Reasons To Be Anti-Gay, By The Numbers

[JakeStarkey]

Again, you are misunderstanding what equal protection means.

If you do not have a driver's license, you are not protected by the privileges extended to drivers. You cannot just get behind the wheel of a car and drive. You must acquire the license to drive and THEN you are protected by the law.

You cannot file a joint tax return unless you meet the marriage requirements.

You may be thinking at this juncture that putting a "you can't be male/male or female/female" requirement in the marriage law would solve your problem. But you would be incorrect, for the same reasons the "you can't be black/white or white/black" rule was struck down. This brings us to the other significant meaning of the 14th Amendment. You cannot deny someone the equal protection of a law which provides privileges or benefits, nor can you deny them the ability to exercise the equal protection of the law without a rational reason. This means not only are you prevented from not letting a licensed black driver from using the same roads white people use, you also cannot deny a black person access to a driver's license in the first place just because he is black. But it does mean you can deny a six year old a driver's license, because there is a rational reason for that discrimination.

You cannot write an anti black/white marriage rule in the marriage requirements, either, without a rational reason for doing so. See Loving v. Virginia.

So it follows that you cannot write an anti-gay marriage rule, either. All you've done with the "you can't be male/male or female/female" rule is replace racial discrimation with gender discrimination.

You have to have a rational reason for excluding someone access to a legal protection proferred by the government.

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. And miscegenation is not a parallel.

False and derivative analogies. Try again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

polygamists may get married by whatever church they may attend....why aren't they treated equally under the 14th.....?

If a rational explanation can be provided for why they should be discriminated against, then go right ahead. For example, if you can demonstrate that polygamy is a harmful practice, that would be a rational explanation.

I personally lean heavily towards the belief that polygamy is a harmful practice. Polygamy almost inevitably means one man married to multiple women. This leads, in the mean, to the exploitation and subordination of women. It is also a near mathematical inevitability that it leads to pedophilia, the forcing of minor girls to marry adult men.

my point is....it happens....your 14th argument is full of hot air...

one rational explanation against gay marriage is that children need both a mother and a father....to enable "alternative" marriage sabotages the family unit.....a cornerstone of stable society....

The 14th is sound, and that is why the conservative court paradoxically won't hear a case on the issue.

No grounds exist that homosexual marriage in anyway harms "the family unit."

This type of reason is why the younger generations in ever greater number reject your opinions.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If a rational explanation can be provided for why they should be discriminated against, then go right ahead. For example, if you can demonstrate that polygamy is a harmful practice, that would be a rational explanation.

I personally lean heavily towards the belief that polygamy is a harmful practice. Polygamy almost inevitably means one man married to multiple women. This leads, in the mean, to the exploitation and subordination of women. It is also a near mathematical inevitability that it leads to pedophilia, the forcing of minor girls to marry adult men.

my point is....it happens....your 14th argument is full of hot air...

one rational explanation against gay marriage is that children need both a mother and a father....to enable "alternative" marriage sabotages the family unit.....a cornerstone of stable society....

yep... kids need a parent of each gender to knock 'em around to be brought up correctly...

Fatherless Homes Now Proven Beyond Doubt Harmful To Children

Children from fatherless homes are*:

15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
• 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
• 24.3 times more likely to run away
• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
• 10.8 times more likely to commit rape
• 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
• 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
• 73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes
• 6.3 times more likely to be in state operated institutions

Daughters who live in mother only homes are
92% more likely to divorce**



Some Statistics on Fatherlessnes

 

[g5000]

polygamists may get married by whatever church they may attend....why aren't they treated equally under the 14th.....?

If a rational explanation can be provided for why they should be discriminated against, then go right ahead. For example, if you can demonstrate that polygamy is a harmful practice, that would be a rational explanation.

I personally lean heavily towards the belief that polygamy is a harmful practice. Polygamy almost inevitably means one man married to multiple women. This leads, in the mean, to the exploitation and subordination of women. It is also a near mathematical inevitability that it leads to pedophilia, the forcing of minor girls to marry adult men.

my point is....it happens....your 14th argument is full of hot air...

Ipse dixit.

[
one rational explanation against gay marriage is that children need both a mother and a father....to enable "alternative" marriage sabotages the family unit.....a cornerstone of stable society....

I think Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Bill Clinton, Ted Haggard, and the 50 percent of marriages which end in divorce have pretty much destroyed that cornerstone a long time ago. It is pretty pathetic to try to pin that reality on homosexuals. They aren't even off the launch pad yet, and here you are standing on the ashes of the "cornerstone of stable society" shaking your fist at The Geyz!

You might want to join me in trying to clean up our own corner first before pointing out the non-existant mote in others' eyes.

 

[SniperFire]

The only reason to not allow gays to get married is because you are a bigot..

Thanks. We were wondering what the godless heathens thought about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

my point is....it happens....your 14th argument is full of hot air...

one rational explanation against gay marriage is that children need both a mother and a father....to enable "alternative" marriage sabotages the family unit.....a cornerstone of stable society....

yep... kids need a parent of each gender to knock 'em around to be brought up correctly...

Fatherless Homes Now Proven Beyond Doubt Harmful To Children

Some Statistics on Fatherlessnes

Note the website and check the reasons. It is a condemnation of heterosexual marriages that fail, not homosexual marriages.

 

[rdean]

I couldn't get past number one. Because first, it was gross and second, it led to Number Two.

 

[g5000]

If a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the energy expended toward flaming homos (double entendre) had been aimed at adulterers in the GOP like Gingrich and Ensign and Sanford and Vitter, the world would be a better place. If just a portion of spleen had been vented, the party would be a cleaner operation instead of the pile of filthy hypocrisy it is today.

Instead, their actions were excused by rafts of apologists. Gingrich was actually elevated! Sanford even had the eye-popping gall to justify not resigning after being caught in an extra-maritial affair which he bragged about every time he got near a microphone by using passages from the Holy Bible!

Pre-blaming gays for the destruction of the institution of marriage is the epitome of willful delusion. Textbook.

 

[SniperFire]

If a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the energy expended toward flaming homos (double entendre) had been aimed at adulters in the GOP like Gingrich and Ensign and Sanford, the world would be a better place.

I diagree. Homosexuals are sick.

 

[SniperFire]

I couldn't get past number one. Because first, it was gross and second, it led to Number Two.

He left out the main reason, of course.

Polygamy.

But he did cover incest. I had forgotten about that one.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If a rational explanation can be provided for why they should be discriminated against, then go right ahead. For example, if you can demonstrate that polygamy is a harmful practice, that would be a rational explanation.

I personally lean heavily towards the belief that polygamy is a harmful practice. Polygamy almost inevitably means one man married to multiple women. This leads, in the mean, to the exploitation and subordination of women. It is also a near mathematical inevitability that it leads to pedophilia, the forcing of minor girls to marry adult men.

my point is....it happens....your 14th argument is full of hot air...

Ipse dixit.

so tell me....if polygamists are not protected under the 14th......why should gays be....?

[
one rational explanation against gay marriage is that children need both a mother and a father....to enable "alternative" marriage sabotages the family unit.....a cornerstone of stable society....

I think Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Bill Clinton, Ted Haggard, and the 50 percent of marriages which end in divorce have pretty much destroyed that cornerstone a long time ago. It is pretty pathetic to try to pin that reality on homosexuals. They aren't even off the launch pad yet, and here you are standing on the ashes of the "cornerstone of stable society" shaking your fist at The Geyz!

You might want to join me in trying to clean up our own corner first before pointing out the non-existant mote in others' eyes.

two wrongs don't make a right.....

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the energy expended toward flaming homos (double entendre) had been aimed at adulters in the GOP like Gingrich and Ensign and Sanford, the world would be a better place.

I diagree. Homosexuals are sick.

Disagree all you want. Loving relationships are not sick. Gingrich and Ensign and Sanford and Craig were (are) sick.

 

[SniperFire]

If a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the energy expended toward flaming homos (double entendre) had been aimed at adulters in the GOP like Gingrich and Ensign and Sanford, the world would be a better place.

I diagree. Homosexuals are sick.

Disagree all you want. Loving relationships are not sick.

I'm not swallowing that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Swallow whatever you want, Sniper, if it makes it more palatable.

Disagree all you want. Loving relationships are not sick. Gingrich and Ensign and Sanford and Craig were (are) sick.
__________________

 

[SniperFire]

Loving relationships are not sick.

AIDS kills.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm against sex with dogs, therefore I must be "anti-dog".



Fucking retards...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Swallow whatever you want, Sniper, if it makes it more palatable.

Disagree all you want. Loving relationships are not sick. Gingrich and Ensign and Sanford and Craig were (are) sick.
__________________

You left out Clinton, Weiner, Kennedy (all of those fucking dirtbags), Edwards, Byrd.....

 

[uscitizen]

 

[SniperFire]

We discussed that one earlier today, uscitizen.

Clint is a fag.

 

[Peach]

Loving relationships are not sick.

AIDS kills.

As do many diseases transmitted by humans residing in close quarters, like typhus. What is your point?