how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one has said that sex between consenting adults should be anything but legal. No one has suggested criminalizing homosexual behavior. It's considering it normal behavior that's destructive.

Why is this so hard to understand.

It’s not an issue of ‘understanding,’ it’s just flat-out wrong to classify homosexuality ‘destructive’ when it’s clearly not. The respondents in the Perry case failed to produce one shred of evidence that homosexuality was in anyway ‘harmful’

Necrophilia doesn't hurt anyone.

Laws banning necrophilia are applied equally and consistently to everyone; laws banning same-sex marriage apply only to homosexuals, and are consequently illegal – do you now see the basic legal rational?

 

[Luissa]

Here's the Puzzlement. Why isn't anyone calling Warrior out for calling me a "sick fuck" when I stated I support the continued CRIMINALIZATION of Pedophilia?

You don't quite understand. So what if you support the continued criminalization of pedophelia. A lot of people supported the continued criminialization of homosexuality too. That didn't stop activists from demanding legalization and normalization.

Today we have Heather has two mommys. In a few years we'll have Heather has a 40 year old "friend".

Didn't read the link did you? Heather's two mommy's are consenting adult, Heather is not, and it will never be alright for Heather to have a 40 year old friend.
When you guys use this argument you look like morons.

 

[Luissa]

Read back. I provided a link.

Where is that link?

Just found it. Totally disagree with the idea....but that being said, IT DOES NOT CHANGE ONE IOTA the criminal act of forcing your attentions on a child unable to give consent. Period.

You are one serious sick fuck.

Seek help.

Bye.

Are you calling her a sick fuck because she is thinks forcing your attention on a child is wrong, or is it that she is a lesbian?

 

[Luissa]

Dead people cannot give consent, can they? Or.....can they?

Do they need to?

Can a blow up doll give consent? Is sex with a blow up doll legal?

It's not like anyone is being hurt.

Now you are comparing a blow up doll to a dead human being.

Dude.....really?

I think she is forgetting the fact that the blow up doll was not once a human.

I do think it interesting there are no federal laws against having sex with a dead person, only state laws.

 

[Luissa]

Necrophilia doesn't hurt anyone.

No one has said that sex between consenting adults should be anything but legal. No one has suggested criminalizing homosexual behavior. It's considering it normal behavior that's destructive.

Why is this so hard to understand.

Dead people cannot give consent, can they? Or.....can they?

Do they need to?

Can a blow up doll give consent? Is sex with a blow up doll legal?

It's not like anyone is being hurt.

What if a women masturbates with a dildo? That dildo didn't give consent???

Your argument is retarded..You have no leg to stand on so you have to go for the dramatics.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Loving reaffirmed the fundamental right to marriage and struck down laws that singled out particular groups of persons for exclusion. As with Loving, in Perry the state failed to provide a compelling reason to justify exclusion.

Suppose that a state has no laws regarding the legal institution of marriage - that the legal instituion of marriage does not exist in that state.
What right is there to marry?

Majorities don’t determine civil rights....

A large enough majority can.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Suppose that a state has no laws regarding the legal institution of marriage - that the legal instituion of marriage does not exist in that state.
What right is there to marry?

Then there’d be no issue; indeed, it would be perfectly legal for a given state to ‘ban’ marriage for everyone, throw it out altogether; or write new ‘commitment contract’ law.

It makes no difference, as long as any law is applied equally and access is granted equally.

A large enough majority can.

No, rights predate the Constitution and government, hence: inalienable. A government – or a majority via referendum – can’t take away something god- or naturally-given.

The Constitution acknowledges and codifies this fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it is hurting people. Like pedophiles, zooaphiles and necrophiliacs. They all have feelings and don't want them hurt.

Like children and animals, who are hurt worse. Whereas gay sex between consenting adults hurts nobody. Why is this so hard to understand?

No one is proposing to outlaw gay sex, so that's a non sequitur.

 

[whitehall]

Frankly Scarlett I hope you don't go into too much detail. I'd rather not have the image of hairy sweaty bodies locked in an anal embrace in my mind.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Colorado amended the state constitution to restrict homosexuals from accessing a new anti-discrimination law (Amendment 2). The supreme court of Colorado struck down Amendment 2 as being in un-Constitutional.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

One could easily replace ‘Amendment 2’ with ‘marriage,’ and the fundamental legal tenet expressed by the Equal Protection Clause would still apply.

 

[Charles_Main]

See, Charles...a prime example of someone who talks about gay sex more than gay people do. It's quite odd, really. I'm beginning to think that Warrior just needs a nurturing hug.

What are you talking about? This thread is the first time I have discussed how I feel about Gay sex in forever. You guys brought it up. Geesh.

Enjoy

Charles, Charles, Charles.....look at the post I was quoting. It was Warrior's post talking about gay sex (which he does a lot), not yours.

Doh!

 

[bodecea]

Frankly Scarlett I hope you don't go into too much detail. I'd rather not have the image of hairy sweaty bodies locked in an anal embrace in my mind.

Same yuck image I get with obese couples...yet they are allowed to marry.

 

[theHawk]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

They failed to mention that "gay marriage" is 100% legal in all states. Just because certain state governments won't recognize it, doesn't mean the "couple" was denied the right to marry.

No state jails, imprisons, or denies homosexuals from exchanging wedding vows.


Next strawman....

 

[WorldWatcher]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

They failed to mention that "gay marriage" is 100% legal in all states. Just because certain state governments won't recognize it, doesn't mean the "couple" was denied the right to marry.

No state jails, imprisons, or denies homosexuals from exchanging wedding vows.


Next strawman....

True, however, it is not a "strawman" - it is a misapplication of what the discussion is normally about which is Civil Marriage (i.e. that which is recognized under the law). The deflection is normally applied by those that wish to ignore the true nature of the discussion which is Civil Marriage.

Which is why I tend to use "Same-sex Civil Marriage" for a couple of reasons:

First, it defines that the statement is about "marriage" as it exists under Civil Law.

Secondly, it describes the term in the same language as that used under Civil Law. There are no laws in this country that prevent homosexuals from marrying based on sexual-orientation, all the laws (that I'm aware of) are based on gender.​

In other words "marriage" in our society exists in two distinct and separate realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage: Those marriages established as a function of a religious organization. There are some religious organizations that recognize same-sex marriages, there are others that do not. There are religious organizations that don't recognize valid Civil Marriages also if the Civil Marriage occurs outside the dogma of the specific religious organization.

Civil Marriage: Civil Marriages are established under the rules and authority of civil government. Individuals can be married by a religious organization, but if they don't follow civil law, then, as it pertains to Civil Marriage - those religious marriages are not recognized for governmental purposes. A couple can be "married" in a Church/Temple/Synagogue, but if they don't obtain the requisite paperwork from the State that marriage is not valid under Civil Law.​

People should be more clear about the use of the term "marriage". If you are speaking about Religious Marriage, fine, opinions can differ - but does not necessarily have any bearing on Civil Marriage under the law. Your (I'm using the "royal you" here) may not consider to people of the same gender as "married", but in States where such practices are legal - they in fact are "married" under Civil Law.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

In Oklahoma we have a constitutional amendment that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. It also says that the state of Oklahoma will not recognize same-sex marriages performed in any other state. It has already survived three attempts to overturn it AND the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional. I helped pass that amendment. I gave money to the effort to pass the amendment and I believe it is the right thing for Oklahoma.

That is not the case in California and other states. And quite frankly, I believe that this is a state's rights issue. If any state in this union believes that same-sex marriage is something they want to acknowledge, then I say that they are absolutely, 100% within their right to do so.

Any other arguement is crap soup...

Can you provide links to that Oklahoma Supreme Court Ruling?

Should interracial marriage be a "states rights" issue too? Mississippi would be happy to ban blacks and whites from marrying. That be okay?

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is a union between opposite sexes. The function of marriage is to provide a legal sanction for the protection of mothers and children. It doesn't exist so two fuck buddies can get government benefits.

So how long has there been a procreation requirement for legal, civil marriage? How is that enforced?

Does this mean my 95 year old grandfather shouldn't be allowed to marry his girlfriend? They can't procreate.

 

[bodecea]

Yes it is hurting people. Like pedophiles, zooaphiles and necrophiliacs. They all have feelings and don't want them hurt.

Like children and animals, who are hurt worse. Whereas gay sex between consenting adults hurts nobody. Why is this so hard to understand?

No one is proposing to outlaw gay sex, so that's a non sequitur.

So, if it is not outlawed, why are gay couples not allowed to legally marry?

 

[bodecea]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

They failed to mention that "gay marriage" is 100% legal in all states. Just because certain state governments won't recognize it, doesn't mean the "couple" was denied the right to marry.

No state jails, imprisons, or denies homosexuals from exchanging wedding vows.


Next strawman....

Really? So in all states, gay couples can go to the Justice of the Peace and get their marriage license? Gee when did that happen?

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage isn't in the Constitution. No place and there is no inalienable right to marry. Otherwise Warren Jeffs wouldn't be in prison.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage isn't in the Constitution. No place and there is no inalienable right to marry. Otherwise Warren Jeffs wouldn't be in prison.

You might want to check with the SCOTUS. They've ruled that marriage is a fundamental right...on more than one occasion.

Jeffs isn't in prison for marriage, but for rape and for arranging marriages with UNDERAGE girls.