjective and legally irrelevant, having no bearing on the issue before the Supreme Court.

The only thing at issue is that the states have failed to justify denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, where such measures have no rational basis, are devoid of objective, documented facts in support of the bans, and pursue no proper legislative end – indeed, these measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If human sex is as much or more for pleasure than for reproduction, why would same sex sexual activity be perverted?

The Purpose of Sex is procreation... with the behavior comes a sense of pleasure.

!

Wrong. Not for what you would call normal people anyway. Non-reproductive sex is a normal, significant part of human sexual behavior. Nature made it that way.

If you, for example, are in a relationship where you only have sex when trying to make a baby, and refrain from it in any other circumstances,

you - by your own standards - are the abnormal one. You and your partner would literally be engaging in a form of human sexual activity that is unnatural based on its significant divergence from the norm...again...

...by the standards you yourself are trying to impose on the debate here.

IOW, you have as done as well as anyone else here in refuting your own argument.

 

[protectionist]

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?

That's not why it's abnormal/perverted. It's abnormal and perverted because it is contrary to nature. The body parts of animals (including humans) are designed for heterosexual sex, not anything else. Would one walk on his hands instead of feet ? No, of course not. Feet were designed for walking, not hands. The analogy is obvious,

 

[protectionist]

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.

FALSE! I don't care what the Supreme Court has or hasn't said (and I don't necessarily accept your version), but regardless of whatever the SCOTUS says or doesn't say, nothing (including the SCOTUS) changes the fact that queers are not equal to normal people, and therefore shouldn't receive equal treatment of the law.

There's also lots of Americans (including governors and state legislators) who have mandated bans on same sex marriage, a clear statement of UNequal protection of the law.

All your bluster is nothing but that, and anything the SCOTUS or anyone else has ever said in favor of equal law protection for queers is down the drain forever, if the SCOTUS rules in favor of 4 states with SSM bans. On Jan. 12, the Supreme Court rejected a request to overturn Louisiana's ban on SSM. But on Jan. 16, the high court announced it would take up four other pending same-sex marriage cases in April, and issue a ruling by summer — deciding once and for all whether states can write same-sex marriage bans into their constitutions by a vote of the people, as Louisiana did in 2004.

If there is any indication at all of how this might go, it is more likely in favor of the SSM bans, due to the SCOTUS Louisiana decision on Jan. 12, being the most recent thing they said about it (in opposition to equal treatment of the law for queers)

Now go back to baking your cookies.

 

[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?

That's not why it's abnormal/perverted. It's abnormal and perverted because it is contrary to nature. The body parts of animals (including humans) are designed for heterosexual sex, not anything else. Would one walk on his hands instead of feet ? No, of course not. Feet were designed for walking, not hands. The analogy is obvious,

Men can't have anal sex with a woman?

Women can't have oral sex with a man?

What planet are you from?

 

[bodecea]

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?

That's not why it's abnormal/perverted. It's abnormal and perverted because it is contrary to nature. The body parts of animals (including humans) are designed for heterosexual sex, not anything else. Would one walk on his hands instead of feet ? No, of course not. Feet were designed for walking, not hands. The analogy is obvious,

So...you want to dictate what kind of sex people have.

 

[protectionist]

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?

That's not why it's abnormal/perverted. It's abnormal and perverted because it is contrary to nature. The body parts of animals (including humans) are designed for heterosexual sex, not anything else. Would one walk on his hands instead of feet ? No, of course not. Feet were designed for walking, not hands. The analogy is obvious,

Men can't have anal sex with a woman?

Women can't have oral sex with a man?

What planet are you from?

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?

That's not why it's abnormal/perverted. It's abnormal and perverted because it is contrary to nature. The body parts of animals (including humans) are designed for heterosexual sex, not anything else. Would one walk on his hands instead of feet ? No, of course not. Feet were designed for walking, not hands. The analogy is obvious,

Men can't have anal sex with a woman?

Women can't have oral sex with a man?

What planet are you from?

The planet that understands that you are rationalizing to fit your agenda. Again.> The biology of the animal kingdom is for heterosexual sex, and nothing else.

 

[protectionist]

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?

That's not why it's abnormal/perverted. It's abnormal and perverted because it is contrary to nature. The body parts of animals (including humans) are designed for heterosexual sex, not anything else. Would one walk on his hands instead of feet ? No, of course not. Feet were designed for walking, not hands. The analogy is obvious,

So...you want to dictate what kind of sex people have.

There is no such thing as "kind of sex people have" There is only one kind of sex. Heterosexual. Anything else is a perversion, engaged in by perverts. If they want to be idiots and engage PRIVATELY in that, that could do so, but doing it openly, is HARM to the normal population in that 1). It is disgusting to see and 2). it may influence young, impressionable, unstable kids to acquire the same ailment.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That's not why it's abnormal/perverted. It's abnormal and perverted because it is contrary to nature. The body parts of animals (including humans) are designed for heterosexual sex, not anything else. Would one walk on his hands instead of feet ? No, of course not. Feet were designed for walking, not hands. The analogy is obvious,

So...you want to dictate what kind of sex people have.

There is no such thing as "kind of sex people have" There is only one kind of sex. Heterosexual. Anything else is a perversion, engaged in by perverts. If they want to be idiots and engage PRIVATELY in that, that could do so, but doing it openly, is HARM to the normal population in that 1). It is disgusting to see and 2). it may influence young, impressionable, unstable kids to acquire the same ailment.

Wait...so now you're saying that fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus and anal penetration are okay as long as it's only straight people doing it? My, aren't you selfish.

Who is having sex "openly"? That's a crime you know.