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

[TemplarKormac]

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

Let's say, for argument's sake, a presidential candidate is born in Canada and he is disqualified for running for not being a "natural born citizen." He challenges that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... how do you think that court rules without giving their interpretation of what constitutes a "natural born citizen?"

reading the words of the constitution is NOT interpreting them. words have meanings, interpretation is not necessary. its written in english and we all know the meaning of english words.

Bingo!

 

[Redfish]

Let's say, for argument's sake, a presidential candidate is born in Canada and he is disqualified for running for not being a "natural born citizen." He challenges that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... how do you think that court rules without giving their interpretation of what constitutes a "natural born citizen?"

reading the words of the constitution is NOT interpreting them. words have meanings, interpretation is not necessary. its written in english and we all know the meaning of english words.

What, in legal terms, does "natural born citizen" mean?

apparently whatever the dems and libs want it to mean. one meaning for obama, another for Cruz and McCain.

 

[Faun]

no one is being discriminated against because they are male or female, if there is discrimination, and there should not be, its due to sexual orientation, not gender.

bigamists and polygamists are no different than monogamous gays. If we really are after equal rights we must allow bigamist and polygamists to have legal marriages and to file as married people.

you guys cannot win a logic debate on this, never.

Well certainly not with someone who doesn't understand logic. The reason they are denied a marriage license is because gender. That doesn't exclude sexual orientation nor does it exclude gender. The two are not mutually exclusive.

that is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

No amount of invective is going to strip away the fact that gay people are denied a marriage license due to gender.

 

[Redfish]

DO you think your legal arguments FOR bigamy/polygamy will be helpful if argued in court?

if gay marriage is deemed constitutional, there is no way that bigamy and polygamy will not also be deemed constitutional.

Why isn't bigamy/polygamy deemed constitutional because civil straight marriage is considered constitutional?

Ummm, lets see now. one man one woman vs one man two women or two men four women or one man twelve women or two men or two women.

if you think they are all the same , fine. I don't

 

[bodecea]

no one is being discriminated against because they are male or female, if there is discrimination, and there should not be, its due to sexual orientation, not gender.

bigamists and polygamists are no different than monogamous gays. If we really are after equal rights we must allow bigamist and polygamists to have legal marriages and to file as married people.

you guys cannot win a logic debate on this, never.

Well certainly not with someone who doesn't understand logic. The reason they are denied a marriage license is because gender. That doesn't exclude sexual orientation nor does it exclude gender. The two are not mutually exclusive.

that is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

And yet, you have no rebuttal.

 

[bodecea]

Let's say, for argument's sake, a presidential candidate is born in Canada and he is disqualified for running for not being a "natural born citizen." He challenges that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... how do you think that court rules without giving their interpretation of what constitutes a "natural born citizen?"

reading the words of the constitution is NOT interpreting them. words have meanings, interpretation is not necessary. its written in english and we all know the meaning of english words.

Bingo!

What does the 2nd Amendment in its entirety mean?

 

[bodecea]

if gay marriage is deemed constitutional, there is no way that bigamy and polygamy will not also be deemed constitutional.

Why isn't bigamy/polygamy deemed constitutional because civil straight marriage is considered constitutional?

Ummm, lets see now. one man one woman vs one man two women or two men four women or one man twelve women or two men or two women.

if you think they are all the same , fine. I don't

Ok...so let's see now.

one man one man or one women one women vs one man two women or two men four women or one man twelve women.

not the same to me either.

 

[bodecea]

Well certainly not with someone who doesn't understand logic. The reason they are denied a marriage license is because gender. That doesn't exclude sexual orientation nor does it exclude gender. The two are not mutually exclusive.

that is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

No amount of invective is going to strip away the fact that gay people are denied a marriage license due to gender.

Here's the break down

ALLOWED:

Straight man marries straight woman
Straight man marries gay woman
Gay man marries straight woman
Gay man marries gay woman

NOT ALLOWED (except where they are in the 21st century when it comes to equal protection under the law:

Straight man marries straight man
Straight woman marries straight woman
Straight man marries gay man
Straight woman marries gay woman
Gay man marries gay man
Gay woman marries gay woman

So...the problem isn't being gay...the problem is on the GENDER of who you marry. Gender discrimination.

 

[Redfish]

Well certainly not with someone who doesn't understand logic. The reason they are denied a marriage license is because gender. That doesn't exclude sexual orientation nor does it exclude gender. The two are not mutually exclusive.

that is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

No amount of invective is going to strip away the fact that gay people are denied a marriage license due to gender.

in some states they are denied a marriage license because that state believes that marriage is a union of one woman and one man, and that two women or two men may commit to each other and should be treated equally in taxes and other things, but their union is not a marriage.

There is no discrimination involved if the gay couple has equal rights and benefits. The word marriage does not convey any rights or benefits that a civil union does not also convey.

 

[bodecea]

that is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

No amount of invective is going to strip away the fact that gay people are denied a marriage license due to gender.

in some states they are denied a marriage license because that state believes that marriage is a union of one woman and one man, and that two women or two men may commit to each other and should be treated equally in taxes and other things, but their union is not a marriage.

There is no discrimination involved if the gay couple has equal rights and benefits. The word marriage does not convey any rights or benefits that a civil union does not also convey.

So...let's make all secular marriages civil unions. Will take a bit of time and money to change all those laws and statutes that use the term "marriage" tho. But I'm sure its worth it so the religions can maintain their sanctity of the word.

Now...what do you do about all the gay couples getting religiously MARRIED?

 

[Redfish]

that is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

No amount of invective is going to strip away the fact that gay people are denied a marriage license due to gender.

Here's the break down

ALLOWED:

Straight man marries straight woman
Straight man marries gay woman
Gay man marries straight woman
Gay man marries gay woman

NOT ALLOWED (except where they are in the 21st century when it comes to equal protection under the law:

Straight man marries straight man
Straight woman marries straight woman
Straight man marries gay man
Straight woman marries gay woman
Gay man marries gay man
Gay woman marries gay woman

So...the problem isn't being gay...the problem is on the GENDER of who you marry. Gender discrimination.

Ok, but your examples are foolish, two straight men or two straight women would never seek to marry. and not many straight women would want to marry a gay man.

its not gender, its what you choose to do with your gender-----------the issue is sexual orientation, not gender.

nice try, but FAIL

 

[bodecea]

No amount of invective is going to strip away the fact that gay people are denied a marriage license due to gender.

Here's the break down

ALLOWED:

Straight man marries straight woman
Straight man marries gay woman
Gay man marries straight woman
Gay man marries gay woman

NOT ALLOWED (except where they are in the 21st century when it comes to equal protection under the law:

Straight man marries straight man
Straight woman marries straight woman
Straight man marries gay man
Straight woman marries gay woman
Gay man marries gay man
Gay woman marries gay woman

So...the problem isn't being gay...the problem is on the GENDER of who you marry. Gender discrimination.

Ok, but your examples are foolish, two straight men or two straight women would never seek to marry. and not many straight women would want to marry a gay man.

its not gender, its what you choose to do with your gender-----------the issue is sexual orientation, not gender.

nice try, but FAIL

How do you know that? They may want to do it for the benefits and legal protections and tax breaks.

Look at my list...the difference is GENDER, not sexual orientation. No state is stopping gay people from marrying people of the opposite GENDER...they are stopping people from marrying people of the same GENDER. It's gender discrimination, clear and simple.

 

[Redfish]

Here's the break down

ALLOWED:

Straight man marries straight woman
Straight man marries gay woman
Gay man marries straight woman
Gay man marries gay woman

NOT ALLOWED (except where they are in the 21st century when it comes to equal protection under the law:

Straight man marries straight man
Straight woman marries straight woman
Straight man marries gay man
Straight woman marries gay woman
Gay man marries gay man
Gay woman marries gay woman

So...the problem isn't being gay...the problem is on the GENDER of who you marry. Gender discrimination.

Ok, but your examples are foolish, two straight men or two straight women would never seek to marry. and not many straight women would want to marry a gay man.

its not gender, its what you choose to do with your gender-----------the issue is sexual orientation, not gender.

nice try, but FAIL

How do you know that? They may want to do it for the benefits and legal protections and tax breaks.

Look at my list...the difference is GENDER, not sexual orientation. No state is stopping gay people from marrying people of the opposite GENDER...they are stopping people from marrying people of the same GENDER. It's gender discrimination, clear and simple.

continuing to discuss this is like pissing into the wind and complaining that your shoes are wet.

you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours.

you think homosexuality is normal, I think its an aberation of the human condition.

the marriage argument is just a dodge to avoid the real issue.

outta here. have a nice life, use good lubrication. your ass was not designed to be a vagina.

 

[bodecea]

Ok, but your examples are foolish, two straight men or two straight women would never seek to marry. and not many straight women would want to marry a gay man.

its not gender, its what you choose to do with your gender-----------the issue is sexual orientation, not gender.

nice try, but FAIL

How do you know that? They may want to do it for the benefits and legal protections and tax breaks.

Look at my list...the difference is GENDER, not sexual orientation. No state is stopping gay people from marrying people of the opposite GENDER...they are stopping people from marrying people of the same GENDER. It's gender discrimination, clear and simple.

continuing to discuss this is like pissing into the wind and complaining that your shoes are wet.

you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours.

you think homosexuality is normal, I think its an aberation of the human condition.

the marriage argument is just a dodge to avoid the real issue.

outta here. have a nice life, use good lubrication. your ass was not designed to be a vagina.

No more or less than being lefthanded is. They were persecuted and religiously preached against for centuries too.


And I've never ever had anal sex in my life and feel no need to.....your parting shot will be taking for what it really is, your Wail of Failure as you run away. Enjoy the legal gay marriage to come. It won't really affect your life in any way...except for your frustration at not being able to tell others how they can live their life.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I say we *OUTLAW* homosexuals.
2. If they want freedom to marry let them migrate to some other country who has made it legal, like some God forsaken European nation which is on the verge of becoming Islamic.
3. Then when it does turn sharia law, watch them run back to America to live in the closet.
4. No, hell no you homos are perverted sick people, and unclean animals, (THE END).


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[bodecea]

Sorry bout that,

1. I say we *OUTLAW* homosexuals.
2. If they want freedom to marry let them migrate to some other country who has made it legal, like some God forsaken European nation which is on the verge of becoming Islamic.
3. Then when it does turn sharia law, watch them run back to America to live in the closet.
4. No, hell no you homos are perverted sick people, and unclean animals, (THE END).


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Pearls of Wisdom from the Texican.

 

[Seawytch]

Ok, but your examples are foolish, two straight men or two straight women would never seek to marry. and not many straight women would want to marry a gay man.

its not gender, its what you choose to do with your gender-----------the issue is sexual orientation, not gender.

nice try, but FAIL

How do you know that? They may want to do it for the benefits and legal protections and tax breaks.

Look at my list...the difference is GENDER, not sexual orientation. No state is stopping gay people from marrying people of the opposite GENDER...they are stopping people from marrying people of the same GENDER. It's gender discrimination, clear and simple.

continuing to discuss this is like pissing into the wind and complaining that your shoes are wet.

you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours.

you think homosexuality is normal, I think its an aberation of the human condition.

the marriage argument is just a dodge to avoid the real issue.

outta here. have a nice life, use good lubrication. your ass was not designed to be a vagina.

Running away again, Fishy? You'll be back.

 

[Seawytch]

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

Fine...all civil marriages can be called civil unions....just religious unions can be called marriage......and let's take the time to change all the statutes, laws, etc to reflect the term "civil union", replacing the word "marriage" on all civil documents.

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

No, that is unconstitutional. Separate but equal. The same water came out of both fountains.

 

[Unkotare]

So what if it's long been established? Times change.

You're avoiding my question. Would the above conditions satisfy you or not?

I didn't avoid the question. I answered it. The answer is no. Equal but different is not equal. Should we tell blacks they get all the benefits of living in America but from now on, they are no longer called "Americans?" After all, it's just a word and they would still enjoy all of the benefits of being an American.

Your false analogy aside, it sure sounds like Redfish may have pegged you right. Would you say that is a reasonable conclusion?

 

[bodecea]

You're avoiding my question. Would the above conditions satisfy you or not?

I didn't avoid the question. I answered it. The answer is no. Equal but different is not equal. Should we tell blacks they get all the benefits of living in America but from now on, they are no longer called "Americans?" After all, it's just a word and they would still enjoy all of the benefits of being an American.

Your false analogy aside, it sure sounds like Redfish may have pegged you right. Would you say that is a reasonable conclusion?

It's not a false analogy. But you don't like what it shows, do you?