Homosexual marriage very unethical.

[Ravi]

I disagree. The Civil Rights movement was based on race -- genetics. That is not a choice. Homosexuality is factually based on nothing but the behavior it manifests itself as. Voluntarily engaging in behavior is a choice.

Homosexuals currently have every right under the law that heterosexuals do. Creating a law that is exclusive to homosexual behavior is discrimination. Forcing that law on the majority that has clearly voiced their opinion on the matter via voting is tyranny of the minority, and the judiciary usurping the will of the society.

Gunny. Interracial marriage is also a choice, no?

 

[Shogun]

The rebuttal would be that they DO have those exact same rights to marry a person of the opposite sex as heteros. Come on, this rhetorical tangent isn't new.

 

[Shogun]

Marriage used to be defined as marriage between a man and a woman of the same RACE. I think we went past that with Loving v Virginia. Amazingly, that was in the 1970's.

Marriage is defined however WE define it and if we realize the definiation was wrong, as that before Loving, then it needs to be re-evaluated so we don't discriminate against people.

Sometimes the laws have to go ahead of "society", like they did in the '70's... and in the '50's when the Court struck down Separate but Equal.

"society" would have voted to keep that little paradigm, too.

Jillian. WHY did polygamy remain illegal following Loving? You can't ignore the racial element to that verdict by limiting yourself to reading only the first ten words in the majority.

 

[jillian]

Jillian. WHY did polygamy remain illegal following Loving? You can't ignore the racial element to that verdict by limiting yourself to reading only the first ten words in the majority.

has polygamy been before the Court? (I don't know the answer to that, btw). If yes, maybe it shouldn't be illegal and the high court needs to revisit it.

You do understand that one has nothing to do with the other. Loving stands for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right and people can choose whom they want to marry, whether you like that or not.

I personally don't have a problem with polygamy. In some societies it serves a valuable social/economic purpose.

 

[Reality]

marriage Used To Be Defined As Marriage Between A Man And A Woman Of The Same Race. I Think We Went Past That With Loving V Virginia. Amazingly, That Was In The 1970's.

Marriage Is Defined However We Define It And If We Realize The Definiation Was Wrong, As That Before Loving, Then It Needs To Be Re-evaluated So We Don't Discriminate Against People.

Sometimes The Laws Have To Go Ahead Of "society", Like They Did In The '70's... And In The '50's When The Court Struck Down Separate But Equal.

"society" Would Have Voted To Keep That Little Paradigm, Too.

Exactly!!!

 

[Shogun]

has polygamy been before the Court? (I don't know the answer to that, btw). If yes, maybe it shouldn't be illegal and the high court needs to revisit it.

You do understand that one has nothing to do with the other. Loving stands for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right and people can choose whom they want to marry, whether you like that or not.

I personally don't have a problem with polygamy. In some societies it serves a valuable social/economic purpose.

If LOVING is as universally applicable as you'd suggest then it wouldn't HAVE to go to court.

You DO understand that "one has nothing to do with the other" is a statement of insurmountable irony given that you seem to think Loving applies to gays? Indeed, currently, is weather YOU like it or not given the direction the states are moving in this issue. People cannot just choose whome to marry in accordance with bans in each state's growing number of Constitutional bans. Indeed, say something ironic as hell like "polygamists are free to marry whomever they want to" now.


I don't have a problem with polygamy OR gay marriage. I do, however, have a problem with people who would shit on the Constitution for the sake of an emotional plea on a rationalized issue. A court didn't create racial equality; legislation did that. And it sure as hell won't create orientation equality regardless of how much you hiss your spite at the likes of Scalia.

 

[jillian]

If LOVING is as universally applicable as you'd suggest then it wouldn't HAVE to go to court.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Do you think that there will never be another gun case before the Court just because there was one ruling?

Were there abortion cases before the Court after Roe v Wade?

Please stop trying to discuss Loving when you really don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[Shogun]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Do you think that there will never be another gun case before the Court just because there was one ruling?

Were there abortion cases before the Court after Roe v Wade?

Please stop trying to discuss Loving when you really don't understand what you're talking about.

It's puppy dog cute how you avoid your own erroneous interpretation of Loving by assuming that it takes a new york bar exam to comprehend our government. Sure there will be other court cases. BUT, that doesn't mane Loving apply to gays. There will be other legislation too. How, EXACTLY does that reflect on the legislation to ban gay marriage NOW? There will be another 2nd amendment case to. What, EXACTLY, does that have to do with last weeks decision?


Again, it's fucking RICH that you assume Loving doesn't apply to polygamists but DOES apply to gays. Almost as rich as your silly little "im a lawyer and you are not" routine when my superior logic sends you into a froth-mouthed fit of self righteousness.

 

[busara]

i just read through most of this thread and find it hilarious. have a question though.

True, the Bass has never wanked off, but the Bass is no virgin either. One doesn't have to be a wanker to know that two men shagging each other in the butt is wrong, unnatural and an abomination to God. Sodomites are mentally sick for the fact that they find women sexually of no importance and instead want a man to do them up the butt.

so bass, youre married?

fighting homosexuality is of upmost importance to christianity. thats why jesus spent so much time speaking out against it

 

[AllieBaba]

It's puppy dog cute how you avoid your own erroneous interpretation of Loving by assuming that it takes a new york bar exam to comprehend our government. Sure there will be other court cases. BUT, that doesn't mane Loving apply to gays. There will be other legislation too. How, EXACTLY does that reflect on the legislation to ban gay marriage NOW? There will be another 2nd amendment case to. What, EXACTLY, does that have to do with last weeks decision?


Again, it's fucking RICH that you assume Loving doesn't apply to polygamists but DOES apply to gays. Almost as rich as your silly little "im a lawyer and you are not" routine when my superior logic sends you into a froth-mouthed fit of self righteousness.

Wow, you're on a roll today.

 

[jillian]

It's puppy dog cute how you avoid your own erroneous interpretation of Loving by assuming that it takes a new york bar exam to comprehend our government. Sure there will be other court cases. BUT, that doesn't mane Loving apply to gays. There will be other legislation too. How, EXACTLY does that reflect on the legislation to ban gay marriage NOW? There will be another 2nd amendment case to. What, EXACTLY, does that have to do with last weeks decision?


Again, it's fucking RICH that you assume Loving doesn't apply to polygamists but DOES apply to gays. Almost as rich as your silly little "im a lawyer and you are not" routine when my superior logic sends you into a froth-mouthed fit of self righteousness.

lots of words, snookums, but doesn't make you any less wrong.

 

[Shogun]

yea, by your word alone and supposed "expertise", eh? I've citied my evidence. Where is yours? Post Loving one more time after avoiding the polygamy aspect of the holes in your logic again.


Say, is there an online NY Bar exam I can take and become a lawyer?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

i just read through most of this thread and find it hilarious. have a question though.



so bass, youre married?

fighting homosexuality is of upmost importance to christianity. thats why jesus spent so much time speaking out against it

Wrong, Christians, *REAL* Christians fight against all sins, not just homosexuality. It seems homosexuality is a big deal because society is becoming more accepting of it, that is, those of the society who reject and ignore God's Word and become entangled in the pleasures of this world.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

As someone has pointed out earlier in this thread, to change the laws of marriage for sodomites is catering to sexually aberrant *BEHAVIOR*, the Constitution makes no provisions for any such thing. Don't give the Bass that nonsense about equal rights because homosexual and heterosexual sex and marriage are *NOT* equal to begin with.

 

[busara]

As someone has pointed out earlier in this thread, to change the laws of marriage for sodomites is catering to sexually aberrant *BEHAVIOR*, the Constitution makes no provisions for any such thing. Don't give the Bass that nonsense about equal rights because homosexual and heterosexual sex and marriage are *NOT* equal to begin with.

you didnt answer my question of if youre married. you say youve had sex, which is immoral if youre not married to the person. i just want to make sure youre not committing that sin.

so, real christians fight against all sin? how do they fight, exactly? did jesus tell them to "fight" against sin? i thought he came to forgive sinners, to die for them, to wipe the slate clean. he worked amongst the dregs of society to help them, to be a good influence. instead of worrying about "fighting," you should be trying to bring people to christ. then, if it is God's wish, HE will change their 'evil' homosexuality. not you. youre forgetting that Jesus sat and ate with sinners and tax collectors, because they needed him more than the righteous. your scolding homesexuals is not what Jesus would have done.

 

[Ravi]

you didnt answer my question of if youre married. you say youve had sex, which is immoral if youre not married to the person. i just want to make sure youre not committing that sin.

so, real christians fight against all sin? how do they fight, exactly? did jesus tell them to "fight" against sin? i thought he came to forgive sinners, to die for them, to wipe the slate clean. he worked amongst the dregs of society to help them, to be a good influence. instead of worrying about "fighting," you should be trying to bring people to christ. then, if it is God's wish, HE will change their 'evil' homosexuality. not you. youre forgetting that Jesus sat and ate with sinners and tax collectors, because they needed him more than the righteous. your scolding homesexuals is not what Jesus would have done.

I doubt Jesus would go around describing gay sex acts in such graphic terms like Chaz does, either. But that's just a guess.

 

[Shogun]

As someone has pointed out earlier in this thread, to change the laws of marriage for sodomites is catering to sexually aberrant *BEHAVIOR*, the Constitution makes no provisions for any such thing. Don't give the Bass that nonsense about equal rights because homosexual and heterosexual sex and marriage are *NOT* equal to begin with.

In the eyes of the American gov they are. In case you missed it, sodomy laws are a thing of the past.

Your younger generation will be just as accepting of gays as they have become with blacks. deal with it.

 

[busara]

Your younger generation will be just as accepting of gays as they have become with blacks. deal with it.

i dont think he can

 

[politicsezine]

America still has sodomy laws? Wow... The USA and Iran has more things in common than originally thought.

 

[52ndStreet]

As someone has pointed out earlier in this thread, to change the laws of marriage for sodomites is catering to sexually aberrant *BEHAVIOR*, the Constitution makes no provisions for any such thing. Don't give the Bass that nonsense about equal rights because homosexual and heterosexual sex and marriage are *NOT* equal to begin with.

As a poster stated,homosexual activity is still classified in many countries
as sexually abnormal and deviant behvior.States can not legalize homosexual marriage, and then still have sodomy laws on in their law codes.You will have
a legal conflict.It is very simple.Homosexual marriage can not be legalized.