how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[bripat9643]

The facts I stated are irrefutable.

No, they're nonsense, which is probably why she didn't bother to refute them. If you were right, then:

1) children born out of wedlock would have no legal recourse as far as requiring their parents to support them; and

Before the age of DNA, there was very little recourse. An unwed mother was in a desperate situation.

2) no couple who did not want children would ever bother getting married.

The fact that people have their own motives is immaterial to the justification used to create any particular piece of legislation.

Obviously, marriage serves many legal and social purposes besides having and raising children. It verifies a couple's commitment to one another. It provides legal standing to a spouse in terms of inheritance, property ownership, and decision-making.

Those reasons are all related to having children. If it wasn't for that, there would be no reason for the institution of marriage. Spouses have special inheritance rights only because they are the mother of their husband's children. If she had been a homemaker all her life and received nothing when her husband died, then she would be in a dire situation. That isn't the case with a couple of fuck buddies who both work for a living.

I disagree with dblack for these reasons, but while I wouldn't say that the government should get out of recognizing relationships, I do think that having it recognize "marriage" is an intrusion of the state into what should be a religious matter. What I would actually like to see is for the state to recognize only civil unions for ALL couples, straight as well as gay, and make that something separate from "marriage." Marriage would then be something that people could do either in a religious setting or just between the two of them, with personal and spiritual meaning but without legal significance.

Screw the "civil union" crap. Those are just weasel words. A "civil union" is a marriage in everything but name. It makes more sense simply to abolish the institution of marriage than to extend it to homosexuals.

 

[Seawytch]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

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

Your idiotic argument failed during Loving v Virginia when it was argued that laws banning interracial marriage were constitutional because they applied equally to men and women.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're forgetting on crucial issue, turd...

turd?? seriously?

That's my standard form of address for liberals. If you're not a liberal, I apologize. If you are a liberal, deal with it. I don't treat liberals with respect. They aren't entitled to it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

No, that's conflating religious marriage with civil marriage.

it used to be that two people became married when a pastor married them....nobody ran down to city hall...

 

[Dragon]

Before the age of DNA, there was very little recourse. An unwed mother was in a desperate situation.

We're living after the age of DNA. And rather more importantly, the days you're talking about were before the days of gender equality. But that's also changed.

The fact that people have their own motives is immaterial to the justification used to create any particular piece of legislation.

The justification used to create any particular piece of legislation are immaterial to the purpose it serves, if any, today.

Those reasons are all related to having children. If it wasn't for that, there would be no reason for the institution of marriage.

You're going to get very little support for that idea among people who are married and/or want to be. Nowadays, people think of marriage as a commitment a couple make to each other involving staying together and providing mutual support, which may or may not include raising children. Regardless of the HISTORICAL reasons for marriage FROM A BYGONE ERA, that is what marriage is TODAY, which is more important for purposes of this discussion, as it is NOT a historical discussion.

It makes more sense simply to abolish the institution of marriage than to extend it to homosexuals.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof."

Thus, we can't.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. It is not. At this moment in most states, gay couples....law-abiding, tax-paying gay couples cannot go to their County Offices and get a civil marriage license. They will be denied because they are both of the same gender. While another couple, male & female, can be right behind them in line and will not be denied.

That is unequal treatment UNDER THE LAW, and the 14th amendment forbids that without due process and cause.

Wrong. If you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, you're free to do so. Marriage laws exist to facility a specific behavior: procreation. They weren't created so a couple of fuck buddies can get government benefits.

Any attempt to equate a homosexual couple with a heterosexual couple is simply absurd. The later is capable of reproducing. The former is simply a joke.

(Scenerio: If a obese couple went in to get a license and were told that they cannot get one if they are both over 300 lbs, one of them has to be no more than 150 lbs....would you say that they have the same rights as everyone else?)

The government has already taken a child away from its parents because it weighed over 200 lbs, so don't go thinking the government would overrule such a law. It probably wouldn't. Insurance companies also deny people insurance based on their weight.

We are talking about parents over 300 lbs. And you knew that.

But your kind of argument was laughed out of the Supreme Court during Loving v. Virginia

You keep saying that, but it's pure horseshit.

What difference does it make if it's a law that applies to a parent or a child? It's a law that makes a distinction based on your weight. That's what you tried to claim was unconstitutional. It's not. There are all kinds of laws that discriminate against fat people. For instance, you can't become a fireman if your BMI is over a certain value. You can be discharged from the police department if you are too fat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You missed the point of my question.
If marriage can be made to not exist, how can marriage be a right?

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.

A large enough majoity cannot repeal the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments and then reinstate the institutons that said amendents were intnded to eliminate?

 

[bodecea]

Brilliant argument.

However, it's a colossal fail.

The facts I stated are irrefutable.

Your facts are easily refutted by the FACT that childbearing is not a requirement for getting a marriage license....nor is a marriage license a requirement for childbearing.

IPSO FACTO.

Wrong. Couples need to be married before they have children, not after. Obviously, afterwards, the incentive for getting married is drastically altered. Before the days of paternity tests, there was no way to ensure that any particular male was the father of the child. In those days, marriage ensured that the a male would be around to support the family. Being around all the time was his way of making sure he was the father. If a woman got pregnant without getting married first, her chances of landing a husband were close to zero.

So your theory is absurd on its face. Marriage exists for the protection of women and children. It isn't permission to have children. It's a contract that binds a couple together and makes it painful for the husband to abandon his responsibilities. In fact, there is very little benefit to males from the marriage contract. The benefits all go to the mother and children.

And where is the law making that a requirement?

 

[bripat9643]

Couples need to be married before they have children, not after.

No, there is no such requirement.

There's no legal requirement, but women generally insist on it. Unless they are independently wealthy, they are fools if they don't.

Obviously, afterwards, the incentive for getting married is drastically altered.

No, it's not.

Yes it is, especially in the days before paternity could be established beyond all doubt. that's when our current marriage laws were written.

We are, however, living after the days of paternity tests today.

True, but the laws were written before the age of accurate paternity testing. Even though we have such testing now, it's still in a woman's best interest to be married to the father of her children. It's also in the child's best interest.

In those days, marriage ensured that the a male would be around to support the family.

Actually, in those days, marriage ensured that a male could be sure it WAS his family. It was a property arrangement in which a man owned a woman and she was to have children only by him.

ROFL! Left-wingers always have to turn everything they don't like into an indictment against capitalism. Marriage involves property, but it doesn't make a woman into property. That's pure leftists propaganda. However, part of the purpose of marriage was to ensure that the husband was the father of the woman's children. Would any man want to raise another man's children with an unfaithful wife?

You libtards just don't seem to get the point of marriage. Having an entire menagerie of other sex partners isn't part of the plan.

Marriage exists for the protection of women and children.

That wasn't even really true in the days you were talking about, and it's certainly not true today.

Of course it's true. You have to be truly brain dead to dispute it.

 

[bripat9643]

Your facts are easily refutted by the FACT that childbearing is not a requirement for getting a marriage license....nor is a marriage license a requirement for childbearing.

IPSO FACTO.

Wrong. Couples need to be married before they have children, not after. Obviously, afterwards, the incentive for getting married is drastically altered. Before the days of paternity tests, there was no way to ensure that any particular male was the father of the child. In those days, marriage ensured that the a male would be around to support the family. Being around all the time was his way of making sure he was the father. If a woman got pregnant without getting married first, her chances of landing a husband were close to zero.

So your theory is absurd on its face. Marriage exists for the protection of women and children. It isn't permission to have children. It's a contract that binds a couple together and makes it painful for the husband to abandon his responsibilities. In fact, there is very little benefit to males from the marriage contract. The benefits all go to the mother and children.

And where is the law making that a requirement?

It's a law of biology. Women are the ones who enforce it. Before birth control and paternity testing, if you didn't sign the marriage contract, you didn't get access to her sexual goodies.

 

[Dragon]

If marriage can be made to not exist, how can marriage be a right?

Any right can be trampled upon. We generally consider free speech a right, for example, but there are numerous governments, generally of developing countries, that don't respect it.

"Inalienable rights" was a nice bit of rhetoric on the part of Mr. Jefferson, but it is not a statement of objective fact.

 

[bodecea]

we always knew u had a twisted mind.....stop proving it so much....

How odd that you could not answer yes or no to my question.

How odd....as a Lefie i thot u didn't believe in "yes or no".....or "right or wrong".....or "black or white".....everything with u Lefties always appears to be a wavy gray line....

So, you answer my question with a "wavy gray line" like a "Lefie"? Or was that ANOTHER deflection? Why yes, I believe it was.

Are you afraid to answer my question? Seems so.

 

[bodecea]

The facts I stated are irrefutable.

No, they're nonsense, which is probably why she didn't bother to refute them. If you were right, then:

1) children born out of wedlock would have no legal recourse as far as requiring their parents to support them; and

Before the age of DNA, there was very little recourse. An unwed mother was in a desperate situation.



The fact that people have their own motives is immaterial to the justification used to create any particular piece of legislation.

Obviously, marriage serves many legal and social purposes besides having and raising children. It verifies a couple's commitment to one another. It provides legal standing to a spouse in terms of inheritance, property ownership, and decision-making.

Those reasons are all related to having children. If it wasn't for that, there would be no reason for the institution of marriage. Spouses have special inheritance rights only because they are the mother of their husband's children. If she had been a homemaker all her life and received nothing when her husband died, then she would be in a dire situation. That isn't the case with a couple of fuck buddies who both work for a living.

I disagree with dblack for these reasons, but while I wouldn't say that the government should get out of recognizing relationships, I do think that having it recognize "marriage" is an intrusion of the state into what should be a religious matter. What I would actually like to see is for the state to recognize only civil unions for ALL couples, straight as well as gay, and make that something separate from "marriage." Marriage would then be something that people could do either in a religious setting or just between the two of them, with personal and spiritual meaning but without legal significance.

Screw the "civil union" crap. Those are just weasel words. A "civil union" is a marriage in everything but name. It makes more sense simply to abolish the institution of marriage than to extend it to homosexuals.

I learned that that is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face"....and makes about as much sense......to an adult.

 

[bodecea]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

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

Your idiotic argument failed during Loving v Virginia when it was argued that laws banning interracial marriage were constitutional because they applied equally to men and women.

The Justices actually laughed out loud at the Virginia lawyer who tried to present that as a valid argument.

 

[grunt11b]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

The only people screaming gay rights are morons like you. Of course gays have rights, just like anybody else in America. But being that marriage is not in the constitution it is left up to the states to decide, so no...you are wrong in any type of assertion that gays have a right to marry in any state that they want to. Also, there right to be gay coincides with my right to be free from them, and to be free from having to pay for any disease they may spread.
Gays have no more rights than anybody else in this country and in my opinion are not a protected class. They are free to smoke poles and ram each other in the ass all they want in my opinion, just dont throw it up in our faces when you do.

 

[bripat9643]

Screw the "civil union" crap. Those are just weasel words. A "civil union" is a marriage in everything but name. It makes more sense simply to abolish the institution of marriage than to extend it to homosexuals.

I learned that that is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face"....and makes about as much sense......to an adult.

All you're saying is that its stupid to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals. I agree.

 

[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.

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.

You chastise people about not being logical, then you can't address my points logically and you resort to arrogant condescension. You're exactly why I seldom make serious arguments to liberals, there's no point. And once again you proved that. You also proved you're an arrogant ass.

 

[grunt11b]

I didnt need this prompter.

I already understaood it was a civil rights issue deccades ago

The term civil rights does not trump the united states constitution, if you are gay and want to get married to another gay then you either need to do one of two things, elect officials into your state that will change the marriage laws, or go to a state that allows gay marriage, civil rights is only a term used to strip everyone else away from there own rights to decide whether they will tolerate such things.
You can also get enough signatures on a ballot to have it put up for a vote during election time, even though that happened twice in California and the people voted hell no on it the liberals there circumvented the peoples choice and tried to legislate gay marriage from the bench, just as leftists always do when they cant get what they want.

 

[grunt11b]

Thanks for posting this TM, I didn't know suckin' a dick was a "Civil Right".

"All we are saying, is take cocks in ass!"

"I have a dream, that one day all Americans will take a cock in the ass!"

"Truth, Justice, and a Cock in the Ass!"

"Baseball, Hotdogs, Apple Pie and Dicks in Ass!"

"I regret that I have only One Dick to stick in someones ass!"

If a man is not allowed to take a dick (or a fist) in his ass is that man truly free? I think not. It's all so clear to me now!

 

[Dragon]

The term civil rights does not trump the united states constitution, if you are gay and want to get married to another gay then you either need to do one of two things, elect officials into your state that will change the marriage laws, or go to a state that allows gay marriage, civil rights is only a term used to strip everyone else away from there own rights to decide whether they will tolerate such things.
You can also get enough signatures on a ballot to have it put up for a vote during election time, even though that happened twice in California and the people voted hell no on it the liberals there circumvented the peoples choice and tried to legislate gay marriage from the bench, just as leftists always do when they cant get what they want.

I would suggest not posting while intoxicated. It's better to post while intoxicated than to drive that way, certainly, and will endanger no lives, but it's still not really a good idea.