It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.

No difference than someone who can't distinguish between a male-female relationship and a same-gender one.

ALL... I am seeing from ANY of you is this ethereal and air-brained concept of "consent" as some kind of established value that we all supposedly "know" and have no variance of opinion on. Keep in mind, 20 years ago, the same could have been said for "marriage!" Funny how our 5,000 year old concepts can change in a relatively short time span!

Except, of course, that marriage has not remained the same for 5,000 years. Even ignoring the evidence that same sex marriages may have occurred on occasion in the ancient world, what constitutes marriage has changed many times. You consider this one aspect, that of male and female, to be immutable. You have given no reason why it should be that way, other than cries of, "It's always been that way!". It may not have always been that way. Even if it has, that doesn't mean it always must remain that way.

Now consent is an air-brained concept? It's comments like that which cause people to wonder if you are unsafe to be around. Just because the age of consent can change doesn't mean that the entire idea of consent is somehow invalid. It works the same way for marriage; marriage has changed many times, it didn't invalidate the concept because of those changes.

Do you honestly think that if you took a modern day, US marriage and showed it to someone from, say, ancient Mesopotamia, that they would consider it a normal, valid marriage?

Yes, same sex marriage is a big change. That doesn't mean it cannot happen. Obviously it has not only happened in the legal sense, but it is becoming accepted socially as well.

Maybe it would have been easier for society not to accept homosexuality. Things didn't go that way. You seem unwilling to deal with that reality.

 

[Boss]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by The People. That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.

So...despite the 14th Amendment, you believe the People can decide in a state to provide the protection of set laws for SOME law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....but not for OTHER law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

Nowhere has a law been set to prohibit some people from obtaining a marriage license. Everyone has the exact same right to the same exact marriage license and it isn't even asked what your sexuality is.... but marriage is a union of a male and female. Homosexual, same-sex partners, are not a male and female. They want their relationship to be considered the same as a marriage but it's not, it's never going to be, and it doesn't matter what SCOTUS rules or what liberals want. You don't have the right to define marriage for everybody, I don't give a damn about Ogeberfell or any other ruling by an activist court. It's not up to the courts, it should be up to the states and people to decide on their own. I personally think it should be totally up to the people and there should be NO government involvement with marriage, gay or traditional. The FEDERAL government certainly shouldn't have any authority.

 

[Seawytch]

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.

No difference than someone who can't distinguish between a male-female relationship and a same-gender one.

ALL... I am seeing from ANY of you is this ethereal and air-brained concept of "consent" as some kind of established value that we all supposedly "know" and have no variance of opinion on. Keep in mind, 20 years ago, the same could have been said for "marriage!" Funny how our 5,000 year old concepts can change in a relatively short time span!

The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.

Hint: children, animals and dead people cannot give legal consent.

You're right that the concept of consent as it relates to age HAS changed...it keeps going up thankfully.

 

[bodecea]

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Well then...I guess that would DEPEND on who you are being denied from marrying..........dish.

 

[Seawytch]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

 

[Syriusly]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's a right that the government cannot take away without a compelling reason. And while you are certainly welcome to throw away your rights, you have no business whatsoever imposing that idiocy upon others.

And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?

Is it because they are too closely related and their intercourse might create a tainted bloodline and defective children?

Two hetro sisters might just want to marry for the same reasons homosexuals wish to marry. Is that any more absurd? Or is it incest when sex is not in the equation.

Look Pop has dragged out his favorite straw man- he has named it incest.

 

[Pop23]

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Well then...I guess that would DEPEND on who you are being denied from marrying..........dish.

Why, shouldn't everyone get to marry the one(s) you wish? That is the claim afterall.

 

[Pop23]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's a right that the government cannot take away without a compelling reason. And while you are certainly welcome to throw away your rights, you have no business whatsoever imposing that idiocy upon others.

And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?

Is it because they are too closely related and their intercourse might create a tainted bloodline and defective children?

Two hetro sisters might just want to marry for the same reasons homosexuals wish to marry. Is that any more absurd? Or is it incest when sex is not in the equation.

Look Pop has dragged out his favorite straw man- he has named it incest.

Incest implies an act or action, can you tell me the act or action hetro sisters, marrying for the rights afforded others recieve, might be?

 

[Syriusly]

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.

No difference than someone who can't distinguish between a male-female relationship and a same-gender one.

ALL... I am seeing from ANY of you is this ethereal and air-brained concept of "consent" as some kind of established value that we all supposedly "know" and have no variance of opinion on. Keep in mind, 20 years ago, the same could have been said for "marriage!" Funny how our 5,000 year old concepts can change in a relatively short time span!

All we are seeing is that you cannot distinguish between two adults consenting to marry- and a pedophile marrying a 4 year old girl.

The key difference is 'consent'

 

[Syriusly]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by The People. That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.

So...despite the 14th Amendment, you believe the People can decide in a state to provide the protection of set laws for SOME law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....but not for OTHER law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

Nowhere has a law been set to prohibit some people from obtaining a marriage license. Everyone has the exact same right to the same exact marriage license and it isn't even asked what your sexuality is.... but marriage is a union of a male and female. .

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman- or a man and a man- or a woman and a woman.

Marriage no longer is restricted based upon the gender of one of the spouses- just like marriage is no longer restricted based upon the race of one of the spouses.

 

[Pop23]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

 

[Syriusly]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by The People. That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.

So...despite the 14th Amendment, you believe the People can decide in a state to provide the protection of set laws for SOME law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....but not for OTHER law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

I personally think it should be totally up to the people and there should be NO government involvement with marriage, gay or traditional. The FEDERAL government certainly shouldn't have any authority.

You are welcome to your opinion. However the people have decided that the government should be involved in marriage. As long as the people want the government to be involved with marriage, then State marriage laws must be Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage bans 4 times now- from Loving v. Virginia to Obergefel.

That you don't approve is really your problem not anyone elses. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same gender- or force you to have sex in public with a gay man either.

 

[Syriusly]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

Can you explain why you insist on promoting your views on incest in a thread ranting about how horrible homosexuals are?

 

[bodecea]

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.

No difference than someone who can't distinguish between a male-female relationship and a same-gender one.

ALL... I am seeing from ANY of you is this ethereal and air-brained concept of "consent" as some kind of established value that we all supposedly "know" and have no variance of opinion on. Keep in mind, 20 years ago, the same could have been said for "marriage!" Funny how our 5,000 year old concepts can change in a relatively short time span!

The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.

Hint: children, animals and dead people cannot give legal consent.

You're right that the concept of consent as it relates to age HAS changed...it keeps going up thankfully.

Agreed. It's amazing how the Right can't recognize the cause and effect of gay rights and gay marriage AND at the same time the INCREASE in the age of consent.

 

[Montrovant]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

 

[Montrovant]

Why must this devolve into a left/right thing? This issue is not about political affiliation. Sure, liberals and conservatives in this country may tend to fall on one side or the other where same sex marriage is concerned, but it's far from a universal thing. I've seen self identified conservatives on this site support SSM and self identified liberals rail against it.

EDIT : I'm not targeting this at you, bodecea, your post in which you mentioned the Right wasn't the first to bring up political leanings. This is a general statement hoping to keep this from becoming the kind of right vs left trash talking this site turns into so often.

 

[bodecea]

You're fucking deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Well then...I guess that would DEPEND on who you are being denied from marrying..........dish.

Why, shouldn't everyone get to marry the one(s) you wish? That is the claim afterall.

Is whom you wish to marry legal?

 

[bodecea]

Why must this devolve into a left/right thing? This issue is not about political affiliation. Sure, liberals and conservatives in this country may tend to fall on one side or the other where same sex marriage is concerned, but it's far from a universal thing. I've seen self identified conservatives on this site support SSM and self identified liberals rail against it.

EDIT : I'm not targeting this at you, bodecea, your post in which you mentioned the Right wasn't the first to bring up political leanings. This is a general statement hoping to keep this from becoming the kind of right vs left trash talking this site turns into so often.

No offense taken...but I will point out that the posters here who always point fingers at gays and try to link us to societal declines don't seem to want to acknowledge that age of consent is going UP the same time gay marriage is becoming more acceptable.

 

[Skylar]

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.

No difference than someone who can't distinguish between a male-female relationship and a same-gender one.

ALL... I am seeing from ANY of you is this ethereal and air-brained concept of "consent" as some kind of established value that we all supposedly "know" and have no variance of opinion on. Keep in mind, 20 years ago, the same could have been said for "marriage!" Funny how our 5,000 year old concepts can change in a relatively short time span!

I know the difference between a same - sex relationship and a different - sex relationship. What makes you think that I do not?

And I see you are still struggling with consent. Hint: It does not mean you get to force yourself onto others.

He's struggling with the 9th amendment and his hallucinatory version of the constitution, where it somehow defines all rights.

So you should hardly be surprised that consent is beyond him.

 

[Dragonlady]

When are we going to treat bigots and haters the way we used to treat homosexuals?

Drive them into the shadows, deny them employment, make them afraid to show who they really are

Wait a minute...we already do that

No we don't, because the opposition of homosexuality is not bigotry

-Geaux

Shit

Remember the good ole days when you guys could chase fags through the streets and beat them up? Then you would blame the gays and nobody would do anything about it?

Looks like the tide has turned....bigots and haters such as yourself are now societies faggots

Let me know when punching out a homo fag equates to burning a cross in a yard

We'll wait

-Geaux

Seems the same to me

I realize this

-Geaux

What's it like? Is being a true nutbag bigot in 2015 America like having your head stuck in a vice? I mean......the hopeless whining! It's awesome.

Again, it's not bigotry. That's what the left wants to call it as its a queer race card which fails on multiple counts.

-Geaux

I think its clearly man.

Fine with me.. But but its not bigotry

-Geaux
===============

Opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry

In the heated rhetoric of the debate, some gay marriage advocates have alleged that opposition to gay marriage is the same as bigotry and prejudice.

Such terms are inappropriate. Actually, such words are being abused by gay righters to capitalize on the nationwide concern focused on racism.

Opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in the personal animosities that are characteristic of bigotry but in reliance on the Bible as the authority for a Christian lifestyle.

Anti-gay Christians feel that the scores of Bible references on homosexuality cannot be swept under the rug on the general premise that love supersedes all Biblical lifestyle issues. To accept this argument would negate all of Apostle Paul’s teachings and Christianity would become a religion without any enduring principles of morality.

Opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry

Given that Jesus never mentioned Homosexuality, and it's not covered in the Ten Commandments either, I'm hard pressed to imagine how accepting gay marriage leaves Christianity with no moral principles.

What about love thy neighbour as yourself, or do unto others as you would have them do unto you? What about the 10 Commandments? What about the example Jesus set of living His life in service to others?

There's very little in the Bible about homosexuality but a whole lot about eschewing wealth and power and serving others, which the right conveniently ignores.