It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

Again... for the millionth time... Consent under the law is easier to redefine than marriage. You're missing the constitutional point... I did not say "because 'a' is legal, 'b' must also be legal." There is no argument in that, it's just sheer idiocy. My argument deals with the Equal Protection clause which I am sure you are all familiar with..

You were the one who equated homosexuality with rape.

You are also the one claiming with no basis that consent is 'easier to redefine' than marriage.

 

[Boss]

Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.

Yes, it explicitly did.

 

[Boss]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

Again... for the millionth time... Consent under the law is easier to redefine than marriage. You're missing the constitutional point... I did not say "because 'a' is legal, 'b' must also be legal." There is no argument in that, it's just sheer idiocy. My argument deals with the Equal Protection clause which I am sure you are all familiar with..

You were the one who equated homosexuality with rape.

You are also the one claiming with no basis that consent is 'easier to redefine' than marriage.

I didn't equate homosexuality with anything. I don't even know how rape got tangled up in this argument... no one thinks rape is a right or should be legal or could be legal. No argument has been made for rape that I am aware of... so why does it keep getting mentioned by you retards?

I made the point that when the sodomy laws were established, the legal basis for that was the same justifications used for laws against rape... that's not me comparing sodomy to rape or saying it's the same as rape. Obviously, sodomy laws were struck down because it isn't the same thing as rape.

I don't need a basis... consent is already defined differently in different states. Montronut has already deduced that "consent" can certainly be a "gray area" as he put it. There is no set-in-law definition of consent that I know of.

You whole entire defense rests on this "consent" argument and "consent" is so unbelievably easy to change it's not even worth me challenging. It happens all the time.

 

[Montrovant]

Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.

Yes, it explicitly did.

First, sex is not a requirement for marriage. Second, the Obergefell ruling was about equal access to marriage contract law, not about sexual behavior.

You disagree? Please show us which part of the ruling explicitly created this constitutional obligation.

I might understand your argument if you were talking about the Lawrence decision, which at least was about laws based on sexual behavior.

 

[Montrovant]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

Again... for the millionth time... Consent under the law is easier to redefine than marriage. You're missing the constitutional point... I did not say "because 'a' is legal, 'b' must also be legal." There is no argument in that, it's just sheer idiocy. My argument deals with the Equal Protection clause which I am sure you are all familiar with..

You were the one who equated homosexuality with rape.

You are also the one claiming with no basis that consent is 'easier to redefine' than marriage.

I didn't equate homosexuality with anything. I don't even know how rape got tangled up in this argument... no one thinks rape is a right or should be legal or could be legal. No argument has been made for rape that I am aware of... so why does it keep getting mentioned by you retards?

I made the point that when the sodomy laws were established, the legal basis for that was the same justifications used for laws against rape... that's not me comparing sodomy to rape or saying it's the same as rape. Obviously, sodomy laws were struck down because it isn't the same thing as rape.

I don't need a basis... consent is already defined differently in different states. Montronut has already deduced that "consent" can certainly be a "gray area" as he put it. There is no set-in-law definition of consent that I know of.

You whole entire defense rests on this "consent" argument and "consent" is so unbelievably easy to change it's not even worth me challenging. It happens all the time.

You still have yet to give a single example of a sodomy law which is based on, or even mentions, consent.

 

[Montrovant]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

Again... for the millionth time... Consent under the law is easier to redefine than marriage. You're missing the constitutional point... I did not say "because 'a' is legal, 'b' must also be legal." There is no argument in that, it's just sheer idiocy. My argument deals with the Equal Protection clause which I am sure you are all familiar with..

You were the one who equated homosexuality with rape.

You are also the one claiming with no basis that consent is 'easier to redefine' than marriage.

I didn't equate homosexuality with anything. I don't even know how rape got tangled up in this argument... no one thinks rape is a right or should be legal or could be legal. No argument has been made for rape that I am aware of... so why does it keep getting mentioned by you retards?

I made the point that when the sodomy laws were established, the legal basis for that was the same justifications used for laws against rape... that's not me comparing sodomy to rape or saying it's the same as rape. Obviously, sodomy laws were struck down because it isn't the same thing as rape.

I don't need a basis... consent is already defined differently in different states. Montronut has already deduced that "consent" can certainly be a "gray area" as he put it. There is no set-in-law definition of consent that I know of.

You whole entire defense rests on this "consent" argument and "consent" is so unbelievably easy to change it's not even worth me challenging. It happens all the time.

I brought up rape in regards to why there is a compelling state interest to prevent pedophilia. That may have been where it began in this thread.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

When the victim became the bully. The line between the two is frightfully thin.

And when did that happen?

When they started attacking anyone who didn't want to cater their fag weddings.

 

[Faun]

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimage relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

There you go, wondering again why those other groups are not allowed to marry. You know, the position you earlier denied taking even after you were shown your own words revealing your questioning.

Here again you wonder why they can't marry.

I don't know what the fuck you're yapping about. I'm not wondering anything. You seem to not understand what our Constitution says about equal protection. The Constitution leaves nothing to wonder. You can wonder, because you're too dumb to know what the Constitution says. So sit there with your finger in your nose looking ignorant, muttering... duh, dey cantz get marrified cuz its not legalz..derp derp!

Suuure, rightard... questioning why those folks are not allowed to marry is not wondering why.

You're the one who thinks there is a question. I think the Constitution is clear. There is no question of whether or not you get to discriminate against other groups you don't like. Any "question" you seem to think you're seeing from me is a rhetorical one, asked in order to demonstrate what you can't explain. That's not me wondering, that is you being clueless.

You're a fucking retard.

What question do your delusions inform you I asked in terms of marriages involving animals, young children, immediate family members, and polygamy.

And no paraphrasing -- quote me verbatim.

 

[Skylar]

Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.

Yes, it explicitly did.

I don't think explicitly means what you think it means. Show us the 'explicit' creation of a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the indivduals sexual behavior.

Remembering, of course, that explicitly has an explicit meaning. And isn't whatever you want to make up.

 

[Faun]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

Again... for the millionth time... Consent under the law is easier to redefine than marriage. You're missing the constitutional point... I did not say "because 'a' is legal, 'b' must also be legal." There is no argument in that, it's just sheer idiocy. My argument deals with the Equal Protection clause which I am sure you are all familiar with..

You were the one who equated homosexuality with rape.

You are also the one claiming with no basis that consent is 'easier to redefine' than marriage.

I didn't equate homosexuality with anything. I don't even know how rape got tangled up in this argument...

How on Earth do you ever hope to understand what others say when you can't even understand what you say.

The hell you didn't equate homosexuality with rape...

"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." - Boss​

... to you and apes like you, there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophilia or zoophilia.

Oh, and did I mention ... ? You're fucking deranged.

 

[Skylar]

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?

When the victim became the bully. The line between the two is frightfully thin.

And when did that happen?

When they started attacking anyone who didn't want to cater their fag weddings.

So Keith Bardwell was 'bullied' by Jindal when pressured by Jindal to resign after Bardwell wouldn't issue marriage licenses to interracial couples?

 

[Syriusly]

If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.

Well it doesn't matter now because SCOTUS has ruled that sexuality is a Constitutionally-protected right under the 14th Amendment and marriage has to be redefined in order to accommodate a sexual proclivity.

The Supreme Court ruled that private consensual activity was a protected right over 10 years ago. Do you disagree with them- or do you believe that the government should be deciding what kind of sex you can have with another adult?

Marriage has not been redefined to accomodate any sexual proclivity- that is entirely your imagination- based upon your own bias.

 

[Syriusly]

If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.

Again, there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" it's the same thing as saying "same sex procreation" or "same sex intercourse" ...those words have specific meaning and you've altered the meaning to include behavior that doesn't fit the criteria."

There is just marriage- between two people- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

 

[Syriusly]

I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.

And neither were the equal protection rights of homosexuals. .

Well that is your opinion.

Multiple courts- and ultimately the Supreme Court disagreed with you.

You just happen to be wrong. Again.

 

[Syriusly]

I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.

And let's be clear about something else... Gay people weren't even prohibited from having a wedding and pretending they were married... they just couldn't have it codified by state authority. I attended a gay wedding in Alabama, in 1986! No redneck sheriff was there to stop it, no county clerk waving her bible around to prevent it... it happened.

And no one is stopping your from saying you are the Emperor of China.

But gay couples were not allowed to legally marry in the United States.

And anything other than legal marriage can be anything from your two dogs hanging out together to the marriage of your truck and your trailer.

 

[Syriusly]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

So you think that anything other than a woman is the same thing as man?

Why do you think goats are the same thing as men?

 

[Boss]

Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.

Yes, it explicitly did.

First, sex is not a requirement for marriage. Second, the Obergefell ruling was about equal access to marriage contract law, not about sexual behavior.

You disagree? Please show us which part of the ruling explicitly created this constitutional obligation.

I might understand your argument if you were talking about the Lawrence decision, which at least was about laws based on sexual behavior.

It had to be about sexual behavior, otherwise there is no need to change marriage contract law. Sex isn't a requirement for marriage, it is the union of a man and woman in matrimony. Changing what it IS to something it ISN'T is explicitly being done to accommodate sexual behavior of homosexuals who want to "pretend" they are married couples.

I'm sorry... are you expecting me to go find something from the Obergefell ruling that says... hey, this is really about accommodating homosexuals but we're not going to call it that? Or maybe... hey, we know we don't have any business legislating this from the bench, but we're gonna do it anyway? ...And of course, when I can't produce such "evidence" from the archives, you proclaim yourself victorious in this debate? Is that what you think is happening in your reality?

This is getting to be like the abortion threads... we argue for 3 weeks about whether abortion is right or wrong... until someone proclaims victory on the basis of the Roe v. Wade decision! This is not an argument about what the SCOTUS has ruled... that is a matter of public record and isn't debatable. Only a moron would debate that the court didn't make their ruling. We were supposed to be having a philosophical discussion about the ramifications of the ruling, what happens next, what the Constitution says... but you want to run to your safe haven of what SCOTUS has ruled.

 

[Skylar]

Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.

Yes, it explicitly did.

First, sex is not a requirement for marriage. Second, the Obergefell ruling was about equal access to marriage contract law, not about sexual behavior.

You disagree? Please show us which part of the ruling explicitly created this constitutional obligation.

I might understand your argument if you were talking about the Lawrence decision, which at least was about laws based on sexual behavior.

It had to be about sexual behavior, otherwise there is no need to change marriage contract law. Sex isn't a requirement for marriage, it is the union of a man and woman in matrimony. Changing what it IS to something it ISN'T is explicitly being done to accommodate sexual behavior of homosexuals who want to "pretend" they are married couples.

They're not pretending. Their marriages are as legally valid as any you can enter into. There's just marriage. The genders of the participants are irrelevant.

You disagree. And you're welcome to your opinion. But your opinion has nothing to do with our laws or marriage in our society.

I'm sorry... are you expecting me to go find something from the Obergefell ruling that says... hey, this is really about accommodating homosexuals but we're not going to call it that?

The Obergefell ruling was about treating gay couples and lesbian couples the same as everyone else.

Or maybe... hey, we know we don't have any business legislating this from the bench, but we're gonna do it anyway? ...And of course, when I can't produce such "evidence" from the archives, you proclaim yourself victorious in this debate? Is that what you think is happening in your reality?

They're not 'legislating from the bench'. They answered 2 specific legal questioned posed to them:

Can the state deny marriage licenses to same sex couples and can the state refuse to recognize marriges performed in other states for same sex couples?

The answer to both was 'no'.

 

[Syriusly]

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"?

This is not an anti-gay marriage thread- this is an anti-gay thread- this is you stomping your feet over your imagined slights from homosexuals, despite your self proclaimed 'tolerance'

I have seen nothing reasonable about you in this thread- you started it as a rant- and your posts have been your imagined interpretations of the Supreme Court decisions.

You don't want to be called a homophobe- don't start a thread attacking homosexuals.

If you start a thread attacking homosexuals- then have the stones to take the response like a man.

 

[Syriusly]

Sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court.....you know, the court which you are railing against for striking down laws banning same sex marriage?

You want credit for making it acceptable to be gay? You want credit for striking down sodomy laws? Do you actually think you were responsible for either of those things?

. That's a far cry from being okay with them destroying the tradition of marriage to legitimize their sexual behavior.!

I have been married for over 20 years.

My marriage has not been harmed because same gender couples can marry.

Why do you imagine that the 'tradition' of marriage is somehow destroyed?