The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

race and sex are not analogous

So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?

Gender

There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -

Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.

If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.

If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.

There is no rational basis for either.

Because no gender is being told they can't marry.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage. They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda? A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.

But thats not what this is about is it? the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. Thats your real agenda, admit it and then we can move forward.

But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition

That is your opinion.

Then so is yours.

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The wiggles and screams as the anti-marriage equality crowd denies its impending constitutional demise this summer reminds me when I caught a sheep-killing dog in a trap.

As I walked up on it, the struggles and whining increased. When I pulled my pistol from its holster, I swear that dog screamed, which I immediately and forever stopped.

There be no violence by the equality side, for we know the deniers are trapped by the law.

Equally, there will no extension of mercy socially or culturally to the deniers. They will have to live with the fact there is no dilemma, and that will be put in their face.

Scream and wiggle, folks, for time is short before SCOTUS rules.

 

[g5000]

Sanger on Blacks ...

"...human weeds,'

The full quote:

If plants, and live stock as well, require space and air, sunlight and love, children need them even more. The only real wealth of our country lies in the men and women of the next generation. A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts.

How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds.

In a home where there are too many children in proportion to the living space, the air and sunlight, the children are usually overcrowded and underfed. They are a constant burden on their mother's overtaxed strength and the father's earning capacity. Such homes cannot be gardens in any sense of the word.

Radio WFAB Syracuse, 1924-02-29, transcripted in "The Meaning of Radio Birth Control", April 1924, p. 111


Again, not an extermination plan. It was advocacy for birth control.

Dumbass.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit. Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population. Her aim was to allay their fears. She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.

http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf

So you just quoted Sanger as saying that they will use ministers to lie about their agenda and hide the facts. I told you there's no flattering context for her words and I was right.

 

[bodecea]

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.

not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.

Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".

And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

 

[bodecea]

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.

Yes, it is. Sorry about that!

They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.

If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.

As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.

That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.

Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."

Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.

a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.

So you're hung up on a word, when worlds change over time? What a dumbass you are.

It IS funny that he thinks language is static.

You have no clue as to what you just said - you heard somebody else say it and thought it sounded intelligent - STFU Fish Breath

So...you can't keep up your side of the argument and call me names and tell me to shut up. Quite telling.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

race and sex are not analogous

So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?

Gender

There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -

Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.

If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.

If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.

There is no rational basis for either.

Because no gender is being told they can't marry.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage. They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda? A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.

But thats not what this is about is it? the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. Thats your real agenda, admit it and then we can move forward.

But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition

That is your opinion.

Then so is yours.

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.

Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

Weakest comment of the day.

 

[g5000]

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

Slippery slope fallacy.

A rational basis can be provided for discrimination against adult-child sexual relationships and marriages.

I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.

not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.

Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".

And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

NAMBLA is going to be in the news quite a bit, using all your famous arguments to push their agenda through the courts. This is depravity springing from depravity. I just wonder if any of them will be honorable enough to give you people credit for a wining legal strategy.

 

[mdk]

They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.

not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.

Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".

And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

Slippery slope fallacy.

A rational basis can be provided for discrimination against adult-child relationships.

I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.

What does rationality have to do with anything when people are screaming about "rights"?

 

[Syriusly]

Because no gender is being told they can't marry.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia. The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".

This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people. Now you know.

Or not.

Loving v. Virginia upheld the unconstitutionality of Virginia's marriage law based because it violated the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause- and race was the issue.

Substitute gender/sexual identity for race and the laws States passed specifically to ensure that gay marriage was not going to be legal violate the same Due Process and Equal Protection clauses:

Loving V. Virginia

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [Footnote 11]

We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma,316 U. S. 535,316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.

Now note the decision in the Wisconsin case- and the reference to the14th Amendment and Loving.

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

 

[g5000]

The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.

A completely bogus claim.

Indeed. stmike is an absolute liar. Koshergrl loves repeating this nonsense.

Yes, it is a favorite of some of the rubes here. They parrot these idiotic memes without ever fact checking them.

 

[bodecea]

Because no gender is being told they can't marry.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia. The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".

This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people. Now you know.

Or not.

Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court. The Justices laughed out loud.

Oh...you might find this interesting:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Loving v. Virginia on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

Sound familiar?

The justices laughed out loud? Did somebody get that on film?

Their findings were based on discrimination in the law itself, that in only entailed marriage to a white person. That's illegal. I gave you your quote, so you can argue with the facts all you want. My job is done.

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[g5000]

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

Slippery slope fallacy.

A rational basis can be provided for discrimination against adult-child relationships.

I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.

What does rationality have to do with anything when people are screaming about "rights"?

We see no rationality at all from you bigots. Things have to be explained to you in small words, and yet you continue to throw out logical fallacies and red herrings from the rube parrot toolbox.

The right that is in play with same sex marriage is "equal protection of the laws."

 

[Syriusly]

yep, the liberal mantra, if it feels good, do it, and make it legal. if it destroys society, so fricking what.

liberalism is a mental disease.

I would say it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.

Why this imagery....every....single....time?


And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage. Not my intent. I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.

Your intent seems to be to whine and bitch because people don't agree with what you want to do.

What I "want to do"? I'm already married, my friend.

If you're a homo, you can call it what you want. ONLY your kind believe it's on the level of a true marriage like the one between me and my wife.

Only your kind- the bigots of the world- believe that other people's marriage are not a 'true marriage' .

 

[bodecea]

They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

race and sex are not analogous

So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?

Gender

There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -

Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.

So...Males have civil rights and Females have civil rights, no?

Ergo....Male and Female, Female and Female, and Male and Male all have civil rights, no?

Uhhh --- wtf did u jus say ? Doyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I'm sorry. It was too complicated for you. My apologies.

 

[bodecea]

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit. Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population. Her aim was to allay their fears. She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.

http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf

So you just quoted Sanger as saying that they will use ministers to lie about their agenda and hide the facts. I told you there's no flattering context for her words and I was right.

Where does it say in the quote that the ministers are to lie?

 

[bodecea]

race and sex are not analogous

So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?

Gender

There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -

Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.

If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.

If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.

There is no rational basis for either.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage. They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda? A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.

But thats not what this is about is it? the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. Thats your real agenda, admit it and then we can move forward.

But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition

That is your opinion.

Then so is yours.

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.

Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.

Check this comment out, everyone!