Texas vs Gay Sex Marriage. Are Behaviors The Same As Race?

[Silhouette]

We get these kinds of rulings when we have a court which tells Christian Conservatives that States should not be telling Americans who they can have sex with- or what kind of sex they can.

Conservatives like you want the government policing our bedrooms...The Supreme Court says you can't.

So would you support the Constitution protecting my right to have sex with your dog or your kids?

More to the point, if you had a right to have sex with your dog in the privacy of your bedroom, would that mean you also have a right to publicly marry your dog?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We get these kinds of rulings when we have a court which tells Christian Conservatives that States should not be telling Americans who they can have sex with- or what kind of sex they can.

Conservatives like you want the government policing our bedrooms...The Supreme Court says you can't.

So would you support the Constitution protecting my right to have sex with your dog or your kids?

More to the point, if you had a right to have sex with your dog in the privacy of your bedroom, would that mean you also have a right to publicly marry your dog?

Lack of consent, as always. Give it up Sil, you lost.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Gay Sex Marriage is challenged by Texas' Christians: FRAMING THE ARGUMENT

Same-sex marriage ruling faces religious rights battle in Texas

As supporters of gay marriages celebrated a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a new battle for same-sex marriage erupted in Texas where government leaders asserted their citizens' religious liberties trumped the individual right to marry...
Contesting the law on religious grounds will be the next major battlefield for the issue and could see it return to the Supreme Court, said Texas A&M University Law Professor Meg Penrose, who has followed the issue.

All Texas county clerks take an oath to uphold state laws and the U.S. Constitution, which includes Friday's decision, she said. But how far religious beliefs can protect state and county workers from performing their duties remains an unanswered constitutional question. Extending that argument could mean a Catholic judge deny a divorce because it goes against his religion, or a state worker could refuse to issue liquor licenses because it clashes with his religious beliefs, Penrose said.
Ultimately, it will come down to two fundamental rights – religious freedom granted explicitly in the Constitution, and same-sex liberties, which have been confirmed through previous court decisions – battling for precedence, she said.

I'm glad the author wrote it that way..."same-sex". Because that is a verb, not a noun. And that will be the ultimate question at the end of all this.
'GAY SEX' marriage is in no way shape or form born of a static state of being. It is an action; something done. And something done BTW that deprives children of either a father or a mother in marriage. This is a brand spanking new human concept, never before heard of or tried. Black men and white women still provided a father and a mother in marriage. More importantly, NO New Testament teaching advocated that races couldn't intermarry. Christians follow the new testament.

However, in Jude 1 of the New Testament, Jesus Christ's constant companion, confidant and personal servant tells the world what will happen if Christians promote the spread of a homosexual culture. The hub of any culture is marriage. So if Christians promote that spread, they are sentenced to eternal soul-death. They are reminded that everyone in Sodom was sentenced to the pit of fire forever, not just the homosexual cult there that forced its way upon every fold of life; but also those Christians who refused to do anything in order to stop it.

Price for your eternal soul? One marriage license, one catered meal, one photograph, one cake...make that strawberry with pineapple filling

Gay sex marriage is a verb, not a noun.

Opponents of the freedom of religion, the 1st Amendment are already alleging that their in-Pocket Justices who amended the Constitution to include a special class of just their favorite deviant sex behaviors as protected (while polygamy and incest remain without that protection), say that public accomodation laws and their new addition to the Constitution will trump freedom of religion. However, lawyers familiar with the Constitution will know of the 9th Amendment that says even if the judicial branch of government significantly changes the Constitution (which isn't allowed), that change may not suppress or abridge the rights enjoyed in another part of the Constitution.

I can see the bumper stickers now as to the 1st Amendment (adjunct to the democracy-killing "8 IS HATE) NUMBER 1 IS DONE! You know, with the rainbow logo off to the side..

In the eyes of the (secular) law, your religious arguements mean no more than those from a Satanist would.

F*** your religion. (self-censored, trying to cuss less.)

 

[Silhouette]

In the eyes of the (secular) law, your religious arguements mean no more than those from a Satanist would.

F*** your religion. (self-censored, trying to cuss less.)

Sounds like someone is grumpy this may limit his access to adoptable orphans using being "legally married" as a shoehorn...

 

[Lilah]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Every thought that might be the reason religion is protected under a separate amendment?

The framers of the Constitution were smarter than people think they are. The First Amendment both protects and disallows religion.

Oh the Founders were in possession of intellects beyond anything present today...

Of course, few people on this board could pass an 8th grade Civics Test from 1895. So... well... you know.

But the 1st amendment in no way disallows religion.

What the First Amendment does it to preclude the Federal Government from establishing a law that in any way effects the means of the individual to freely exercise their religion.

Which the SCOTUS just did, in SPADES.

"Oh the Founders were in possession of intellects beyond anything present today.".
You may want to rethink your statement. But, in your case, doubt you will understand.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In the eyes of the (secular) law, your religious arguements mean no more than those from a Satanist would.

F*** your religion. (self-censored, trying to cuss less.)

Sounds like someone is grumpy this may limit his access to adoptable orphans using being "legally married" as a shoehorn...

Sounds like you've come to the same realization. Your religious arguements suck.

 

[Syriusly]

We get these kinds of rulings when we have a court which tells Christian Conservatives that States should not be telling Americans who they can have sex with- or what kind of sex they can.

Conservatives like you want the government policing our bedrooms...The Supreme Court says you can't.

So would you support the Constitution protecting my right to have sex with your dog or your kids?

More to the point, if you had a right to have sex with your dog in the privacy of your bedroom, would that mean you also have a right to publicly marry your dog?

Anti-gay bigots- once again showing that they see no difference between sex between consenting adults- and sex with dogs.

 

[RKMBrown]

We get these kinds of rulings when we have a court which tells Christian Conservatives that States should not be telling Americans who they can have sex with- or what kind of sex they can.

Conservatives like you want the government policing our bedrooms...The Supreme Court says you can't.

So would you support the Constitution protecting my right to have sex with your dog or your kids?

More to the point, if you had a right to have sex with your dog in the privacy of your bedroom, would that mean you also have a right to publicly marry your dog?

Anti-gay bigots- once again showing that they see no difference between sex between consenting adults- and sex with dogs.

Maybe they are trying to excuse some hidden secrets...

 

[g5000]

I am so tired of this bullshit behavior vs. race argument. Seriously. It is retarded.

The bigots use the exact same idiotic and fallacious arguments against equality for gays as they did against equality for blacks. It's the same bullshit, different decade.

If we bought into the "behavior isn't the same as race" bullshit, then I guess we could start discriminating against religion, since that is a behavior and not a race.

Oh, yeah. I guess that makes it completely unsurprising that some of the same people who oppose equality for gays also oppose First Amendment protections for Muslims.

Go figure.

 

[g5000]

The bigots do seem obsessed with various sexual practices. You say "gay" and they have images in their head of fucking a dog. Two adults = adult fucking a dog. WOW!

It just doesn't get more twisted in the head than that!

We're arguing with at least an 80 IQ point advantage over these retards. It just doesn't feel fair, you know?

 

[RKMBrown]

The bigots do seem obsessed with various sexual practices. You say "gay" and they have images in their head of fucking a dog. Two adults = adult fucking a dog. WOW!

It just doesn't get more twisted in the head than that!

We're arguing with at least an 80 IQ point advantage over these retards. It just doesn't feel fair, you know?

Heh... good post I got a chuckle out of it.

Yeah, it's not clear to me if the problem is retardation or some psychosis brought about by "groupthink."

 

[Silhouette]

Or if it's a sound, logical legal problem.

After all..If the Justices are to be believed about the core intent of their use of the word "equality" in their Ruling, each and every single sexual-orientation, including polygamy and incest are ALREADY LEGAL TO MARRY. There can be no discrimination, remember? The Court JUST TOLD US THAT!

In Ruling the way they did to create a brand new fundamental change to the physical structure of marriage to render children in them either fatherless or motherless, there can be no, none, ZERO objections to any other type of sexual orientation that might be argued "could be an untried detriment to children". The Court has just made "an untried detriment to children" a matter of nationally-binding law. Well, really, it's an addition to the Constitution; which of course the Court is forbidden to do.

 

[RKMBrown]

Or if it's a sound, logical legal problem.

After all..If the Justices are to be believed about the core intent of their use of the word "equality" in their Ruling, each and every single sexual-orientation, including polygamy and incest are ALREADY LEGAL TO MARRY. There can be no discrimination, remember? The Court JUST TOLD US THAT!

In Ruling the way they did to create a brand new fundamental change to the physical structure of marriage to render children in them either fatherless or motherless, there can be no, none, ZERO objections to any other type of sexual orientation that might be argued "could be an untried detriment to children". The Court has just made "an untried detriment to children" a matter of nationally-binding law. Well, really, it's an addition to the Constitution; which of course the Court is forbidden to do.

Uhmm... no gay marriage is not incest or polygamy. Try again.

 

[Silhouette]

Or if it's a sound, logical legal problem.

After all..If the Justices are to be believed about the core intent of their use of the word "equality" in their Ruling, each and every single sexual-orientation, including polygamy and incest are ALREADY LEGAL TO MARRY. There can be no discrimination, remember? The Court JUST TOLD US THAT!

In Ruling the way they did to create a brand new fundamental change to the physical structure of marriage to render children in them either fatherless or motherless, there can be no, none, ZERO objections to any other type of sexual orientation that might be argued "could be an untried detriment to children". The Court has just made "an untried detriment to children" a matter of nationally-binding law. Well, really, it's an addition to the Constitution; which of course the Court is forbidden to do.

Uhmm... no gay marriage is not incest or polygamy. Try again.

Gay sex, polygamy sex and incest sex are all people who identify with their sexual orientation behaviors. Please explain to me in detail how one set gets special legal priveleges while the other two don't? And if you're going to go down the "gays are better for children" road...remember, there's a lot of rocks on that road. You may find yourself stumbling. Be prepared. You're debating me after all..

 

[Syriusly]

Or if it's a sound, logical legal problem.

After all..If the Justices are to be believed about the core intent of their use of the word "equality" in their Ruling, each and every single sexual-orientation, including polygamy and incest are ALREADY LEGAL TO MARRY. There can be no discrimination, remember? The Court JUST TOLD US THAT!.

No they didn't.

You just imagine that in your homophobic fueled rage over Friday's decision.

 

[Syriusly]

Or if it's a sound, logical legal problem.

After all..If the Justices are to be believed about the core intent of their use of the word "equality" in their Ruling, each and every single sexual-orientation, including polygamy and incest are ALREADY LEGAL TO MARRY. There can be no discrimination, remember? The Court JUST TOLD US THAT!

In Ruling the way they did to create a brand new fundamental change to the physical structure of marriage to render children in them either fatherless or motherless, there can be no, none, ZERO objections to any other type of sexual orientation that might be argued "could be an untried detriment to children". The Court has just made "an untried detriment to children" a matter of nationally-binding law. Well, really, it's an addition to the Constitution; which of course the Court is forbidden to do.

Uhmm... no gay marriage is not incest or polygamy. Try again.

Gay sex, polygamy sex and incest sex are all people who identify with their sexual orientation behaviors. Please explain to me in detail how one set gets special legal priveleges while the other two don't? And if you're going to go down the "gays are better for children" road...remember, there's a lot of rocks on that road. You may find yourself stumbling. Be prepared. You're debating me after all..

Let us review
Gay sex- legal- ever since Lawrence V. Texas.
Polygamy sex- i.e. multiple partners having sex- as far as I know always legal.
Incest sex- in most cases illegal.
Heterosexual sex- legal.

If you cannot come up with an argument why a mother should not be having sex with her son- well then that is really your problem.

 

[RKMBrown]

Or if it's a sound, logical legal problem.

After all..If the Justices are to be believed about the core intent of their use of the word "equality" in their Ruling, each and every single sexual-orientation, including polygamy and incest are ALREADY LEGAL TO MARRY. There can be no discrimination, remember? The Court JUST TOLD US THAT!

In Ruling the way they did to create a brand new fundamental change to the physical structure of marriage to render children in them either fatherless or motherless, there can be no, none, ZERO objections to any other type of sexual orientation that might be argued "could be an untried detriment to children". The Court has just made "an untried detriment to children" a matter of nationally-binding law. Well, really, it's an addition to the Constitution; which of course the Court is forbidden to do.

Uhmm... no gay marriage is not incest or polygamy. Try again.

Gay sex, polygamy sex and incest sex are all people who identify with their sexual orientation behaviors. Please explain to me in detail how one set gets special legal priveleges while the other two don't? And if you're going to go down the "gays are better for children" road...remember, there's a lot of rocks on that road. You may find yourself stumbling. Be prepared. You're debating me after all..

As for your point about sexual orientation, so is heterosexual sex, and sex with children. Are you saying a state should be able to ban heterosexual sex and allow sex with children?

The reason incest is illegal is the harm that is involved. That is clear and no one is arguing for incest except, oddly, the people that are against gay sexual orientation.

The reason gay marriage and polygamy were illegal was the hate instilled in the hearts of man by their religious leaders. There is no harm involved. The insinuation that harm is caused children of a gay marriage, and polygamist marriage... is total hogwash based solely on said hate.

 

[Montrovant]

Or if it's a sound, logical legal problem.

After all..If the Justices are to be believed about the core intent of their use of the word "equality" in their Ruling, each and every single sexual-orientation, including polygamy and incest are ALREADY LEGAL TO MARRY. There can be no discrimination, remember? The Court JUST TOLD US THAT!

In Ruling the way they did to create a brand new fundamental change to the physical structure of marriage to render children in them either fatherless or motherless, there can be no, none, ZERO objections to any other type of sexual orientation that might be argued "could be an untried detriment to children". The Court has just made "an untried detriment to children" a matter of nationally-binding law. Well, really, it's an addition to the Constitution; which of course the Court is forbidden to do.

Uhmm... no gay marriage is not incest or polygamy. Try again.

Gay sex, polygamy sex and incest sex are all people who identify with their sexual orientation behaviors. Please explain to me in detail how one set gets special legal priveleges while the other two don't? And if you're going to go down the "gays are better for children" road...remember, there's a lot of rocks on that road. You may find yourself stumbling. Be prepared. You're debating me after all..

You clearly either do not understand the definition of sexual orientation or, more likely, are merely attempting to change it to suit your argument.

Polygamy is not a form of sexual orientation. It is a marriage with more than 2 partners. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation; in fact it can encompass multiple sexual orientations.

Incest is also not a sexual orientation, although I can at least see making an argument that it is. I think it is probably vanishingly rare that a person is only attracted to people they are related to, but possible.

The thing you seem to be avoiding in the recent USSC ruling is that same sex couples were not afforded special privileges, at least based on the ruling. Instead they were provided the same rights and protections as opposite sex couples. That you disagree with the ruling doesn't change that it wasn't based on giving special privileges.

As far as gays being better for children, are there people here claiming that? I thought the argument was more than gay parents can be just as good as straight parents. Good gay parents are going to be better than bad straight parents, good straight parents better than bad gay parents, but in general probably about equal. Who is arguing that gays are better parents?

You are right, arguing with you can be a rocky road. That's not because of any particular debating acumen on your part, rather it is because you throw up a rock wall of stubbornness, repeating the same lies and debunked arguments over and over in thread after thread. Someone might stumble there and be unwilling to argue against such willful intransigence in the face of reality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am so tired of this bullshit behavior vs. race argument. Seriously. It is retarded.

The bigots use the exact same idiotic and fallacious arguments against equality for gays as they did against equality for blacks. ....

ROFLMNAO...

So you're sick of the argument which you're standing upon?

No one opposed equality for sexual deviants... We merely noted the definitional standard of marriage as establushes by nature... Which in no way precluded degenerates from marriage, except where they applied to marry outside of the definitional standard of marriage.

To equate that with Black people is an insult TO BLACK PEOPLE... But it is a wonderful demonstration of the racism inherent in Left-think.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Or if it's a sound, logical legal problem.

After all..If the Justices are to be believed about the core intent of their use of the word "equality" in their Ruling, each and every single sexual-orientation, including polygamy and incest are ALREADY LEGAL TO MARRY. There can be no discrimination, remember? The Court JUST TOLD US THAT!

In Ruling the way they did to create a brand new fundamental change to the physical structure of marriage to render children in them either fatherless or motherless, there can be no, none, ZERO objections to any other type of sexual orientation that might be argued "could be an untried detriment to children". The Court has just made "an untried detriment to children" a matter of nationally-binding law. Well, really, it's an addition to the Constitution; which of course the Court is forbidden to do.

Uhmm... no gay marriage is not incest or polygamy. Try again.

Gay sex, polygamy sex and incest sex are all people who identify with their sexual orientation behaviors. Please explain to me in detail how one set gets special legal priveleges while the other two don't? And if you're going to go down the "gays are better for children" road...remember, there's a lot of rocks on that road. You may find yourself stumbling. Be prepared. You're debating me after all..

You clearly either do not understand the definition of sexual orientation or, more likely, are merely attempting to change it to suit your argument.

Polygamy is not a form of sexual orientation. It is a marriage with more than 2 partners. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation; in fact it can encompass multiple sexual orientations.

Incest is also not a sexual orientation, although I can at least see making an argument that it is. I think it is probably vanishingly rare that a person is only attracted to people they are related to, but possible.

The thing you seem to be avoiding in the recent USSC ruling is that same sex couples were not afforded special privileges, at least based on the ruling. Instead they were provided the same rights and protections as opposite sex couples. That you disagree with the ruling doesn't change that it wasn't based on giving special privileges.

As far as gays being better for children, are there people here claiming that? I thought the argument was more than gay parents can be just as good as straight parents. Good gay parents are going to be better than bad straight parents, good straight parents better than bad gay parents, but in general probably about equal. Who is arguing that gays are better parents?

You are right, arguing with you can be a rocky road. That's not because of any particular debating acumen on your part, rather it is because you throw up a rock wall of stubbornness, repeating the same lies and debunked arguments over and over in thread after thread. Someone might stumble there and be unwilling to argue against such willful intransigence in the face of reality.

Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is a failure to respect the definitional standard of marriage.

Which is precisely the same delusion that the sexual deviants are presenting and the delusion that the 5 deviants on the SCOTUS served.