The Homosexual Dilemma

[80zephyr]

All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
Gays are being "pushy"
Gays are asking for "special rights"
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
It will destroy the institution of marriage.

On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy? Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights? Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies? Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.

Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one. Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.

It will destroy the institution of marriage. This is the one I find hysterically funny. How exactly will that happen? No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.

Marriage is a fundamental right. In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone. We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry. Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.

People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others. Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.

Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE. It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face. It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.

I have stated this before. The left has assured us that welfare, divorce, and single motherhood would not hurt the institution of marriage.

They were wrong. Now, why should I believe your claim that gay marriage hurts no one?

Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.

Also, you said this:

for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated),

The lower classes cohabitated because marriage is not a social construct, but a biological one. The mating of the sexes is "marriage. And those lower classes were "married", even without being allowed to use the word.

Mark

So...you want to eliminate welfare, divorce and single motherhood? How do you propose doing that?

In the 1950's, we had all those things, only to a much lesser degree, why is that?

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Yes, but it's up to the individual church. No one can FORCE that church to marry if it's against their doctrine. There is no law that can force a church to marry anyone they don't want to.

There's no law yet. The Coeur d'Alene mayor was jumping the gun a bit: Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times using the federal court ruling against Idaho's marriage law as a justification to threaten jail for ANY pastor who refused to marry gays. This very thing goes to the very heart and intent of this thread, naked belligerence from the gay movement to impose itself on those who don't agree. This is the very kind of thing you're pretending doesn't happen, but it does. And if you're on the side of the aggressor, which is what much of the gay movement has become, you're on the wrong side of history.

 

[80zephyr]

Gay brainwashing techniques? Seriously?

Why is that funny? It wasn't even 20 years ago that gay marriage wasn't even considered by the majority. How do you think we got from there to here?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark

Most don't "celebrate it". Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it. They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.

The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality. Of course. So do gays.

The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.

That is deviant.

So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind are the "militant" Heterosexuals -

Why,you are by all your dancing and prancing here, son.

Let it go. Marriage Equality is here and SCOTUS will nationalize it this year.

Why should we let it go? The left keeps going after gun control, and they keep losing. Will you give them the same advice?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy... however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.

Your argument has one huge hole: you can't establish causation. You insist that no culture that has embraced homosexuality has survived. Yet virtually no culture that has rejected homosexuality has survived either. When your 'effect' exists even if your 'cause' doesn't....clearly you need to work on your causation.

Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.

If facts were 'whatever you imagine', then perhaps. Alas, reality doesn't work that way. And your assumptions don't translate into our concern.

Oh fer... establish causation? Do you really believe that after the first smoking law passed, that it made the basis for the next smoking restriction that much easier?

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
Gays are being "pushy"
Gays are asking for "special rights"
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
It will destroy the institution of marriage.

On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy? Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights? Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies? Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.

Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one. Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.

It will destroy the institution of marriage. This is the one I find hysterically funny. How exactly will that happen? No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.

Marriage is a fundamental right. In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone. We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry. Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.

People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others. Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.

Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE. It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face. It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.

I have stated this before. The left has assured us that welfare, divorce, and single motherhood would not hurt the institution of marriage.

They were wrong. Now, why should I believe your claim that gay marriage hurts no one?

Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.

Also, you said this:

for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated),

The lower classes cohabitated because marriage is not a social construct, but a biological one. The mating of the sexes is "marriage. And those lower classes were "married", even without being allowed to use the word.

Mark

Actually, in practice the non-classes were 'allowed' to marry. For a while in some culture's, the Lord of the Land... had the RIGHT to 'first dibs' on the newly wed wife. The reason being that by virtue of his owning the land, he more or less owned those living on the land, thus the right to spread his seed... . SO... if a couple 'married', she got to go up to the big house and take one for the team. Most people simply opted out of marriage.

NOW ... with that said, it becomes clear to the reasonable people, that 'changes' to the law, which lowered the standard of marriage can and always DO have an effect on marriage. The law of nature known as CAUSE AND EFFECT pretty well covers this.

The Left want to claim that their cause, will bear no effect. And as astonishing as it seems, some libertarians have actually bought into this.

Not the least of those is the Talk Show Host Neil Bortz.. an eminently well reasoned man, who was among the first nationally recognized thinkers who came out in support of the State Sanctioned Playing House of Homosexuals. I tried for some years to get through to discuss this with him, but never managed to do so.

How anyone of reason can conclude that ANY causation will not produce an effect is beyond me. The laws of physics clearly requires that every action caused a reaction and those laws are not limited to bodies in motions.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.

Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.

I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.

If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).

The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.

It's yet another wish list of things that are called for that will never come to be. Marriage will always have a legal component because that's human nature. It always has in every civilization throughout human history. People want the laws to protect their inheritance, to give them standing in court as a couple, and for the simple recognition of society that has the imprimatur of government. Wishing it weren't so is just silly.

 

[80zephyr]

Don't hold your breath...

The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it. Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.

It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

The definition of marriage is now changed. And yet, these people are now telling us that this definition is as far as it can go.

Why is that? I mean, who are they to say that the new definition is now the limit? And if they believe it to be so, why are these "bigots" denying the rights of other people to marry by limiting it to two people?

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Catholic churches require you to be Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church? I guess I'll have to tell my non Catholic future daughter in law that she can't be married in a Catholic church since the date is already set.

Mark

Easy with the friendly fire. Peach is one of us. As a Catholic I can clear that up. We will marry any baptized Christian of any Christian faith.

Thank you for clearing that up.
When I married my first husband, in the early 70's I had to join his Church which was Catholic, but I was not baptized at that time,so we got married in a Baptist Church.
His Church never said that I had to be baptized though, they said that I needed to join.
So I don't know.

In most of these cases, one of the marrying couple is Catholic. Marriage is one of the Seven Sacraments that shares a common trait with another Sacrament, penance. Any baptized Christian can confess his her sins to a Catholic priest and receive absolution. More than ever, the Catholic Church is striving to be as inclusive as possible and that's a good thing. Often people's experience with the Catholic Church has more to do with the bishop of that diocese than the Church at large. But it reflects on the whole church, which is why bishops need to take seriously the fact that they are the face of the Church to people like you and work to be more solicitous in their policies.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

Finish answering the rest of my post:

My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Mark

I think i have answered you just fine.

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

We were doing that. It wasn't enough for the faggots in the gay community.

 

[80zephyr]

Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either. Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice. No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.

There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?

And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.

I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.

Mark

Oh, it gets MUCH worse than that.

"Consenting Adult"... means what?

It means a person who is, at least of the age set into law to be capable of consenting... . A "Consenting Adult" could by a simple alteration of "The Law" represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or 'any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'.

Prior to just a few years ago, the Militant-homo lobby, OKA: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality would without fail respond to allegations that homosexuals are prone toward the pursuit of sexual gratification with children, with OUTRAGE! When pushed to explain the basis fo their outrage, they would respond with some variation on the "Its SICK!" theme.... Then, it morphed into "It's ILLEGAL!"

Pedophilia is in fact illegal... it's also SICK; meaning that it is a function of a disordered, dysfunctional mind, but no less so than the disorder that induces the rationalization that sex with people of one's own gender. It is precisely the same thing. And the goal of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is to rinse from the culture, any sense of sexual propriety. And all through the APPEAL TO MISLEADING AUTHORITY wherein the same people that 'informed' us that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, are now 'informing us' that "there are no lasting effects from sex with an adult, where the encounter is expressed through a loving, caring perspective."

They're steadily 'progressing' toward the lowering of the legal age of sexual consent, until there is no standard.

Just as they're moving to lower the standard for marriage.

So, yes... it is a terrible, slippery slope.

But it's evil, and such is the nature of evil.

And the sad thing about it is most of the gay supporters here, are falling for it, because they are "enlightened".

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Do you know that up until just about 20 years ago- mixed race relationships were considered deviant behavior by most Americans?

In 1995 most Americans frowned on mixed race relationships? Do you have a link for that, or did you just tell a lie?

 

[80zephyr]

The following is a type of foolery known by "as if la la logic": A 'Consenting Adult' could by a simple alteration of 'The Law' represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or 'any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'."

This is a make believe concoction that does not exist except as the fulmination of weak brain in a foolish person. This fantasy derives from feeling not objective evidence or solid logic.

Exactly the same was said about homosexuality 50 years ago. How'd that work out?

Mark

 

[kaz]

Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it. I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition? That wouldn't be possible. Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?

Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.

Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other. In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.

I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.

12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters

That's exactly what I just addressed. I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me. She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it. She is fully aware of it. She disagrees with me. Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered? I've told you this a bunch of times. What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?

That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up. Ask again, and again, and again. I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind. That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine. We don't have to agree on everything. When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage. You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.

Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.

Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage. Even if they did, why would it make sense to me? We just disagree. We understand each other's views just fine. We just disagree with them. It happens. And she gets her way. That usually happens too.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A tiny group does. A minority does not a slippery slope make. Westboro Baptists anyone?

It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?

I don't recall you asking me. But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt). Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.

How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?

We could start a betting pool on that.

I am sure that Conservatives will be trying to lower the age of Consent any time now.

Then you're a rank moron.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?

I don't recall you asking me. But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt). Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.

How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?

We could start a betting pool on that.

It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights. Except for in the bible belt of course.

Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents. Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.

Children are being sexualized more- by their heterosexual parents.

The sex that children are most exposed to is again- heterosexual.

And back on topic- the age of consent has been going up.

Wrong as usual. Children are being sexualized by school, by social media, by movies and TV. It isn't parents teaching their kids this crap, it's parents who are failing to protect them from being exposed to it everywhere else.

 

[80zephyr]

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry.

Those are retarded examples. SURELY you can see the that?

Everyone of them had the same right to marry. Now that the standard has changed, everyone can appeal to have their special situation included.

Society has opened a Pandoras Box.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either. Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice. No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.

There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?

Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.

No, our sex lives are still in our bedrooms, we just don't live in closets anymore. I'm sorry that gays living their lives exactly like heterosexuals live their lives, with families and stuff, makes you uncomfortable and that knowing gay people makes you think about them having sex, but that's your hangup not theirs.

I bet that the business that was forced to do a wedding cake for a gay couple would disagree that you're just a benign presence no more obtuse than your heterosexual counterparts. You live in a world of Leftist delusion.

 

[80zephyr]

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Hey...the racial standard applied equally too. Everyone had a right to marry someone of the same race.

Wrong. Since marriage was always based on gender, always, disallowing one race to not marry another was clearly discrimination.

This isn't apples to oranges. This is apples to watermelons.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either. Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice. No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.

There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?

And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.

I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.

Mark

Oh, it gets MUCH worse than that.

"Consenting Adult"... means what?

It means a person who is, at least of the age set into law to be capable of consenting... . A "Consenting Adult" could by a simple alteration of "The Law" represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or 'any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'.

Prior to just a few years ago, the Militant-homo lobby, OKA: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality would without fail respond to allegations that homosexuals are prone toward the pursuit of sexual gratification with children, with OUTRAGE! When pushed to explain the basis fo their outrage, they would respond with some variation on the "Its SICK!" theme.... Then, it morphed into "It's ILLEGAL!"

Pedophilia is in fact illegal... it's also SICK; meaning that it is a function of a disordered, dysfunctional mind, but no less so than the disorder that induces the rationalization that sex with people of one's own gender. It is precisely the same thing. And the goal of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is to rinse from the culture, any sense of sexual propriety. And all through the APPEAL TO MISLEADING AUTHORITY wherein the same people that 'informed' us that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, are now 'informing us' that "there are no lasting effects from sex with an adult, where the encounter is expressed through a loving, caring perspective."

They're steadily 'progressing' toward the lowering of the legal age of sexual consent, until there is no standard.

Just as they're moving to lower the standard for marriage.

So, yes... it is a terrible, slippery slope.

But it's evil, and such is the nature of evil.

And the sad thing about it is most of the gay supporters here, are falling for it, because they are "enlightened".

Mark

LOL! Well, one of the coolest part of Progressivism, is that it's the mirror image of reality, Left is right, wrong is right, false is true and enlightenment is the shunning of light.