I find it very disturbing

[Votto]

Why do you wish to afford rights based upon sexual arrangements? Why do you want people voting on what kinds of sex they like and dislike?

I guess that is what I find the most disturbing. Meanwhile, our politicians divide and conquer based on who wants to sleep with who. I guess is sure beats passing budgets and actually talking about them doing their jobs they way they are suppose to do so.

all societies decide what will be considered acceptable to that society. Those decisions are made by majority vote. The civil rights act of 1965 was passed by majority vote (in spite of democrat philibusters).

Its not a matter of voting on what kind of sex they like, its voting on whether society as a whole wants to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Human biology and anatomy say it is not normal.

But the people should make those decisions, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

I do agree with you on the "divide and conquer" points. Obama has been doing that since 2007

No, what you are doing is giving special perks for monogamous sex. It's not about what is legal or not legal. Clearly people are free to engage in these activities if they like, but why is the state involved in endorsing certain sexual activity by encouraging it through special legal perks?

Why are we not treating everyone as equals? Why is being single or a polygamist any less desirable than committing to a monogamous relationship?

This is discrimination at its highest level, disguised as progress and tolerance when it is anything but.

for over 3000 years humans have decided that the union of one man and one woman was best for society as a whole. If you call that discrimination, fine. I call it humanity.

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

 

[Redfish]

Wrong, I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them.

I used to not think much about homosexuals but I've seen what low life scum fucks they really are. Their sexual confusions stem from their corrupt inner nature.

fish, your like minded brethren is gonna quit you for your tolerance of gays. You losing creds here dude. You better start ANOTHER gay bashing thread to bring icy back into your good graces.

I am tolerant of gays and all other forms of human abnormality. In most cases they have no choice in the matter.

If you go back and read the OP, you might understand what I am trying to say.

 

[Redfish]

all societies decide what will be considered acceptable to that society. Those decisions are made by majority vote. The civil rights act of 1965 was passed by majority vote (in spite of democrat philibusters).

Its not a matter of voting on what kind of sex they like, its voting on whether society as a whole wants to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Human biology and anatomy say it is not normal.

But the people should make those decisions, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

I do agree with you on the "divide and conquer" points. Obama has been doing that since 2007

No, what you are doing is giving special perks for monogamous sex. It's not about what is legal or not legal. Clearly people are free to engage in these activities if they like, but why is the state involved in endorsing certain sexual activity by encouraging it through special legal perks?

Why are we not treating everyone as equals? Why is being single or a polygamist any less desirable than committing to a monogamous relationship?

This is discrimination at its highest level, disguised as progress and tolerance when it is anything but.

for over 3000 years humans have decided that the union of one man and one woman was best for society as a whole. If you call that discrimination, fine. I call it humanity.

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

 

[bodecea]

Wrong, I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them.

I used to not think much about homosexuals but I've seen what low life scum fucks they really are. Their sexual confusions stem from their corrupt inner nature.

fish, your like minded brethren is gonna quit you for your tolerance of gays. You losing creds here dude. You better start ANOTHER gay bashing thread to bring icy back into your good graces.

I am tolerant of gays and all other forms of human abnormality. In most cases they have no choice in the matter.

If you go back and read the OP, you might understand what I am trying to say.

Sure you are...

 

[bodecea]

No, what you are doing is giving special perks for monogamous sex. It's not about what is legal or not legal. Clearly people are free to engage in these activities if they like, but why is the state involved in endorsing certain sexual activity by encouraging it through special legal perks?

Why are we not treating everyone as equals? Why is being single or a polygamist any less desirable than committing to a monogamous relationship?

This is discrimination at its highest level, disguised as progress and tolerance when it is anything but.

for over 3000 years humans have decided that the union of one man and one woman was best for society as a whole. If you call that discrimination, fine. I call it humanity.

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

the constitution is silent on the normality or abnormality of homosexuality and gay liasons.

You are trying to use the judicial branch to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage as normal.

And I guarantee that is you succeed, the next SC case will be on polygamous marriage using the exact same arguments you are making today.

What arguments will you bring against polygamists who only want to be able to marry who they love?

Not trying.... succeeding. But I don't want to take the credit for it. Other than applauding it, I am a bystander.

we will see what SCOTUS does. If you lose will you STFU?

If you lose, will you?

 

[zeke]

I am tolerant of gays and all other forms of human abnormality. In most cases they have no choice in the matter.

Gee ain't you a great American. You are tolerant of hate. lies and gay bashing. All done right here on these pages and you don't say jack shit to the haters and gay bashers about being more tolerant. Why is that?

 

[Redfish]

for over 3000 years humans have decided that the union of one man and one woman was best for society as a whole. If you call that discrimination, fine. I call it humanity.

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

I don't want to legalize polygamy, but if gay marriage becomes federal law, polygamy will be next. The ACLU is already working on cases for polygamists.

Is that the kind of society you want for your children and grandchildren? Because it will happen, you will have set a valid legal precedent for it.

 

[Votto]

for over 3000 years humans have decided that the union of one man and one woman was best for society as a whole. If you call that discrimination, fine. I call it humanity.

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

No, the state needs to defend being in control of marriage

What test did we take to get a license? Why should I get perks for it?

 

[Redfish]

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

the constitution is silent on the normality or abnormality of homosexuality and gay liasons.

You are trying to use the judicial branch to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage as normal.

And I guarantee that is you succeed, the next SC case will be on polygamous marriage using the exact same arguments you are making today.

What arguments will you bring against polygamists who only want to be able to marry who they love?

Not trying.... succeeding. But I don't want to take the credit for it. Other than applauding it, I am a bystander.

we will see what SCOTUS does. If you lose will you STFU?

If you lose, will you?

Yes, will you?

 

[Votto]

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

I don't want to legalize polygamy, but if gay marriage becomes federal law, polygamy will be next. The ACLU is already working on cases for polygamists.

Is that the kind of society you want for your children and grandchildren? Because it will happen, you will have set a valid legal precedent for it.

So long as the state is in control of marriage, it will happen eventually.

The state has no business in matters of sex, unless they are minors or people are being coerced into having sex.

 

[bodecea]

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

I don't want to legalize polygamy, but if gay marriage becomes federal law, polygamy will be next. The ACLU is already working on cases for polygamists.

Is that the kind of society you want for your children and grandchildren? Because it will happen, you will have set a valid legal precedent for it.

Polygamy will ONLY be next if people like you in support of it make a legitimate legal case for it being legalized. Since you don't seem to be making the world's best legal case AGAINST gay marriage..............I'm not too worried.

 

[Redfish]

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

No, the state needs to defend being in control of marriage

What test did we take to get a license? Why should I get perks for it?

Seriously, the only way to prevent the logical slippery slope to all forms of "marriage" is a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the legal union of TWO people who are above the age of consent.

without that, this crap will go on forever.

I am perfectly fine with accepting the will of the people if 38 states vote to ratify such an amendment, are you?

 

[Redfish]

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

I don't want to legalize polygamy, but if gay marriage becomes federal law, polygamy will be next. The ACLU is already working on cases for polygamists.

Is that the kind of society you want for your children and grandchildren? Because it will happen, you will have set a valid legal precedent for it.

Polygamy will ONLY be next if people like you in support of it make a legitimate legal case for it being legalized. Since you don't seem to be making the world's best legal case AGAINST gay marriage..............I'm not too worried.

your gayness blinds you from seeing reality.

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

the constitution is silent on the normality or abnormality of homosexuality and gay liasons.

You are trying to use the judicial branch to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage as normal.

And I guarantee that is you succeed, the next SC case will be on polygamous marriage using the exact same arguments you are making today.

What arguments will you bring against polygamists who only want to be able to marry who they love?

Not trying.... succeeding. But I don't want to take the credit for it. Other than applauding it, I am a bystander.

we will see what SCOTUS does. If you lose will you STFU?

If you lose, will you?

Yes, will you?

I don't believe you...but whatever.

 

[bodecea]

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

I don't want to legalize polygamy, but if gay marriage becomes federal law, polygamy will be next. The ACLU is already working on cases for polygamists.

Is that the kind of society you want for your children and grandchildren? Because it will happen, you will have set a valid legal precedent for it.

Polygamy will ONLY be next if people like you in support of it make a legitimate legal case for it being legalized. Since you don't seem to be making the world's best legal case AGAINST gay marriage..............I'm not too worried.

your gayness blinds you from seeing reality.

What is it about my "gayness" that blinds me from seeing reality? Perhaps it is your straightness (my assumption here) that blinds YOU?

 

[Votto]

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)

You are a bigot to anyone who is not in a monogamous union.

Deal with it.

are you a bigot to everyone who wants to be in a polygamous union? yes or no?

Those of you wanting legalized polygamy need to make your legal case.....just like gays have been successfully making ours.

I don't want to legalize polygamy, but if gay marriage becomes federal law, polygamy will be next. The ACLU is already working on cases for polygamists.

Is that the kind of society you want for your children and grandchildren? Because it will happen, you will have set a valid legal precedent for it.

Polygamy will ONLY be next if people like you in support of it make a legitimate legal case for it being legalized. Since you don't seem to be making the world's best legal case AGAINST gay marriage..............I'm not too worried.

So it's OK for you to get married but not a polygamist?

What a bigot.

 

[Iceweasel]

So it's OK for you to get married but not a polygamist?

What a bigot.

That's the point. They want exclusive rights to define what hate, intolerance and bigotry is. They are intellectually dishonest to the core.

 

[PratchettFan]

So it's OK for you to get married but not a polygamist?

What a bigot.

That's the point. They want exclusive rights to define what hate, intolerance and bigotry is. They are intellectually dishonest to the core.

That's right. Everyone knows that's your exclusive right.

 

[Seawytch]

So it's OK for you to get married but not a polygamist?

What a bigot.

That's the point. They want exclusive rights to define what hate, intolerance and bigotry is. They are intellectually dishonest to the core.

Who does? Who is this "they" you are referring to?

If you believe there is no societal harm in allowing polygamy, you have the same right that interracial and gay couples did to challenge the prohibition. Best of luck.