The Homosexual Dilemma

[WorldWatcher]

You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no [references] to actual laws.


>>>>

Nonsense:

I cited the law numerous times:

1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

And still no link to any law in any of the 50 State that list the ability of the couple to procreate together as a requirement of Civil Marriage.

Not surprising.


Would you like to see a requirement under Civil Law that requires that a couple be INFERTILE before being allowed to Civilly Marry? A law which proves your claim in false.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.

What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake? That's a message.

That's a figurine. If they were asked to write something that they found offensive, I'd be inclined to give the christian bakers a mulligan. But if they refused to sell cake.....not so much. I'd hold the gay bakers to the same standard.

 

[Conservative65]

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.

What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake? That's a message.

That's a figurine. If they were asked to write something that they found offensive, I'd be inclined to give the christian bakers a mulligan. But if they refused to sell cake.....not so much. I'd hold the gay bakers to the same standard.

So messages can only be in words?

 

[Coyote]

1. Who is doing the research?

Who like in what? Individual people? Scientific disciplines?
Here are some links to research publications:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

2. If I get offended, it's my problem. I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me. The problem is when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are.

Examples? And, is that any different from other people's behavior (ie - straight people who get offended by something?)

3. When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only. I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent.

Like I said, look up hermaphrodite.

4. He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something. NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.

The pro-athletes who came out gay were already accomplished athletes. Coming out was not their sole accomplishment. The leftwing media picked up on the coming out and made it front page news - a hero for gay rights.

Tebow was an accomplished athlete who did a religious ritual when he won. That ritual was not his sole accomplishment. The rightwing media picked up on his religious ritual and made it front page news - a hero for the religious right.

It's the same.

5. When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding. Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore. As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.

Are you suggesting people who feel wronged should not make use of the courts but stick to the legislative system? Like Hobby Lobby?

 

[Syriusly]

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.

If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.

If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.

But like you said- you just don't care.

Others do.

I called you a pussy.

I don't care because I'm man enough to not do so. If others do care, it's their problem.

See here on the boards thats fine.

But in the workplace- in most places- that could get you fired.

Not because everyone is politically correct- but because you would just be being an asshole at work.

So you get to define what being an asshole means? Sorry, you don't.

Oh when it comes to you- yes i can.

 

[Conservative65]

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's recently come to my attention that the Intellectually Less Fortunate seem to be moving toward the profound idiocy wherein it is held that Race, or the classifications wherein distinction biological differences are observed and subsequently classified... are a fabrication of humanity or that such represents a 'social construct'.

Such is, as these things usually are: FALSE.

That humanity observes the distinctions between a rock and a hard place, we do not create these things through that observance.

The notion that we do, predicates nearly every rationalization wherein it is held that since we created such, we can simply ignore such and in so doing; Un-Create it.

When one pretends that a person is not black, one insults them as a person, devaluing them. One also tells on their own prejudice that the elevated melatonin levels, being higher than one's self, represent negative characteristics which ONE "FEELS" renders them inferior to one's lower melatonin values.

And this is how we, the people of reason, can "KNOW" that the Ideological Left is without a close second the most racist herd of idiots to ever slide down a birth canal.

And THAT is not even a remotely debatable point.

It should be noted that it was CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS who pushed for desegregation, it was Conservative Republicans who advocated for the stripping of racial prejudice from the culture and it was the Conservative Republicans who fought for the end of restrictions on racial diversity in marriage. And it was the DEMOCRATS who opposed ALL OF IT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no [references] to actual laws.


>>>>

Nonsense:

I cited the law numerous times:

1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

And still no link to any law in any of the 50 State that list the ability of the couple to procreate together as a requirement of Civil Marriage.

Not surprising.


Would you like to see a requirement under Civil Law that requires that a couple be INFERTILE before being allowed to Civilly Marry? A law which proves your claim in false.


>>>>

Marriage is a function of nature, not law... it of course has a legal component, but nature designed it and it is nature that requires that such is the joining of one man and one woman, and it is nature that precludes any two people of the same gender who play house, from every being married.

The Law may provide it to be LEGAL that a person can flap their arms and fly... it is nature that defines such flight as 'falling' as well as the punishment for such, over toward the sudden stop right at the end there.

Now would you care to cite the laws forbidding the flapping of arms to fly being illegal? Thus proving that THAT is why people aren't flappin' and flyin' all over the dam' place?

I'm all about the fairness... AND the learnin' so if you would like to cite such, I'm here for ya.

 

[Skylar]

1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

You don't speak for 'Nature', nor is there any marriage in 'Nature'. That's a social construct that we invented.

Your post is also an 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy, where you can't establish your claims logically or rationally...so your argument is that you must be right because an 'authority' says so. In this case, you pretending to be 'nature'.

Rendering you both factually inaccurate and logically invalid. Any claims based on the same fallacy are equally invalid.

3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

Nature has no morality. It has fucking. All moral implications are what we apply. And I don't accept you as an arbiter of moral authority. So you're left with nothing but your opinion.

Which we don't base our laws upon.

4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

And yet when you've ever tried to establish causation between your imagined 'breaching of the laws of nature' and the 'catastrophic consequences', you've failed perfectly.

Without causation, your entire point is moot.

5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

As you're neither an authoritative arbiter of 'sound moral reasoning' nor 'natural law', your assessment of whether or not a given law rests soundly on either is irrelevant, even by your standards.

Sigh, but way to work that 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy yet again.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.

What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake? That's a message.

That's a figurine. If they were asked to write something that they found offensive, I'd be inclined to give the christian bakers a mulligan. But if they refused to sell cake.....not so much. I'd hold the gay bakers to the same standard.

So messages can only be in words?

Speech is generally regarded as words and text.

 

[Coyote]

Understand what she is saying here folks.

It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.

"It is Decidedly so"

Of course, Nature's design provides for balance, doesn't it?

In the sub-species, that balance is applied through limited sexual hormonal activity triggered by the end of winter, providing that the probability that the environment will promote a successful gestation and time for training the offspring to a point of individual viability.

Sub-species? Do you mean other species?

Limiting sexual desire also promotes survival in that the 'fittest get it' rule provides for most of the animal world that periods of combat provide for the tests of 'who gets what twat', the best get the best and on down the line down to those who get none... which in the Human world is where ya find the homosexuals.

Yes... sadly, Cinemax has lied AGAIN! Despite the grand scheme of deceit, the homosexuals are not the hardbodied, symmetrically acute peaks of beauty that they're portrayed as on the TeeVee... .

They're the duds, left to hump each other's rhetorical leg in impotent displays of feckless, would-be dominance.

It's just one of nature's wonderful ways of culling from the herd, those who simply have nothing to offer the species... in terms of desirable traits.

Now... again, homosexuals exist and that's fine. But like The Clap, which also exists, its not something that a viable culture can promote and remain viable.

Evolutionary success is not that simplistic and evolutionary success does not necessarily mean the passing on of every individuals genes but can be the successful survival of the group, pack or clan as a whole. Homosexuality has been showing up at about the same rate through out human history regardless of the level of social tolerance and persecution. That would indicate that there could be some evolutionary benefit to it or family members.

BBC News - The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
Homosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us Bond Scientists Say

 

[Syriusly]

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.

Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.

But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.

 

[Coyote]

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.

Why do they have to fight against them?

 

[Conservative65]

1. Who is doing the research?

Who like in what? Individual people? Scientific disciplines?
Here are some links to research publications:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

2. If I get offended, it's my problem. I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me. The problem is when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are.

Examples? And, is that any different from other people's behavior (ie - straight people who get offended by something?)

3. When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only. I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent.

Like I said, look up hermaphrodite.

4. He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something. NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.

The pro-athletes who came out gay were already accomplished athletes. Coming out was not their sole accomplishment. The leftwing media picked up on the coming out and made it front page news - a hero for gay rights.

Tebow was an accomplished athlete who did a religious ritual when he won. That ritual was not his sole accomplishment. The rightwing media picked up on his religious ritual and made it front page news - a hero for the religious right.

It's the same.

5. When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding. Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore. As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.

Are you suggesting people who feel wronged should not make use of the courts but stick to the legislative system? Like Hobby Lobby?

1. Follow the research money.

2. When has a straight person sued because someone said something about hetersexual marriage?

3. I don't have to. I know what one is. I also know that you're trying to use something that happens so rarely, it doesn't apply here. You make it out as if it happens on a regular basis.

4. The leftwing media then makes a hero out of someone for something totally unrelated to their athletic accomplishments.

5. Hobby Lobby was sticking to what had been passed through the legislative process. The 1st Amendment say free exercise of religion. Since that Amendment was added to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, all Hobby Lobby was doing was getting the courts to clarify what had already been passed legislatively.

 

[Conservative65]

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.

Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.

But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.

I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.

I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no [references] to actual laws.


>>>>

Nonsense:

I cited the law numerous times:

1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

And still no link to any law in any of the 50 State that list the ability of the couple to procreate together as a requirement of Civil Marriage.

Not surprising.


Would you like to see a requirement under Civil Law that requires that a couple be INFERTILE before being allowed to Civilly Marry? A law which proves your claim in false.


>>>>

Marriage is a function of nature, not law... it of course has a legal component, but nature designed it and it is nature that requires that such is the joining of one man and one woman, and it is nature that precludes any two people of the same gender who play house, from every being married.

The Law may provide it to be LEGAL that a person can flap their arms and fly... it is nature that defines such flight as 'falling' as well as the punishment for such, over toward the sudden stop right at the end there.

Now would you care to cite the laws forbidding the flapping of arms to fly being illegal? Thus proving that THAT is why people aren't flappin' and flyin' all over the dam' place?

I'm all about the fairness... AND the learnin' so if you would like to cite such, I'm here for ya.

Civil Marriage is a function of law.


Find that requirement under Civil Law for Civil Marriage that requires couples be able to procreate yet?

I can show you Civil Laws that requires couples be INFERTILE to Civilly Marry, that blows (no pun intended) the whole idea that procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage out the window.



>>>>

 

[Conservative65]

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.

Why do they have to fight against them?

Same reason you feel you have to fight for the faggots. You think it's right, mine think it's wrong.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

There is no Dilemma for me seeing I have no issue with their sexual lifestyle. I have a issue with those that want to make them stay in the closet and not allow them to have the same basic rights we both enjoy.

Until a court forces you to marry a gay person, live with a gay person, or go to church with a gay person then there is no dilemma to me. Also as for transgender children do disagree with special treatment for them and if they must they should shower before the boys or girls or after and not during.

 

[Conservative65]

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.

What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake? That's a message.

That's a figurine. If they were asked to write something that they found offensive, I'd be inclined to give the christian bakers a mulligan. But if they refused to sell cake.....not so much. I'd hold the gay bakers to the same standard.

So messages can only be in words?

Speech is generally regarded as words and text.

WRONG. There are plenty of cases where the SCOTUS has upheld someone's right to symbolic speech even when it offended others.

LII Supreme Court Collection

Burning the U.S. flag in protest, while offensive to many, has been upheld by the Court as symbolic speech.

 

[Iceweasel]

The same argument was made regarding interracial marriage. That since the laws included both blacks and whites, there was no potential for discrimination based on race.

The obvious problem being.....there's no valid reason for the restriction. As there's nothing required by marriage that a white man and black woman couldn't meet. And likewise, there's nothing required by marriage that a lesbian and a lesbian couldn't meet.

And no state interest served in denying same sex couples their right to marry. Nor can a logical, rational reason be given.

All of which is required if you're going to deny someone rights.

I thought lesbians were women? How can two women become opposite gendered couples? You mean if one has a sex change? Black men were treated differently that while men, that's why it was unconsitutional.

Most states still have traditional marriage so your theory doesn't hold water. No state could deny homosexual marriage if it were unconstitutional.