The Homosexual Dilemma

[Redfish]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?

1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution

 

[bodecea]

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

That's quite a lengthy audio. Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?

Not my problem You want to know...take the time.

Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments. That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.

In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.

Stop lying, Fish breath!

I've provided you with the audio of the SCOTUS proceedings. You are chosing (actually whining) to not listen to it. Not my problem. But it HAS been provided to you.

You've been exposed as a liar. My logic has already been posted and it is irrefutable.

And.......how has that happened? By you not bothering to listen to the link I provided? Your unwillingness to take the time to actually learn something is not my problem. When you were in school, did you call your teachers liars for not spoon-feeding you everything? (That might explain things)

 

[Syriusly]

but thats exactly what you want. you want a minority to dictate to the majority.

The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people. But, you don't get to determine what someone else's rights should be.

Nope. You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone. Bull fcking shit!

Have you abandoned all pretext of being a Christian?

Did you know that Public Accommodation laws protect Christians in all 50 states but gays in only a handful? Gays must serve Christians in all 50 states, but Christians don't have to serve gays in all 50. You aren't really going to try to pretend that the law treats Christians unfairly are you?

What gay person or atheist has ever been forced to perform a wedding service for Christians?

Right. None. Let's stop with the irrelevant comparisons shall we?

And Christians don't take advice from non Christians as to what Christian conduct should be. That would just be absurd.

And you ignore the point once again- so I will gladly repost what you ignored

Did you know that Public Accommodation laws protect Christians in all 50 states but gays in only a handful? Gays must serve Christians in all 50 states, but Christians don't have to serve gays in all 50. You aren't really going to try to pretend that the law treats Christians unfairly are you?

If a Muslim or Jew refuses to rent a hotel room to you because you are a Christian, you are protected by public accommodation laws in all 50 states. But if a Muslim or Jew refuses to rent a room to you because you are a homosexual, you are only protected by law in a few states and localities.

The protections extended to homosexuals are projected more completely to Christians and members of any other faith.

 

[Syriusly]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?

1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution

So you really don't know what the arguments that are being made regarding same gender marriage other than bullet points?

 

[bodecea]

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?

Tread carefully, Trout. If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.

Why are you saying that? I've done no such thing. Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.

Actually you did and I didn't. Do it again and I'll report you.

If this is your strategy to try to silence me, go right ahead. It's not as if you can legitimately debate anyways.

Talk all you want, just follow the rules. That's all I'm asking

Which I have been doing. But if you think I have not....it is your duty to report me. Somehow I don't think it will end up as you think....so you are just bloviating in an attempt to shut me up. Not going to work.

 

[bodecea]

I can actually provide cogent, scientific reasons for why those states who have low age of consent laws should raise their age of consent to 18.

I would not be able to provide rational reasons for why any state should lower its age of consent.

This is again why the bullshit pedophilia meme that invariably comes up in every gay marriage topic fails.

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

PRICELESS!

 

[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."

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.

Yeah- that is some convoluted logic.

I think you are saying(and feel free to correct me) that if someone supports marriage equality for gay couples- but doesn't also support people who want polygamous marriage, that is bigotry similar to opposing mixed race marriage.

Of course if you look at how bizarre that argument is- since those who opposed mixed race marriage also opposed gay marriage and polygamous marriage- while those who supported the marriage of mixed race couples never supported gay or polygamous marriage.

So logically you are saying that by supporting gay marriage we are as bigoted as the Lovings were.

 

[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."

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

That is your opinion.

My opinion is that marriage is marriage. The gay friends that I have who got married, got married for the same reasons as my wife and I had for marrying.

 

[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."

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

race and sex are not analogous

Bigotry is bigotry.

 

[Redfish]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?

1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution

So you really don't know what the arguments that are being made regarding same gender marriage other than bullet points?

those are the arguments being made, but if you disagree with my summation, tell us what I missed.

 

[Syriusly]

Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?

Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.

Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with. That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.

Yes. It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.

Actually I do. It's called democracy.

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't you take government?

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

 

[Redfish]

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."

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

race and sex are not analogous

Bigotry is bigotry.

yes, it is, and your bigotry against anyone who disagrees with you is quite evident. WTF makes your position superior to all others? Who the fuck are you that you think you can dictate how others must think and believe?

Thats the problem with you fricken libtards, you think that you are smarter than everyone else, but you aren't

 

[Redfish]

Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with. That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.

Yes. It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.

Actually I do. It's called democracy.

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't you take government?

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

 

[bodecea]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

That's interesting. Your source?

 

[bodecea]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?

1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution

Here's the legal problem with using the current marriage license for polygamy.

The 1000+ rights and protections for marriage today have a default feature automatically there. If one partner dies, the other gets the house, etc. Same with child custody, etc.
If you add a 3rd party, then it becomes complicated and the current marriage rights and protections are not enough.....the entire
Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign
would have to be overhauled.

 

[bodecea]

Yes. It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.

Actually I do. It's called democracy.

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't you take government?

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto. But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws? (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)

 

[Redfish]

Actually I do. It's called democracy.

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't you take government?

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto. But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws? (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

 

[Redfish]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?

1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution

Here's the legal problem with using the current marriage license for polygamy.

The 1000+ rights and protections for marriage today have a default feature automatically there. If one partner dies, the other gets the house, etc. Same with child custody, etc.
If you add a 3rd party, then it becomes complicated and the current marriage rights and protections are not enough.....the entire
Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign
would have to be overhauled.

Yep, those laws will have to change and the lawyers will have a field day doing it. Can you imagine the legal fees for a divorce of 5 people?

but my point remains valid, the arguments for polysexual marriage are EXACTLY the same as the arguments for man/man and woman/woman marriage.

 

[Redfish]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

That's interesting. Your source?

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

 

[Lilah]

Yes. It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.

Actually I do. It's called democracy.

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't you take government?

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

Can one man, the President, veto them?