It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[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?

So yes... collectively, WE made it acceptable to be gay. The result is, that wasn't enough and I don't think gay marriage will be enough. It's akin to trying to give an alcoholic enough to drink so that he is satisfied. The more you appease and enable, the worse they become.!

No- 'we' meaning you didn't.

You still don't find homosexuality acceptable. You tolerate homosexuals- supposedly- while attacking homosexuality in this very thread.

What this whole thread about is you making a feeble argument why homosexuals should be forced back into the closet.

Not going to happen- the real we- the Americans who really are tolerant- don't think that anyone should be forced into the closet.

 

[Syriusly]

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!

No- you didn't compare 'the gay lobby'- you compared homosexuals- lets us review again

So yes... collectively, WE made it acceptable to be gay. The result is, that wasn't enough and I don't think gay marriage will be enough. It's akin to trying to give an alcoholic enough to drink so that he is satisfied. The more you appease and enable, the worse they become.

I think homosexuals know what they are doing is fundamentally and morally wrong and no matter what measures are taken to accommodate them, it will never overcome that guilt. It's never going to be enough to make the homosexual feel society isn't prejudiced against them

No mention of 'gay lobby'- however you do specifically refer to homosexuals. You compared homosexuals to alcoholics- you compared allowing gay marriage to giving an alcoholic a drink.

And that says more about you- than it does about any homosexuals.

 

[Boss]

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

Funny... Montronut just said that it wasn't about sexuality. Make up your minds!!

Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it is nothing else. Same-sex relationships are not marriage. It doesn't mean they can't have the same benefits. It doesn't mean they can't dress up and have a wedding and throw rice and eat wedding cake and go on honeymoons... they can do all that. And now, they can even get their license from the government because the SCOTUS has ruled your Constitutional rights to sexuality are protected under the law and can be legitimized through marriage. It was a lawless ruling they shouldn't have made and it will have severe ramifications. But SCOTUS has gotten it wrong so many times it's not really a surprise they got it wrong again.

The entire point of my OP is the fact that "gay marriage" or any other accommodation is not going to make homosexuals whole. If you are gay, you may as well get used to the fact that society will always treat you differently because you are different. There will always be religious people who look at what you do as an abomination and morally wrong, and The Bible is never going to rewrite itself or be overturned by SCOTUS. So we can keep on changing definition of traditional things to appease homosexuals and never succeed in satisfying them because we'll never have the society they want, where homosexuality is normal and accepted... or we can grow up and understand that people are different and we should judge people on individual character instead of a stereotype.

 

[Syriusly]

I stand by my OP and you are missing the context.
Good job on nit picking the grammar though.

You're still a dishonest dipshit.

You stand by your OP- which is an attack on homosexuals- and a call for Americans to reject homosexuals and equality for homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

that is what you insist it must be.

The ruling says nothing of the sort.

Which is why you can't find a quote to support your claim.

This is just you being really, really upset that same gender couples can marry.

This is a reality now- unless you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to change that- the reality is that people in America are getting married- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

You don't have to like it- you don't have approve of it- but it is the reality.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Funny... Montronut just said that it wasn't about sexuality. Make up your minds!!

Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it is nothing else. Same-sex relationships are not marriage.

that is your opinion.

Nothing else.

Marriage has been legal for same gender couples in Massachusetts for 11 years now. Yet straight people still get married in Massachusetts.

 

[Boss]

I have been married for over 20 years.

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

GOOD! And this will also be the case when the hebephiles lobby for pre-teen-marriage and the zoophiles lobby for animal marriage... and the polygamists and pederasts... sibling marriage... father-daughter and son-mother marriage... None of what is coming will harm your marriage in any way... so you'll be totally cool with all that when it's rolled out. ...Good for you!

 

[Syriusly]

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

The entire point of my OP is the fact that "gay marriage" or any other accommodation is not going to make homosexuals whole. If you are gay, you may as well get used to the fact that society will always treat you differently because you are different. There will always be religious people who look at what you do as an abomination and morally wrong, and The Bible is never going to rewrite itself or be overturned by SCOTUS. So we can keep on changing definition of traditional things to appease homosexuals and never succeed in satisfying them because we'll never have the society they want, where homosexuality is normal and accepted... or we can grow up and understand that people are different and we should judge people on individual character instead of a stereotype.

Nothing in your OP says that.

Your OP is a rant to Americans on why it would have been better to condemn homosexuals than to treat them equally.

There will always be people who find some people- and somethings- morally wrong- at one time Divorce was considered one of those things- so was selling liquor- other times it was dancing- other times it was failure to attend church on Sunday.

Why should we ever be trying to appease those of you who find something offensive?

 

[Syriusly]

I have been married for over 20 years.

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

GOOD! And this will also be the case when the hebephiles lobby for pre-teen-marriage and the zoophiles lobby for animal marriage... and the polygamists and pederasts... sibling marriage... father-daughter and son-mother marriage... None of what is coming will harm your marriage in any way... so you'll be totally cool with all that when it's rolled out. ...Good for you!

Oh you were just watiing to drag out your favorite strawmen weren't you?

And once again- I will point out- why is it homophobes like yourself do not understand- or care- about consent?

You have done this repeatedly in this thread- you have repeatedly compared gay marriage to child rape.

Why do you see no difference between two adults consenting to get married- and a man raping a 4 year old girl?

 

[Skylar]

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

Funny... Montronut just said that it wasn't about sexuality. Make up your minds!!

Its about equal treatment under the law. And equal treatment includes gays and lesbians.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it is nothing else.

That's certainly an opinion. It has no relevance to our law or how our society recognizes marriage. But you're welcome to your beliefs.

See, your entire argument is predicated on us accepting your personal opinion as legally valid. And your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to the law.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Since you're speaking in vague terms, I have no idea what you're talking about....... So what cases are you referring to that were "thrown out"?

Clearly Google is a challenge for you.

Type in Louisiana arrests sodomy and you will find your answers for unconstitutional arrests.

Type in Lawrence v. Texas for why the arrests are unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Anyone- yourself included- can file a case demanding equal protection. You could file a lawsuit arguing for your right to marry your ewe- but it doesn't mean there is merit to the case.

The slippery slope argument- the ultimate refuge of all the homophobes.

What all of your claims really show is that you have never read Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Anyone- yourself included- can file a case demanding equal protection. You could file a lawsuit arguing for your right to marry your ewe- but it doesn't mean there is merit to the case.

The slippery slope argument- the ultimate refuge of all the homophobes.

What all of your claims really show is that you have never read Obergefell.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a decade. If legalized gay marriage leads to legalized pig marriage......then why didn't it?

Meh...Boss isn't one to let a perfect record of historical contradiction and an absolute lack of evidence to support his argument get in the way of a good rant.

 

[Syriusly]

It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.

No other same sex couples were being allowed to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Anything other than this is NOT marriage. Putting your penis in a vagina is called "intercourse" and putting your penis in an anus is not intercourse. You can't call it what it isn't. Procreation is when a male combines his sperm cell with a woman's egg cell to form a human organism... nothing else is procreation. You can't call something else procreation.

Ah I see the problem here.

You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.

Marriage is whatever we decide marriage is. In some cultures marriage is the union of a man and one or more women. In historical terms marriage has at times been limited by race or by religion or by class.

Women have been able to be sold into marriage- and were at times able to be sold from one 'marriage' to another.

Marriage is not the equal partnership between two persons who can give legal consent to their partnership- or as the Supreme Court put it so well once:


"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

 

[Syriusly]

It's about equality.

You're right... NOW it is! It's about sexuality being equal under the law. And the sexuality you find offensive or unacceptable has equal rights to the same laws. That's the part you are failing to realize because you're either a moron who doesn't comprehend "equal protection" or you're living in a hypocritical world of denial.

Actually that is correct.

Whether or not you find homosexuality offensive or unacceptable is irrelevant to the law- Americans have a right to private consensual sexual behavior.

Notice the word 'consensual'

Seems to be a word that gives a lot of Conservatives real difficulty.

For a short example of consent in action.

Renee and Pat meet each other- they are both 30 years old and legally capable of making their own decisions- and they return to Renee's apartment with the intention of having sex with each other and do- that is consensual- regardless of the gender of either party.

Pat rapes a 4 year old girl- that is not consensual. That is always wrong.

Consent versus non-consent.

 

[Syriusly]

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

You're fucking deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

 

[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.

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.

You say same sex marriage created a constitutional obligation, then complain when I talk about the Supreme Court ruling? Really?

You say something explicitly happened based on a USSC ruling then get upset when asked to show how the ruling did what you claim?

You are going to say that a USSC ruling has nothing to do with what the constitution says?

So you make a claim, I ask for evidence of that claim, and suddenly there is no evidence needed, this is just a 'philosophical discussion' and evidence plays no part?



Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

 

[AmericanFirst1]

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.

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.

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.

You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?

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.

Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.

your bigotry is not anyone else's problem.

But someones sexual preference is everyone else's? Lopsided logic, typical for libtards.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?

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.

Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.

your bigotry is not anyone else's problem.

But someones sexual preference is everyone else's? Lopsided logic, typical for libtards.

someone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex?

surely even you can understand the difference.

 

[Boss]

someone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex?

Someone is forcing you to marry your pig? Someone is forcing you to marry a 12-year-old? Someone is forcing you to marry your brother? See where this argument fails?