Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.Again .... the law is applied equally..
Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.
Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.
Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.
Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.
Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.
Cries the poster who shared his vision of gays being beheaded by his ISIS conservative bretheren.Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior? I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition?
What evidence are you using to conclude that humanity is presently operating on a sustainable course?
Has every human who has ever had sexual relations outside a single monogamous relationship been breaking a law of nature? Not a particularly compelling law, is it?
Yes... and yes.
I'd submit the kids who find themselves knocked up and married scuttling their would-be plans to become something other than what they've become... married and ignorant, in low paying jobs, living in squaller with little hope of escaping... because they violated that law.
I'd also submit the little girl who sits in shame, a paper gown, alone... waiting for some pathetic wretch to come disembowel her first child and scrape it from her womb; from which she leaves, still immersed in shame, forced to bear her secret that she murdered her first child... over a life of irretrievable regret.
Pretty steep price for a little sweaty wigglin'.
I still consider your 'laws of nature' to be little more than your own belief about the optimal human relationship.
Of course ya do... you're animated largely by evil... having lost kinship with your own soul.
The good news is that it's there... you just need to find the strength of courage to reason objectively and it will come to you.
The bad news is that absent the means to do so, you'll be less likely to adhere to those laws and subsequently be subjected to the heavy price of a lifetime of experiences, subject to that failure.
Why is it so important for you to get beastiality legalized. The only ones here I see fighting that argument are folks on your side of the aisle.Of course we can change laws. Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down? Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?
I don't know... did people think 12 years ago that the illegal act of homosexuality would be cauterized into law, legitimized through marriage and made a Constitutional right by an activist Supreme Court?
Age of consent used to be MUCH lower. In fact, a naturalist would argue the age of consent, when it comes to sexual relations, should be set at puberty because that is when females and males become physically and sexually mature. It is only the aspects of religiously-based morality that prevents such things now. And the same goes for zoophilia.
Now you can argue that under current definition, animals cannot consent... but as we see, current definitions can be changed on a whim by an activist court. If animals cannot consent, then no one should be able to "own" animals. If they are unable to give consent, they are unable to be held accountable to the law and therefore, are not subject to the law... they don't have to give consent. How is it harming others? What's the compelling state interests to prevent it? There are none, especially since you've legitimized sexual behavior as a Constitutional right. You're going to have to live with that... we all are. Thanks!
Wait, did you actually just argue that in order to own an animal it must be able to give consent? So owning animals is disallowed, unless it constitutes slavery?
You are correct, age of consent used to be lower. That, of course, means that it has been raised. Yet here you are, terrified that it is going to go down again because gays can marry. Again
Animals are not subject to the laws governing human behavior. We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.
What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape? Oh, I'm sure you'll argue that somehow gay marriage makes those things no longer of import, as though allowing homosexuals to have civil marriage is an end to the rule of law. I'm not sure why this particular issue destroys all possible arguments for regulations on marriage or sex but other changes to laws about sex didn't. It couldn't have anything to do with a bias against homosexuals on your part, though, since you are so much more tolerant that most people!
The Supreme Court legitimized a right to privacy in striking down state sodomy laws. Obergefell was about equal access to marriage contract law, not sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not marriage, nor is any particular sexual behavior required for marriage.
Again, you're not thinking past the head of your gay dick. You view this as some isolated thing that doesn't have any effect on anything else because you've convinced yourself that is the case. I'm trying to explain how something like this has ramifications but instead of taking my points seriously, you simply dismiss them because they haven't yet happened.
We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.
Which of our laws are animals expected to obey, dipshit? Let's try to stay in context. We have laws regarding human treatment of animals. Most of those are based on some religious moral foundation... so there goes THAT! Animals can't be required to give consent for the same reason they aren't expected to follow the law. They are not under jurisdiction of the law so consent simply doesn't apply. With the consent issue rendered invalid, the only constraint is a moral religious belief that humans shouldn't fuck animals.
As with gay marriage, all we need is a group who claims discrimination. Presto-chango... zoophilia becomes legalized then legitimized through marriage. In 20 years, people can't be denied the right to marry the pig they love. You can't stop this ride because you don't like it anymore. You are strapped in and you're going to ride it all the way down.
What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape?
What the hell are you mumbling around about here? Spit it out, boy! Make your case! We've already established that animals can't give consent and aren't subject to rule of law... so there goes that reason... gone! *POOF!* What is this "maintain the viability of other laws" shit? It's too late to be worrying about maintaining viability of other laws, you've struck them down on the basis that you want homosexuals to have the right to legitimize their behavior through marriage, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Oh, you can hem-haw around and jawbone about maintaining viability... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Again, it seems to be YOU living in DENAIL of the ramifications of your actions.
Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.Again .... the law is applied equally..
Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.
Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.
Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.
Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.
Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.
As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.
The reality is that the bigoted right who fought, and lost, their battle to keep same-sex marriage illegal are the only ones promoting the slippery slope notion that same-sex mariage would lead to those other forms of marriage. And y'all did so with the hope that if you could lump gays in with other more distateful and illegal sex acts, as you just tried to do in your last post, you could get society on your side of the debate.
You lost that debate because society is not as stupid as you.
I find it rather difficult to believe you when you claim some of your dearest friends are gay given how you find homosexuality to be "similar" to beastiality and pedophilia.This whole thread is nothing more than you projecting your anti-homosexual paranoia.
Actually it's not and it offends me that this keeps being implied. I have patiently gone out of my way to explain that I have no problem with gay people and some of my dearest friends are gay. It hurts my heart that people are so closed-minded on this that they don't understand my position is not homophobia. But I can't do anything about your bigotry toward me personally. That is something YOU have to answer for, not me.
MY state is taking the initiative to change the laws so that the State doesn't issue marriage licenses anymore. Done... we're out of the marriage business, as all government should be! All throughout the course of this debate, I have been a staunch supporter of some kind of civil union contract to completely replace marriage licenses and government only recognizing civil partnerships. People and churches can call marriage whatever they want to. It resolves the problem for everyone and ostensibly gives all sides what they claim to want.... but no one was interested in my idea.
You and Montro along with the rest of your Merry Band, are political hacks who are exploiting this issue in order to bash Christians and Conservatives and generate buzz among your voting base. That's really ALL it's about for you... none of you give two shits about gay people.
Deviant or not, our society still supports it. Most people support same-sex marriage, most people support the Supreme Court ruling, and same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states before that ruling.Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.Again .... the law is applied equally..
Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.
Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.
Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.
Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.
Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.
As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.
The reality is that the bigoted right who fought, and lost, their battle to keep same-sex marriage illegal are the only ones promoting the slippery slope notion that same-sex mariage would lead to those other forms of marriage. And y'all did so with the hope that if you could lump gays in with other more distateful and illegal sex acts, as you just tried to do in your last post, you could get society on your side of the debate.
You lost that debate because society is not as stupid as you.
Of course they do. Just how fucking retarded are you??Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes examples of gay Americans who can now legally marry.
They can't in Alabama. We don't do marriage licenses anymore... Now what, smart ass?
Suuuuure ... your message isn't anti-gay ....Far from being called 'every name under the book' you have been called a homophobe for starting an anti-gay thread.
Anti-gay-marriage is not anti-gay. The same as anti-illegal-immigration isn't anti-immigration.
That's the closed minded and bigoted view I am talking about. I realized the thread would be controversial and I would be called names. I stated that in paragraph one.
I am a reasonable person. I can meet just about anyone half way on just about anything. But this isn't something the left wants to meet half way on. You've got your banner to wave and you've picked your mountain to die on. No one can reason with you which is why I said, we would have been better off to have dismissed you from the outset.
I know people who are gay and opposed to gay marriage... So do you also consider them "anti-gay"?
You finished yet? If so, we're done here. I've got nothing else to say. I stand by the OP which you are free to disagree with. I'm not going to sit here and reply to every attempt you make to deconstruct the OP and parse out bits and pieces to imply things that weren't said.
You have compared homosexuals to alcoholics, pedophiles, bestiality, and necrophilia.
No, I did not compare them to anything. I've given examples of some other sexual proclivities (and that's what homosexuality is) which can now lobby for their rights, come out of the closet, demand that they be given the same legitimacy under the law... and we have no choice but to allow it, if we are going to remain true to the Constitution.
I compared the gay lobby to alcoholics being given more to drink in hopes of satisfying them. That has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Again... you'r being a lying PUNK!
You finished yet? If so, we're done here. I've got nothing else to say. I stand by the OP which you are free to disagree with. I'm not going to sit here and reply to every attempt you make to deconstruct the OP and parse out bits and pieces to imply things that weren't said.
Imply things that weren't said, is it? When I quoted exactly what you posted and later claimed you said the opposite of?
Of course you're done. You know you were completely wrong but are unwilling to admit it. Have fun trying to pretend that my pointing out your erroneous claim is parsing out bits and pieces.
When the victim became the bully. The line between the two is frightfully thin.What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.
No, what you are witnessing is otherwise tolerant and rational people becoming frustrated because they can't ever seem to do enough for gays. You keep pushing and pushing for something you're never going to have...
You see, what you really want is to be accepted as normal... but you're not normal, are you? You realize what you do is wrong and abnormal for human beings and you seek to have your abnormal behavior accepted and legitimized... but you know that it never will be. No amount of tolerance will ever suffice, you'll keep on pushing until society pushes back, and they will.
What is "enough" for the gays?
Not firing them or denying them housing?
Not kicking them out of the military?
Allowing them to openly say who they are?
Permitting them to marry the person they love?
Where was your breaking point?
Since you're speaking in vague terms, I have no idea what you're talking about. Prostitution is still illegal and if I remember right, you people danced a jig when an Idaho senator was caught in an airport restroom sex sting. So what cases are you referring to that were "thrown out"?Wow, the OP has really sent the USMB Assclown Brigade off the deep end. They're foaming at the mouth to attack, like good little trained progressive bots.
The OP really hits the nail on the head, there is no appeasing the homo-progressives. The homo-progressive movement was never about 'tolerance'. There was always tolerance of homosexuals, they weren't being thrown in jail or persecuted by the government. Did people have disdain for them, and disgust for their actions, naturally. But queers could still live their lives in peace and do whatever they wanted in the bedroom and no one could stop them.
But, that wasn't good enough for them. So they started demanding that there be no consequences for coming out of the closet. That anyone should be able to be openly gay and that everyone must accept that. Even though the vast majority of people are disgusted by queers, they were all expected to put their natural revulsion aside and 'accept' a behavior that everyone knows is wrong. If you didn't alter your behavior and feelings towards homosexuality then you would be harassed and labeled a homophobe and bigot. But, society still went along with it.
But it still wasn't enough. Now we are being told that we have to accept 'transgender' people as if they are normal. We now have to pretend a mutilated cross-dressing queer is a 'woman'. Sorry, but no.
Oh, the USSC decision which declared sodomy laws unconstitutional didn't happen until 2003. Up until then it was still legally acceptable to imprison gays for consensual sex acts, and in fact the case was one in which two men were charged and convicted of, basically, having gay sex. So your contention that "queers could still live their lives in peace and do whatever they wanted in the bedroom and no one could stop them" has only been true for a little more than a decade, legally speaking.
I'm also curious why, if the vast majority of people are disgusted by queers, they would accept that behavior on a personal level? Where did homosexuals get the power to decide what is or is not socially acceptable?
Oh please, you're telling us that queers were afraid of being thrown in jail for their sexual acts? All because of some old law on the books that was never enforced? That's a load of crap and you know it.
Hmmm are you really this ignorant?
The very Supreme Court case that overturned sodomy laws that were targeted against homosexuals were because of homosexuals who were arrested for sexual acts in the privacy of their bedroom.
Even after that- in Louisiana, gay men were being arrested for responding to solicitations for sex by police under cover operatives- those cases were thrown out because gay sex was no longer illegal but as recently as a few years ago, gay men were indeed being thrown in jail for sexual acts.
Go back further- and gays were thrown in jail not only for sexual acts but for merely appearing to be gay.
As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.
As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.
Currently, polygamists are filing cases demanding their equal protection. "Multi-partner marriage" becomes the new "same-sex marriage" complete with same arguments and points. When that is done, here come those who have incest relationships... incest marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" ...Next on deck, the hebephiles.. it becomes the new homosexuality, child marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" complete with same arguments and points. Next... zoophiles... animal marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" ...same arguments, same points. In 20 years, you will not be able to stand in the way of marriage for the person and the pig they love, the child they love, the sister they love or the multiple partners they love. You will not be able to deny their Constitutional rights.
The compelling argument did not exist until the SCOTUS found a right to same sex marriage. That's very recent, that's why these other things have not been made legal. Remember, just 12 years ago, homosexuality was also illegal in some states. It doesn't take long for the house of cards to fall. ALL of them will fall.
People have been filing such cases for decades to no avail. The underlying acts remain illegal leading to a compelling reason to not allow those types of marriages. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment is not being violated in those cases. No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally to everyone. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally to everyone. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally to everyone. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally to everyone.As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.
Currently, polygamists are filing cases demanding their equal protection. "Multi-partner marriage" becomes the new "same-sex marriage" complete with same arguments and points. When that is done, here come those who have incest relationships... incest marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" ...Next on deck, the hebephiles.. it becomes the new homosexuality, child marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" complete with same arguments and points. Next... zoophiles... animal marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" ...same arguments, same points. In 20 years, you will not be able to stand in the way of marriage for the person and the pig they love, the child they love, the sister they love or the multiple partners they love. You will not be able to deny their Constitutional rights.
The compelling argument did not exist until the SCOTUS found a right to same sex marriage. That's very recent, that's why these other things have not been made legal. Remember, just 12 years ago, homosexuality was also illegal in some states. It doesn't take long for the house of cards to fall. ALL of them will fall.
Again, why is this change to marriage going to lead to all possible forms of marriage becoming legal when other changes to marriage did not?
No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.
