Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[ScreamingEagle]

The thing I always don't get is why Christians get the benefit of the doubt that they won't enforce the Ten Commandments absolutely (ie it will become law that people must not work Sunday, etc), whereas more and more peaceful Muslims are unfairly being accused of "eventually wanting to enforce" Shariah law absolutely.

Why the double standard? Not asking you necessarily Screaming Eagle, just bringing up the question.

since Christians founded this country have they established a theocracy here for over 200 years....? ...the answer is NO...

can atheists live in peace here....yes
can Hindus live in peace here....yes
can Muslims live in peace here...yes

however even though Muslims can live here peacefully that does not mean they will continue to follow American laws long term....you need to look at the facts.....these Muslim Sharia courts are real....85 operating in England already....

Muslims have been slowly attempting to establish their anti-American Sharia law here in the USA...in other words a theocracy....just as they have been doing in England and other places in Europe...if you are aware of what is going on there you might understand that the same is happening here just on a smaller scale...large groups of muslims are not assimilating into their adopted countries...and they are establishing their own theocratic laws which go against Western civilization....

So...Christians get some kind of pass on pushing their form of "sharia" on citizens?

you gays really need to get a clue....you're against the wrong religion....

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion is not murder, unless so stated by law. It is a medical term unless otherwise defined in law.

I agree with you that it should be allowed to save the life of the mother or in the case of incest or rape.

killing a living human being, regardless of its location, is murder. But realistically I don't think taking a morning after pill is murder.

Since murder is a crime which violates U.S. law and abortion is not a crime in most cases; abortion is not murder.

words hhave meaning.

Human rights offenses, including murder, are still considered human rights offenses, including murder, if they are LEGAL at the time they are committed.

Just ask any of the Nazis were were executed for war crimes..that were *legal* at the time they committed them.

 

[JoeB131]

Should gays be allowed to donate blood? Is it bigotry to want to not risk lives?

The only reason why lives were at risk was because the blood industry was buying blood from addicts and not having it tested.

 

[JoeB131]

killing a living human being, regardless of its location, is murder. But realistically I don't think taking a morning after pill is murder.

Since murder is a crime which violates U.S. law and abortion is not a crime in most cases; abortion is not murder.

words hhave meaning.

Human rights offenses, including murder, are still considered human rights offenses, including murder, if they are LEGAL at the time they are committed.

Just ask any of the Nazis were were executed for war crimes..that were *legal* at the time they committed them.

War crimes are the winners punishing the losers...

Don't worry. You religous fools will always be the "losers".

 

[Faun]

using your same logic you can also say that traditional marriage law does not discriminate either...

Of course it discriminates. It discriminates based on gender. It allows a man in love with a woman the right to legally marry the person he loves but discriminates against a man who is in love with another man.

That violates the 14th Amendment.

not when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.....but then libs want to redefine marriage too....

the next step is to redefine marriage for polygamists....see where this gets you....?

It matters not how you define it, it still remains discrimination based on gender. Perhaps Conservative logic allows for discrimination so long as you can frame the law in such a fashion as to appease the bigots, but in reality, that doesn't provide adequate protection from the reach of the Constitution.

 

[Unkotare]

Of course it discriminates. It discriminates based on gender. It allows a man in love with a woman the right to legally marry the person he loves but discriminates against a man who is in love with another man.

That violates the 14th Amendment.

Nothing stopping two men from living together or doing 'whatever' to each other. Nothing preventing them from owning property, getting a job, living where they want, travelling, etc.

Which of course, has nothing to do with the law discriminating against gays based on the gender of the person they wish to marry.

So you are looking for Civil Unions for homosexuals then?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course it discriminates. It discriminates based on gender. It allows a man in love with a woman the right to legally marry the person he loves but discriminates against a man who is in love with another man.

That violates the 14th Amendment.

not when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.....but then libs want to redefine marriage too....

the next step is to redefine marriage for polygamists....see where this gets you....?

It matters not how you define it, it still remains discrimination based on gender. Perhaps Conservative logic allows for discrimination so long as you can frame the law in such a fashion as to appease the bigots, but in reality, that doesn't provide adequate protection from the reach of the Constitution.

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

not when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.....but then libs want to redefine marriage too....

the next step is to redefine marriage for polygamists....see where this gets you....?

It matters not how you define it, it still remains discrimination based on gender. Perhaps Conservative logic allows for discrimination so long as you can frame the law in such a fashion as to appease the bigots, but in reality, that doesn't provide adequate protection from the reach of the Constitution.

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

if so that means you can't stop other types of marriages like polygamy as Faun stated....

btw....what is the 'compelling governmental interest' in this.....?

 

[bodecea]

It matters not how you define it, it still remains discrimination based on gender. Perhaps Conservative logic allows for discrimination so long as you can frame the law in such a fashion as to appease the bigots, but in reality, that doesn't provide adequate protection from the reach of the Constitution.

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

if so that means you can't stop other types of marriages like polygamy as Faun stated....

btw....what is the 'compelling governmental interest' in this.....?

What is it about straight marriage that stops polygamy?

 

[Faun]

through the permission of a sharia court of secularism....

Oh? Give an example.

there was one described in the video i posted.....New Jersey i believe...

And you would be wrong since the court didn't actually allow it. The case involved a judge who wrongly ruled against providing a woman a restraining order against her husband who she claimed was raping her; under the context that her husband was not raping her according to his religious beliefs ... but that judge was overruled because the husband's religious beliefs that he could rape his wife if he wanted to violated U.S. law.

So try another example cause that one only scored a point for the folks pointing out that Sharia law is not permissible in America when it violates U.S. law.

 

[Faun]

killing a living human being, regardless of its location, is murder. But realistically I don't think taking a morning after pill is murder.

Since murder is a crime which violates U.S. law and abortion is not a crime in most cases; abortion is not murder.

words hhave meaning.

Human rights offenses, including murder, are still considered human rights offenses, including murder, if they are LEGAL at the time they are committed.

Just ask any of the Nazis were were executed for war crimes..that were *legal* at the time they committed them.

Ahh, you wish to invoke human rights? Ok, let's see where Human Rights Watch stands on abortion, shall we ... ?

Abortion

Women's ability to access safe and legal abortions is restricted in law or in practice in most countries in the world. In fact, even where abortion is permitted by law, women often have severely limited access to safe abortion services because of lack of proper regulation, health services, or political will.

At the same time, only a very small minority of countries prohibit all abortion. In most countries and jurisdictions, abortion is allowed at least to save the pregnant woman's life, or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Abortion is a highly emotional subject and one that excites deeply held opinions. However, equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion-between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually.

Women's organizations across the world have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades, and increasingly international human rights law supports their claims. In fact, international human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion.
​

 

[Faun]

Nothing stopping two men from living together or doing 'whatever' to each other. Nothing preventing them from owning property, getting a job, living where they want, travelling, etc.

Which of course, has nothing to do with the law discriminating against gays based on the gender of the person they wish to marry.

So you are looking for Civil Unions for homosexuals then?

I'm looking for the Constitution to be upheld where everyone is provided equal protection under the law. If straight Adam can marry Eve, then gay Adam should be able to marry Steve.

 

[Faun]

not when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.....but then libs want to redefine marriage too....

the next step is to redefine marriage for polygamists....see where this gets you....?

It matters not how you define it, it still remains discrimination based on gender. Perhaps Conservative logic allows for discrimination so long as you can frame the law in such a fashion as to appease the bigots, but in reality, that doesn't provide adequate protection from the reach of the Constitution.

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

And though many Conservatives won't admit it, the real reason they're against gay marriage is because their bigotry against homosexuality his based on their religious beliefs. Which of course, has absolutely no place in the Constitution.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Oh? Give an example.

there was one described in the video i posted.....New Jersey i believe...

And you would be wrong since the court didn't actually allow it. The case involved a judge who wrongly ruled against providing a woman a restraining order against her husband who she claimed was raping her; under the context that her husband was not raping her according to his religious beliefs ... but that judge was overruled because the husband's religious beliefs that he could rape his wife if he wanted to violated U.S. law.

So try another example cause that one only scored a point for the folks pointing out that Sharia law is not permissible in America when it violates U.S. law.

well i'm not up on the result of every court case that comes along......but it was one of the 51 cases or so that were mentioned...and that didn't include honor killings....

but more importantly......why the HELL are these types of cases even being heard in America in the first place....? that's what happens when we let in foreign people who are still adhering to barbarian belief systems....

 

[Faun]

It matters not how you define it, it still remains discrimination based on gender. Perhaps Conservative logic allows for discrimination so long as you can frame the law in such a fashion as to appease the bigots, but in reality, that doesn't provide adequate protection from the reach of the Constitution.

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

if so that means you can't stop other types of marriages like polygamy as Faun stated....

btw....what is the 'compelling governmental interest' in this.....?

What do you have against polygamy? By what rationale should it not be allowed?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Since murder is a crime which violates U.S. law and abortion is not a crime in most cases; abortion is not murder.

words hhave meaning.

Human rights offenses, including murder, are still considered human rights offenses, including murder, if they are LEGAL at the time they are committed.

Just ask any of the Nazis were were executed for war crimes..that were *legal* at the time they committed them.

Ahh, you wish to invoke human rights? Ok, let's see where Human Rights Watch stands on abortion, shall we ... ?

Abortion

Women's ability to access safe and legal abortions is restricted in law or in practice in most countries in the world. In fact, even where abortion is permitted by law, women often have severely limited access to safe abortion services because of lack of proper regulation, health services, or political will.

At the same time, only a very small minority of countries prohibit all abortion. In most countries and jurisdictions, abortion is allowed at least to save the pregnant woman's life, or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Abortion is a highly emotional subject and one that excites deeply held opinions. However, equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion-between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually.

Women's organizations across the world have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades, and increasingly international human rights law supports their claims. In fact, international human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion.
​

quoting the United Nations......? that doesn't fly in America....

 

[bodecea]

Human rights offenses, including murder, are still considered human rights offenses, including murder, if they are LEGAL at the time they are committed.

Just ask any of the Nazis were were executed for war crimes..that were *legal* at the time they committed them.

Ahh, you wish to invoke human rights? Ok, let's see where Human Rights Watch stands on abortion, shall we ... ?

Abortion

Women's ability to access safe and legal abortions is restricted in law or in practice in most countries in the world. In fact, even where abortion is permitted by law, women often have severely limited access to safe abortion services because of lack of proper regulation, health services, or political will.

At the same time, only a very small minority of countries prohibit all abortion. In most countries and jurisdictions, abortion is allowed at least to save the pregnant woman's life, or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Abortion is a highly emotional subject and one that excites deeply held opinions. However, equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion-between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually.

Women's organizations across the world have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades, and increasingly international human rights law supports their claims. In fact, international human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion.
​

quoting the United Nations......? that doesn't fly in America....

Yeah...human rights suck, right?

 

[bodecea]

there was one described in the video i posted.....New Jersey i believe...

And you would be wrong since the court didn't actually allow it. The case involved a judge who wrongly ruled against providing a woman a restraining order against her husband who she claimed was raping her; under the context that her husband was not raping her according to his religious beliefs ... but that judge was overruled because the husband's religious beliefs that he could rape his wife if he wanted to violated U.S. law.

So try another example cause that one only scored a point for the folks pointing out that Sharia law is not permissible in America when it violates U.S. law.

well i'm not up on the result of every court case that comes along......but it was one of the 51 cases or so that were mentioned...and that didn't include honor killings....

but more importantly......why the HELL are these types of cases even being heard in America in the first place....? that's what happens when we let in foreign people who are still adhering to barbarian belief systems....

Honor killings get a pass in the U.S.? Where?

 

[Unkotare]

Which of course, has nothing to do with the law discriminating against gays based on the gender of the person they wish to marry.

So you are looking for Civil Unions for homosexuals then?

I'm looking for the Constitution to be upheld where everyone is provided equal protection under the law.

Ok, Civil Unions for homosexuals then. Problem solved.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

if so that means you can't stop other types of marriages like polygamy as Faun stated....

btw....what is the 'compelling governmental interest' in this.....?

What do you have against polygamy? By what rationale should it not be allowed?

many women and children suffer in such an arrangement...