how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[Jarhead]

The term "minor" is subjective. It's just a line in a lawbook. Change it. Sort of like the way same sex marriage was prohibited by a line in a lawbook.

It's pretty much a given that all these cultural prohibitions are on their way out. All individuals can do is take precautions to keep the effects away from themselves.

You mean like they do in the Bible Belt where the "age of consent" is lower than anywhere else?

Actually, IMO, the age of consent should match the age of adulthood, 18. Across the board.

You have no problem whatsoever with imposing your morality on everyone else.

Actually...she put in caps IMO...isnt this board for expressing ones opinion?

 

[kaz]

In the past such laws were based on a biological condition (which was race)

My marriage is interracial. My ass is white, my wife is Korean. I actually oppose government marriage all together, but that's another topic. Here's the thing, it's not the end it's how you get there. Who do you trust? In the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board. But how should it get there?

The legislatures that are answerable to the people should pass such an amendment (which they did BTW)

Judges who are not answerable to the people should just re-read it and word parse an amendment that doesn't exist

In the end, if people are too immoral to do what's right, your system which relies on a moral judiciary coming from an immoral population isn't going to work either.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

You say that the people passed an Amendment which said that "the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board". I'm assuming that you are referring to the 14th Amendment and I see no limiting criteria in the Amendment that pertains to race, it says all people as citizens of the United States cannot have privileges and immunities abridged and have a right to Due Process and the concept of Equal Protection under the laws.


Is their another amendment that you were referring to that I'm not aware of?


>>>>

Yes, all laws must be applied to all citizens equally. It's literal. What you think doesn't come into play. In States where marriage is between one man and one woman, any man can marry any woman as long as they are a consenting adult capable of consenting, they are not already married or they have not had their rights restricted by due process of law. If you want to change the law, go to the legislature. Which is also where I have to go to get government marriage eliminated. The difference between us is you're willing to take a lazy ass short cut and go to a self appointed dictator in a robe to do your work for you.

 

[bodecea]

In the past such laws were based on a biological condition (which was race)

My marriage is interracial. My ass is white, my wife is Korean. I actually oppose government marriage all together, but that's another topic. Here's the thing, it's not the end it's how you get there. Who do you trust? In the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board. But how should it get there?

The legislatures that are answerable to the people should pass such an amendment (which they did BTW)

Judges who are not answerable to the people should just re-read it and word parse an amendment that doesn't exist

In the end, if people are too immoral to do what's right, your system which relies on a moral judiciary coming from an immoral population isn't going to work either.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

You say that the people passed an Amendment which said that "the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board". I'm assuming that you are referring to the 14th Amendment and I see no limiting criteria in the Amendment that pertains to race, it says all people as citizens of the United States cannot have privileges and immunities abridged and have a right to Due Process and the concept of Equal Protection under the laws.


Is their another amendment that you were referring to that I'm not aware of?


>>>>

Exactly.

 

[kaz]

So, let's see.

You think we are equal because....

Where did I say "we are equal?" I said treated the same under the law, it's literal. We are equal is a completely...subjective...statement, which is specifically which I'm saying the law is not.

Wow, and you congratulate yourself for your logic? Pathetic.

 

[kaz]

Is their another amendment that you were referring to that I'm not aware of?


>>>>

Exactly.

It says all people are to be treated the same under the law. All people. And you might do some historical reading as well since you're saying that the government, which you love so dearly, didn't address the issue the amendment was written to address. But treated the same is LITERAL. You should Google the term if you don't know what that means. What people WANT or THINK isn't in play. Since they didn't stop at race, you say race isn't included. And you are "logical?" Funny, very funny.

 

[kaz]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

For your next trick, can you post a link on:

How to Explain to Liberals they are Idiots

 

[WorldWatcher]

My marriage is interracial. My ass is white, my wife is Korean. I actually oppose government marriage all together, but that's another topic. Here's the thing, it's not the end it's how you get there. Who do you trust? In the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board. But how should it get there?

The legislatures that are answerable to the people should pass such an amendment (which they did BTW)

Judges who are not answerable to the people should just re-read it and word parse an amendment that doesn't exist

In the end, if people are too immoral to do what's right, your system which relies on a moral judiciary coming from an immoral population isn't going to work either.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

You say that the people passed an Amendment which said that "the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board". I'm assuming that you are referring to the 14th Amendment and I see no limiting criteria in the Amendment that pertains to race, it says all people as citizens of the United States cannot have privileges and immunities abridged and have a right to Due Process and the concept of Equal Protection under the laws.


Is their another amendment that you were referring to that I'm not aware of?


>>>>

Yes, all laws must be applied to all citizens equally. It's literal. What you think doesn't come into play. In States where marriage is between one man and one woman, any man can marry any woman as long as they are a consenting adult capable of consenting, they are not already married or they have not had their rights restricted by due process of law. If you want to change the law, go to the legislature. Which is also where I have to go to get government marriage eliminated. The difference between us is you're willing to take a lazy ass short cut and go to a self appointed dictator in a robe to do your work for you.

Actually I prefer Same-Sex Civil Marriage (SSCM) be achieved through the legislature or initiative over judicial proceedings. I think SSCM proponents made a really big mistake by taking Prop 8 to court, IMHO, they would have been much better advised to accept the vote of Prop 8 with dignity and then begin working on it's repeal at the ballot box. A "win" in the courts can have negative impact on how SSCM was achieved. I think, politically speaking that California would have been ripe for a repeal effort in 2010 or 2012, but some hotheads decided to (a) hold protests that proved embarrassing and gave a negative impression, and (b) pursue a legal challenge instead of trying to wing over the (only) 2.5% of the electorate needed to shift the outcome.


A tactical mistake, IMHO.


However, I note that you still adhering to failed logic, that being since the laws are applied equally to males and females, there is not discrimination. That logic didn't work when it was whites and colored as we've already seen. The logic didnt' work with race and it is working less and less with gender. Since the SCOTUS has not issued any guidance on the matter since Baker v. Nelson in the 70's (because there were no federal laws at the time) it will be interesting to see how they deal with it when the accept a case on DOMA.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

You understood correctly. Homosexuality isn't bad, accepting it as normal is. Once we accept perversion as normal, it becomes that much easier to accept expanding perversions.

Different behavior is not always degenerate behavior, it's is only degenerate when it is degenerate.

Obviously a dead person cannot give consent. Neither can a blow up doll, or a canteloupe. We have behavior that we collectively have agreed is perverted. We do not accept that behavior as normal or beneficial.

Again I ask what inherently makes homosexual activity degenerative? Still haven't got an answer. The sexual behavior of homosexuals isn't beneficial or non-beneficial. It's just behavior. You can't seem to separate your subjective opinion from objective truth.

I've given you an answer about half a dozen times. You just don't like it.

No. No you haven't.

 

[bodecea]

No one gives a fuck what you chose to insert or stick into your orifices or place your tongue into, asswipe. Really. No one does. You've had your "Gay On" all day on the topic. Munch a carpet and get some rest, asswipe. Your "retard" meter is pegged.

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.

Look - Billie Jean King - I don't give a fuck if you're gay or not. It doesn't bother me in the least bit.

Your problem is you constantly FLAUNT it, like it's some sort of an academic achievement.

My cousin's gay - I love him to death - but if he waved his "Gay Pride" flag as much as you do - I'd tell him to turn it down a fucking notch. I got it. He likes men. Move the fuck on with it.

I don't need a nurturing hug from a woman like you who thinks she's a man, doesn't shave, and thinks he/she/it deserves more "rights" than any American citizen already enjoys. Stay the fuck away from me, you nasty thing.

You're gay. I got it. I don't give a fuck.

And how, pray tell, do I "flaunt it? Is it in my avatar.....no. Do I talk about it all the time to the exclusion of nothing else....no.

Oh, that's right. I defend myself and fight for my rights as an equal American citizen. I mention my wife occasionally. APPARENTLY...that is "flaunting it".

Suuuuuuuuure.

Now, why don't you neg me some more and call me a "sick fuck" for saying that Pedophilia is and should always be considered a criminal act.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Look - Billie Jean King - I don't give a fuck if you're gay or not. It doesn't bother me in the least bit.

Your problem is you constantly FLAUNT it, like it's some sort of an academic achievement.

My cousin's gay - I love him to death - but if he waved his "Gay Pride" flag as much as you do - I'd tell him to turn it down a fucking notch. I got it. He likes men. Move the fuck on with it.

I don't need a nurturing hug from a woman like you who thinks she's a man, doesn't shave, and thinks he/she/it deserves more "rights" than any American citizen already enjoys. Stay the fuck away from me, you nasty thing.

You're gay. I got it. I don't give a fuck.

And how, pray tell, do I "flaunt it? Is it in my avatar.....no. Do I talk about it all the time to the exclusion of nothing else....no.

Oh, that's right. I defend myself and fight for my rights as an equal American citizen. I mention my wife occasionally. APPARENTLY...that is "flaunting it".

Suuuuuuuuure.

Now, why don't you neg me some more and call me a "sick fuck" for saying that Pedophilia is and should always be considered a criminal act.

I gotta be frank with you Bodecea...I had no idea you were gay...and now that I know it really doesnt make a differewnce to me..

But the point is...as much as I agree with Warrior on many things...I dont see how you have EVER flaunted your sexuality and your sexual preferences.

If anything...I see more people who are homophobes expressing their sexual preference in a flaunting way for they are afraid to be seen as a "homo".....

 

[bodecea]

Once perversion and abnormality is accepted as normal behavior it doesn't stop with YOUR particular brand of abnormality.

I knew you wouldn't get it.

Perversion and abnormality are irrelevant here. The issue is hurting people.

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

So....you are concerned with the feelings of those kinds of people who are committing ILLEGAL acts.

Ooooooookay.

 

[dblack]

The root of this problem is that government grants special privileges and benefits to people who are married. The irony is, the promotion of marriage is arguably a form of right-wing social engineering. If we could get it through our heads that government isn't the proper tool to decide what kinds of personal relationships should be encouraged (or not), we could probably avoid a lot of these kinds of problems.

 

[Jarhead]

I knew you wouldn't get it.

Perversion and abnormality are irrelevant here. The issue is hurting people.

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

So....you are concerned with the feelings of those kinds of people who are committing ILLEGAL acts.

Ooooooookay.

well...you were too as it pertained to the protesters who illegally refused to vacate locations that had "hours" posted

 

[kaz]

Actually I prefer Same-Sex Civil Marriage (SSCM) be achieved through the legislature or initiative over judicial proceedings. I think SSCM proponents made a really big mistake by taking Prop 8 to court, IMHO, they would have been much better advised to accept the vote of Prop 8 with dignity and then begin working on it's repeal at the ballot box. A "win" in the courts can have negative impact on how SSCM was achieved. I think, politically speaking that California would have been ripe for a repeal effort in 2010 or 2012, but some hotheads decided to (a) hold protests that proved embarrassing and gave a negative impression, and (b) pursue a legal challenge instead of trying to wing over the (only) 2.5% of the electorate needed to shift the outcome.


A tactical mistake, IMHO.

OK, glad to hear it. If you do it legally rather then judicial fiat then I don't object to it any more then any other law I disagree with. Which includes government opposite sex marriage.

However, I note that you still adhering to failed logic, that being since the laws are applied equally to males and females, there is not discrimination. That logic didn't work when it was whites and colored as we've already seen

If: You are of sound mind capable of consenting and consent, meet age requirements and have not had your rights restricted through due process of law.

Then: You can enter into a male/female marriage. You cannot be married to two people or be married to someone who is already married because then it's not a male/female marriage.

To say that whites cannot marry blacks violates the 14th because then two people are treated differently. Just as you can't have whites only drinking fountains for the same reason.

However, that someone "wants" something different is irrelevant to the law. That Steve wants to marry George and I don't want to marry George is irrelevant to the law. We are treated the same way. It's actually very, very clear. You just have to take your political tinted glasses off. I oppose all government marriage, but in no way do I want the law to be parsed by dictators to declare marriage not a government function. That scares me FAR more then having it.

 

[bodecea]

The term "minor" is subjective. It's just a line in a lawbook. Change it. Sort of like the way same sex marriage was prohibited by a line in a lawbook.

It's pretty much a given that all these cultural prohibitions are on their way out. All individuals can do is take precautions to keep the effects away from themselves.

You mean like they do in the Bible Belt where the "age of consent" is lower than anywhere else?

Actually, IMO, the age of consent should match the age of adulthood, 18. Across the board.

You have no problem whatsoever with imposing your morality on everyone else.

How am I forcing YOU to become gay or have a gay marriage or even go to a gay wedding, Katzndogs.

It is ONLY me forcing my morality onto you when I have the government pass laws making you live your life like mine. Cite such a law on the books, plz.

 

[bodecea]

So, let's see.

You think we are equal because....

Where did I say "we are equal?" I said treated the same under the law, it's literal. We are equal is a completely...subjective...statement, which is specifically which I'm saying the law is not.

Wow, and you congratulate yourself for your logic? Pathetic.

How sad...your kind of arguments were laughed out of the Supreme Court in the Loving v Virginia arguments/decision. Read up on it and learn something.

 

[bodecea]

Look - Billie Jean King - I don't give a fuck if you're gay or not. It doesn't bother me in the least bit.

Your problem is you constantly FLAUNT it, like it's some sort of an academic achievement.

My cousin's gay - I love him to death - but if he waved his "Gay Pride" flag as much as you do - I'd tell him to turn it down a fucking notch. I got it. He likes men. Move the fuck on with it.

I don't need a nurturing hug from a woman like you who thinks she's a man, doesn't shave, and thinks he/she/it deserves more "rights" than any American citizen already enjoys. Stay the fuck away from me, you nasty thing.

You're gay. I got it. I don't give a fuck.

And how, pray tell, do I "flaunt it? Is it in my avatar.....no. Do I talk about it all the time to the exclusion of nothing else....no.

Oh, that's right. I defend myself and fight for my rights as an equal American citizen. I mention my wife occasionally. APPARENTLY...that is "flaunting it".

Suuuuuuuuure.

Now, why don't you neg me some more and call me a "sick fuck" for saying that Pedophilia is and should always be considered a criminal act.

I gotta be frank with you Bodecea...I had no idea you were gay...and now that I know it really doesnt make a differewnce to me..

But the point is...as much as I agree with Warrior on many things...I dont see how you have EVER flaunted your sexuality and your sexual preferences.

If anything...I see more people who are homophobes expressing their sexual preference in a flaunting way for they are afraid to be seen as a "homo".....

Yeah we get that a lot around here.

Thanks, Jarhead.

 

[bodecea]

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

So....you are concerned with the feelings of those kinds of people who are committing ILLEGAL acts.

Ooooooookay.

well...you were too as it pertained to the protesters who illegally refused to vacate locations that had "hours" posted

Well, I wasn't too worried about their feelings. Be fair.

 

[Jarhead]

You mean like they do in the Bible Belt where the "age of consent" is lower than anywhere else?

Actually, IMO, the age of consent should match the age of adulthood, 18. Across the board.

You have no problem whatsoever with imposing your morality on everyone else.

How am I forcing YOU to become gay or have a gay marriage or even go to a gay wedding, Katzndogs.

It is ONLY me forcing my morality onto you when I have the government pass laws making you live your life like mine. Cite such a law on the books, plz.

Actually...in all fairness....

THe gay community (for lack of a better way to put it) is forcing those that have religiously saw marriage as a rite between a man and a woman to change what they belioeved to be...and acted through.

In other words...from a religuious point...those that referred to their marriage religiuoulsy as a bond between the man and woman are now being told that they were not experineing what they were taught to believe.

It is a valid debate on both sides and minimizing the importance of how the religious right feels is no less worng than minimizing the importance of how the gay community feels.

 

[driveby]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

They have the same rights as everyone else, idiot.......