Jimmy Carter: "Leave Gay Marriage To States To Decide" (Right On Jimmy!)

[Silhouette]

I agree, there should not be anything called hate-crime legislation, because all it is is an attempt to control thoughts.

Technically you have an excellent point. The 1st is clear: freedom of speech and thoughts. Thought control is illegal in the US, even thoughts repugnant to the majority. LGBTs don't want regulation of what the majority considers repugnant thoughts and actions [gay pride parades in front of invited kids, veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality]. Yet they simultaneously insist on controlling other's thoughts and religion OR ELSE.

Can't have it both ways. And speaking of that , polygamy is now legal in all the states where marriage laws are "dead by limbo/attrition".

 

[Truman123]

Should a state be able to ban guns?

 

[Noomi]

He's right. At least he is using common sense of how gay marriage should be delt with..........by the will of the voter and not by an activist rogue judge.


Jimmy Carter Leave gay marriage to states to decide - Washington Times

I don't agree. The idiots in those States have no right to force their backwards religious beliefs on the minority. Its discrimination.

 

[Noomi]

Should a state be able to ban guns?

Banning guns will save lives. So yes.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't agree. The idiots in those States have no right to force their backwards religious beliefs on the minority. Its discrimination.

"Those idiots" have every right to regulate human behavior issues in their state. Race is another story. The two are not the same.

Are you suggesting states abandon civil and penal codes? They are nothing but regulation of behaviors. Which ones are "more special" repugnant ones to the majority than others? And how exactly do you set them apart when both are behaviors? I thought you believed in "equality"?

 

[Silhouette]

Should a state be able to ban guns?

Banning guns will save lives. So yes.

Disincentivizing mimicry of the gay cult/lifestyle by youngsters in the various states would also save lives. Are you in favor of cutting back on normalizing anal sex too by holding it out "as approved example" in marriage?

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010.

• Almost 60% of youth with HIV in the United States do not know they are infected. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

 

[Syriusly]

[. And speaking of that , polygamy is now legal in all the states where marriage laws are "dead by limbo/attrition".

Prove it Silhoette- go apply for a marriage license for yourself and two significant others.

 

[Syriusly]

Should a state be able to ban guns?

Banning guns will save lives. So yes.

Disincentivizing mimicry of the gay cult/lifestyle by youngsters in the various states would also save lives. Are you in favor of cutting back on normalizing anal sex too by holding it out "as approved example" in marriage?
]

I am in favor of encouraging the CDC recommendations:

Choose less risky sexual behaviors, limit your number of sex partners, use condoms, use medicines to prevent HIV if appropriate, and get checked for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The more of these actions you take, the safer you can be.

Specifically, you can:

• Choose less risky sexual behaviors. Oral sex is much less risky than anal or vaginal sex. Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual activity for HIV transmission. If you are HIV-negative, insertive anal sex (topping) is less risky for getting HIV than receptive anal sex (bottoming). Sexual activities that do not involve the potential exchange of bodily fluids carry no risk for getting HIV (e.g., touching).
• Use condoms consistently and correctly.
• Reduce the number of people you have sex with. The number of sex partners you have affects your HIV risk. The more partners you have, the more likely you are to have a partner with HIV whose viral load is not suppressed or to have a sex partner with a sexually transmitted disease. Both of these factors can increase the risk of HIV transmission.
• Talk to your doctor about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), taking HIV medicine daily to prevent HIV infection, if you are at substantial risk for HIV. PrEP should be considered if you are HIV-negative and in an ongoing sexual relationship with an HIV-positive partner. PrEP also should be considered if you are not in an exclusive relationship with a recently tested, HIV-negative partner and are a:
  • gay or bisexual man who has had anal sex without a condom or been diagnosed with an STD in the past 6 months; or
  • heterosexual man or woman who does not regularly use condoms during sex with partners of unknown HIV status who are at substantial risk of HIV infection (e.g., people who inject drugs or have bisexual male partners).
• Talk to your doctor right away (within 3 days) about post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) if you have a possible exposure to HIV. An example of a possible exposure is if you have anal or vaginal sex without a condom with someone who is or may be HIV-positive, and you are HIV-negative and not taking PrEP. Your chance of exposure to HIV is lower if your HIV-positive partner is taking antiretroviral therapy (ART) consistently and correctly, especially if his/her viral load is undetectable (see Can I transmit HIV if I have an undetectable viral load?). Starting PEP immediately and taking it daily for 4 weeks reduces your chance of getting HIV.
• Get tested and treated for other STDs and encourage your partners to do the same. If you are sexually active, get tested at least once a year. STDs can have long-term health consequences. They can also increase your chance of getting HIV or transmitting it to others. Find an STD testing site.
• If your partner is HIV-positive, encourage your partner to get and stay on treatment. ART reduces the amount of HIV virus (viral load) in blood and body fluids. ART can keep people with HIV healthy for many years, and greatly reduce the chance of transmitting HIV to sex partners if taken consistently and correctly.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't agree. The idiots in those States have no right to force their backwards religious beliefs on the minority. Its discrimination.

"Those idiots" have every right to regulate human behavior issues in their state.

No- here in the United States, there is no 'right' to regulate our personal choices.

States can only restrict our rights- including our rights to privacy when they can establish a compelling reason why.

"Because we think it's icky" is not a legally compelling argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

No hard data? Where have you been? There are plenty of studies and all point to children of gays being at no disadvantage to children of straights. Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.

Conservatives need only to mind their own business.

 

[kaz]

Conservatives need only to mind their own business.

So do liberals. That's why you both suck. They want our bodies, you want our wallets, you both need to keep your greedy hands to yourself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Hypocrisy.

 

[kaz]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Hypocrisy.

You got me. I'm a librarian who wants small government, which means of course I support more government. The way to end discrimination is to expand it. Everyone knows that, even me. But if you say I admitted this I'll deny it.

Moron. I do like liberals explaining to me that I'm not really libertarian because I'm not liberal enough to be.

 

[Seawytch]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Hypocrisy.

Especially when he's civilly married himself...and not doing anything to stop straights like himself from civilly marrying.

 

[kaz]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Hypocrisy.

Especially when he's civilly married himself...and not doing anything to stop straights like himself from civilly marrying.

The thing with one trick ponies is eventually the trick gets dull

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REDFISH SAID

“minority rights were established by majority vote-------------why is that concept so difficult to grasp?”

Incorrect.

Citizens' rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. In our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not the rule of the majority, as majorities are incapable of ruling justly – state measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

 

[Silhouette]

Citizens' rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. In our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not the rule of the majority, as majorities are incapable of ruling justly – state measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

So then the right to steal from others, even if you're poor, even if the majority finds that repugnant, is still a right?

Remember, we are talking about LGBTs, which are behaviors-gone-cult....

 

[Seawytch]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Hypocrisy.

Especially when he's civilly married himself...and not doing anything to stop straights like himself from civilly marrying.

The thing with one trick ponies is eventually the trick gets dull

You're right...your harping on civil marriage and your contempt for gays wanting what you have is tiresome.

 

[kaz]

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Hypocrisy.

Especially when he's civilly married himself...and not doing anything to stop straights like himself from civilly marrying.

The thing with one trick ponies is eventually the trick gets dull

You're right...your harping on civil marriage and your contempt for gays wanting what you have is tiresome.

Playground insults, liberals never really move beyond that, do you?

 

[Syriusly]

Citizens' rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. In our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not the rule of the majority, as majorities are incapable of ruling justly – state measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

So then the right to steal from others, even if you're poor, even if the majority finds that repugnant, is still a right?

Remember, we are talking about LGBTs, which are behaviors-gone-cult....

No.

And No.

Just more bat guano crazy.