NO! Homosexuality IS NOT NORMAL

[Exquisite]

This is not normal and not as new achievment of civilization as american propaganda is trying to show it. Enough to read a Bible to be aware of it. Everybody knows the story of Sodom and Homorra, everybody knows that barbarians did such sins and now uncivilized nations think that murders, robberies, sex with animals, pedophilia and homosexuality is normal. So, USA is now one step closer to such nations.

Key word being "story."

 

[Faun]

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark ....

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yet the 5 Socialists on the SCOTUS found no problem with untethering themselves from the Constitution of the United States.

As the Constitution of the United States does not provide a fundamental right to marriage, as such does not exist outside of the natural standard of Marriage as defined by the Human Physiological Standard and the other soundly reasoned conditions required by the desire of the collective to sustain a viable culture.

They did no such thing. They upheld the Constitution and protected the rights of American citizens, just like they're supposed to do.

Let's not forget, you only think otherwise because you haven't recovered from your butthurt yet. Perhaps there's a 12 step program that can help you?

 

[Faun]

Actually, it does. You might want to look a little closer at the definition for normal.

Normal - conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

Homosexual behaviors are not unusual in the animal kingdom. It's seen in several species.

Sorry. No matter how many species it happens in fucking another man up the ass is not normal.

Normal or not boys, it's natural BTW, they are your equals.

Correct. God loves everyone., but only those that accept Jesus as Lord and Savior are saved. Homosexuality is a sin as is sex outside of marriage. God does not recognize homosexual marriage vows

How do you know that God does not recognize homosexual marriage vows?

While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Lev 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. I Cor 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between male and female.

It's cute how Christians point to the Old Testament to show homosexuality is an abomination but then say the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore when you point out eating shrimp and lobster are also abomininations.

 

[Iceweasel]

Procreation isn't in the Constitution. Interstate travel isn't in the Constitution. Does that mean you don't have a fundamental right to procreate or travel from state to state?

Marriage hasn't been a "state's right" since 1967...get over it already.

There's nothing for me to get over. You're the one living for this issue and this issue alone. I can laugh it off. AND point out the flaws in the thinking. In fact, I rather enjoy it.

States have define marriage, you are clueless (STILL). Interracial bans were unConstitutional because they treated men differently due to race. Government cannot discriminate against race, how fucking hard is that?

And no, you do not have the right to anything you want because it isn't in the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

This is not normal and not as new achievment of civilization as american propaganda is trying to show it. Enough to read a Bible to be aware of it. Everybody knows the story of Sodom and Homorra, everybody knows that barbarians did such sins and now uncivilized nations think that murders, robberies, sex with animals, pedophilia and homosexuality is normal. So, USA is now one step closer to such nations.

Which nations think sex with animals is normal? You seem to be just a font of information about this stuff.

Which nations think murder is normal?

Tell me all about the story of Homorra?

LOL...

 

[Iceweasel]

Equal protection covers gender as well. In fact equal protection covers any person or persons who are sufficiently similar to any other person or persons.

Exactly. Men aren't women. Women have been treated differently by government, no draft, separate restrooms and so on. However relationships aren't and never will be equal, there's no such thing. As I pointed out before, two brothers wanting to marry could use the same argument if that's your definition of equal.

 

[Faun]

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark ....

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yet the 5 Socialists on the SCOTUS found no problem with untethering themselves from the Constitution of the United States.

As the Constitution of the United States does not provide a fundamental right to marriage, as such does not exist outside of the natural standard of Marriage as defined by the Human Physiological Standard and the other soundly reasoned conditions required by the desire of the collective to sustain a viable culture.

How is it that people like this idiot can revere marriage as a most important and sacred institution,

and then turn around and claim that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a basic human right?

It's insanely illogical.

Because people like that are cerifiably insane. They truly would cut off their nose to spite their face. Now that they completely and utterly lost this argument, they are more than willing to sacrifice the right to marry if doing so would eliminate gay marriage. They really are that stupid that they would eagerly give up rights to the government.

 

[Faun]

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark ....

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yet the 5 Socialists on the SCOTUS found no problem with untethering themselves from the Constitution of the United States.

As the Constitution of the United States does not provide a fundamental right to marriage, as such does not exist outside of the natural standard of Marriage as defined by the Human Physiological Standard and the other soundly reasoned conditions required by the desire of the collective to sustain a viable culture.

How is it that people like this idiot can revere marriage as a most important and sacred institution,

and then turn around and claim that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a basic human right?

It's insanely illogical.

How about that it's too important to pervert into the lie that a man with a man is equal to a man with a woman? Can two brothers share that so called human right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

The other poster said man/woman marriage isn't a right.

Marriage isn't in the Constitution. It WAS a state's right for eligible couples.

And that violated the Constitution. See how that works?

 

[Syriusly]

Procreation isn't in the Constitution. Interstate travel isn't in the Constitution. Does that mean you don't have a fundamental right to procreate or travel from state to state?

Marriage hasn't been a "state's right" since 1967...get over it already.

There's nothing for me to get over. You're the one living for this issue and this issue alone. I can laugh it off. AND point out the flaws in the thinking. In fact, I rather enjoy it.

States have define marriage, you are clueless (STILL). Interracial bans were unConstitutional because they treated men differently due to race. Government cannot discriminate against race, how fucking hard is that?

And no, you do not have the right to anything you want because it isn't in the Constitution.

Marriage isn't a state 'right'- states don't have rights. However Marriage is a state issue.

But all State laws must be Constitutional- and gay marriage bans were as unconstitutional as mixed race marriage bans- and for the same reasons- because Americans have the right to marry, and states cannot arbritrarily take away rights.

 

[Syriusly]

How is it that people like this idiot can revere marriage as a most important and sacred institution,

and then turn around and claim that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a basic human right?

It's insanely illogical.

How about that it's too important to pervert into the lie that a man with a man is equal to a man with a woman? Can two brothers share that so called human right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

The other poster said man/woman marriage isn't a right.

Marriage isn't in the Constitution. It WAS a state's right for eligible couples.

Equal protection is in the Constitution.

Yes, black men should be treated the same as white men by government.

And men should be treated the same as women, and gays should be treated the same as straights.

 

[irosie91]

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark ....

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yet the 5 Socialists on the SCOTUS found no problem with untethering themselves from the Constitution of the United States.

As the Constitution of the United States does not provide a fundamental right to marriage, as such does not exist outside of the natural standard of Marriage as defined by the Human Physiological Standard and the other soundly reasoned conditions required by the desire of the collective to sustain a viable culture.

How is it that people like this idiot can revere marriage as a most important and sacred institution,

and then turn around and claim that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a basic human right?

It's insanely illogical.

Because people like that are cerifiably insane. They truly would cut off their nose to spite their face. Now that they completely and utterly lost this argument, they are more than willing to sacrifice the right to marry if doing so would eliminate gay marriage. They really are that stupid that they would eagerly give up rights to the government.

Be patient-----it's a backlash-----whether or not gay marriage will survive will depend on just how
vehement this backlash becomes------it is possible
(albeit unlikely) that this trend will GROW BIG ENOUGH to end the policy ???? I don't know

 

[Syriusly]

How is it that people like this idiot can revere marriage as a most important and sacred institution,

and then turn around and claim that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a basic human right?

It's insanely illogical.

How about that it's too important to pervert into the lie that a man with a man is equal to a man with a woman? Can two brothers share that so called human right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

The other poster said man/woman marriage isn't a right.

Marriage isn't in the Constitution. It WAS a state's right for eligible couples.

Equal protection is in the Constitution.

yes, the mentally ill are entitled to equal protection. no one ever questioned that.

No one is saying you are not entitle to equal protection.

We just want you to get help.

 

[Iceweasel]

Procreation isn't in the Constitution. Interstate travel isn't in the Constitution. Does that mean you don't have a fundamental right to procreate or travel from state to state?

Marriage hasn't been a "state's right" since 1967...get over it already.

There's nothing for me to get over. You're the one living for this issue and this issue alone. I can laugh it off. AND point out the flaws in the thinking. In fact, I rather enjoy it.

States have define marriage, you are clueless (STILL). Interracial bans were unConstitutional because they treated men differently due to race. Government cannot discriminate against race, how fucking hard is that?

And no, you do not have the right to anything you want because it isn't in the Constitution.

Marriage isn't a state 'right'- states don't have rights. However Marriage is a state issue.

But all State laws must be Constitutional- and gay marriage bans were as unconstitutional as mixed race marriage bans- and for the same reasons- because Americans have the right to marry, and states cannot arbritrarily take away rights.

Staes don't have rights? WTF?

Repeating your error doesn't make it true. Same sex isn't "equal" to opposite sex, no way no how. So gay marriage can't be equal. It was a very bad ruling, like Roe V Wade and will be overturned in the future when people realize what a joke it is.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark ....

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yet the 5 Socialists on the SCOTUS found no problem with untethering themselves from the Constitution of the United States.

As the Constitution of the United States does not provide a fundamental right to marriage, as such does not exist outside of the natural standard of Marriage as defined by the Human Physiological Standard and the other soundly reasoned conditions required by the desire of the collective to sustain a viable culture.

How is it that people like this idiot can revere marriage as a most important and sacred institution,

and then turn around and claim that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a basic human right?

It's insanely illogical.

Because people like that are cerifiably insane. They truly would cut off their nose to spite their face. Now that they completely and utterly lost this argument, they are more than willing to sacrifice the right to marry if doing so would eliminate gay marriage. They really are that stupid that they would eagerly give up rights to the government.

Be patient-----it's a backlash-----whether or not gay marriage will survive will depend on just how
vehement this backlash becomes------it is possible
(albeit unlikely) that this trend will GROW BIG ENOUGH to end the policy ???? I don't know

When the ban on mixed race marriage was overturned by the Supreme Court most Americans supported such bans and opposed mixed race marriages.

More Americans support gay marriage- there will be no lasting backlash.

Just foot stomping- foot dragging and ultimately compliance with the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Procreation isn't in the Constitution. Interstate travel isn't in the Constitution. Does that mean you don't have a fundamental right to procreate or travel from state to state?

Marriage hasn't been a "state's right" since 1967...get over it already.

There's nothing for me to get over. You're the one living for this issue and this issue alone. I can laugh it off. AND point out the flaws in the thinking. In fact, I rather enjoy it.

States have define marriage, you are clueless (STILL). Interracial bans were unConstitutional because they treated men differently due to race. Government cannot discriminate against race, how fucking hard is that?

And no, you do not have the right to anything you want because it isn't in the Constitution.

Marriage isn't a state 'right'- states don't have rights. However Marriage is a state issue.

But all State laws must be Constitutional- and gay marriage bans were as unconstitutional as mixed race marriage bans- and for the same reasons- because Americans have the right to marry, and states cannot arbritrarily take away rights.

Staes don't have rights? WTF?

Repeating your error doesn't make it true. Same sex isn't "equal" to opposite sex, no way no how. So gay marriage can't be equal. It was a very bad ruling, like Roe V Wade and will be overturned in the future when people realize what a joke it is.

People have rights. States have privelages.

Well you are entitled to your wrong opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

Normal or not boys, it's natural BTW, they are your equals.

Correct. God loves everyone., but only those that accept Jesus as Lord and Savior are saved. Homosexuality is a sin as is sex outside of marriage. God does not recognize homosexual marriage vows

How do you know that God does not recognize homosexual marriage vows?

because the Bible says men laying with men is an abomination in God's site.

And again- how does that make you know that God does not recognize homosexual marriage vows?

Really- as a Christian doesn't it make you a tad uncomfortable to be claiming to know what God does and does not 'recognize'?

There is a certain hubris to that.

If I didn't feel certain it was a sin, no. There are things I do that I know God doesn't approve of. Many, actually but just because I like doing them doesn't make it no sinful. I see the planks in my eyes also.

Prayer and Bible reading along with taking Bible courses make me certain what God considers sin, not matter what alternate arguments are out there. I could debate divorce and sex before marriage with the same conviction.

Look- you are welcome to believe whatever you will believe.

You have created a chain of biblical comments that do not address 'gay marriage' and you have decided that you know what God thinks.

And that is hubris.

 

[Syriusly]

The number one reason so many woman object to performing oral sex is that it means they have to stop talking for 5 minutes.

No it's not, it's because women understand the only reason a man enjoys it is because it positions the woman in a role of SUBMISSION and the man in a role of control and superiority

If you really believe that is the only reason a man enjoys a blowjob- you either have never had one- or you have never had a good one.

well I'm a girl so....

So then you are admitting you really were just pulling that claim out of your butt?

Or maybe- and tragically- the situations you have been in makes you think that is the only reason why men enjoy blowjobs.

As a man, I can say with great certainty- its not because 'it positions the woman in role of SUBMISSION- the best blowjobs are when the woman is the one entirely in control.

Maybe just some like it and some don't. Not sure it really matters ?

I am expressing my own personal point of view. And my point of view happened to contradict what you originally claimed.

And no it really isn't material to this conversation, but I think you should know what you believe doesn't apply to all- and likely not to most men.

 

[Faun]

Procreation isn't in the Constitution. Interstate travel isn't in the Constitution. Does that mean you don't have a fundamental right to procreate or travel from state to state?

Marriage hasn't been a "state's right" since 1967...get over it already.

There's nothing for me to get over. You're the one living for this issue and this issue alone. I can laugh it off. AND point out the flaws in the thinking. In fact, I rather enjoy it.

States have define marriage, you are clueless (STILL). Interracial bans were unConstitutional because they treated men differently due to race. Government cannot discriminate against race, how fucking hard is that?

And no, you do not have the right to anything you want because it isn't in the Constitution.

Marriage isn't a state 'right'- states don't have rights. However Marriage is a state issue.

But all State laws must be Constitutional- and gay marriage bans were as unconstitutional as mixed race marriage bans- and for the same reasons- because Americans have the right to marry, and states cannot arbritrarily take away rights.

Staes don't have rights? WTF?

Repeating your error doesn't make it true. Same sex isn't "equal" to opposite sex, no way no how. So gay marriage can't be equal. It was a very bad ruling, like Roe V Wade and will be overturned in the future when people realize what a joke it is.

No one is saying "same sex" equals "opposite sex." That's why your strawman is a failure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Equal protection covers gender as well. In fact equal protection covers any person or persons who are sufficiently similar to any other person or persons.

Exactly. Men aren't women. Women have been treated differently by government, no draft, separate restrooms and so on. However relationships aren't and never will be equal, there's no such thing. As I pointed out before, two brothers wanting to marry could use the same argument if that's your definition of equal.

Do you really think a state could require driver's licenses in order to drive a car,

but then only offer them to men? Or only offer them to heterosexuals?

 

[Syriusly]

You're right, it's not Normal, that's 50% + 1, it's just Natural, and has been around as long as we have as far as we can tell.

So has blindness.

Yep, and you don't try to outlaw that now do you? You also don't spend much effort denouncing it as immoral either.

I never claimed homos to be immoral. That's the argument the homonazis want. My argument is grounded in social science and logic.
You don't give drivers licenses to blind people.

That is because you can make a rational and compelling argument before the court. What is the rational and compelling argument for two same-sex adults not being able to marry? The court couldn't find one, and neither could anyone else.

There are only 2 I can think of - Religious (which won't be considered) and historical (permissiveness of homosexuality) which I don't know enough to speak on (I have read in various places of downfalls of society due to increased sexual perversion but don't have info to support that at the tip of my fingers or brain).

And you pretty much identified why same gender marriage is legal today.

Your only solid objection is your religious fath- and that cannot be the basis of a law.

Your vague hand wave at 'historical' means you don't really know anything other than someone telling you that is a reason- you don't know where or when or why or how.