What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[Seawytch]

Actually the Supreme Court is considering that issue- it has not ruled on the constitutionality of 'gay marriage bans'

However the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that marriage is a right.

If it was a right then people could just demand to get married when they wanted to.

All rights are unrestricted?

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yes it is.

But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.

 

[HUGGY]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

There is no god therefore that component to the OP is irrelevant.

Anal intercourse does cause physical harm. The poopshooter is designed to eliminate, not to have objects stuffed into it. Stretching, bleeding and scarring is damage. There is a reason why you can get disease by anal intercourse.

Your mouth is designed to receive stuff. From what I understand you can't get HIV from sucking a penis unless you have open sores in your mouth, gums or throat.

Female homosexuality isn't the same as male homosexuality and obviously has few physical risks.

Sorry, I could only make it to around page 12 or so. My eyes were staring to glaze over and my attention span became non existent. The conversation seemed to get reduced and entrenched into name calling and "rights". If I missed something I apologize.

Meanwhile, my female pitbull humps my male pitbull and he just lies there and pretends he is sleeping.

 

[PredFan]

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

Easily. Freedom of the press doesn't protect a right to publish child pornography.

But you can, and then you have to accept the consequences of your actions just like you have to with any right. I could publish child porn tomorrow if I wanted to. I can't just up and get married tomorrow can I?

I said the 1st amendment doesn't protect publishing child pornography as a right.

Do you want to argue that point?

No but I want to try to get it through your thick skull that I could publish child porn any thine I wanted to. If I didn't get caught, I could make a living doing it. I cannot just wake up tomorrow and exercise my RIGHT to get married.

You have a right to free association. Which includes marrying who you want. But it doesn't mean you have the right to a license from the State to recognize it though.

What if I want to marry Kristina Hendricks?

 

[PredFan]

If it was a right then people could just demand to get married when they wanted to.

All rights are unrestricted?

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yes it is.

But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.

It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.

 

[2aguy]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

I don't know what God intended when he created gays.....my religion won't marry two people of the same sex.....that's fine......they can get married in a religion that does allow that.......if I had a bakery I would bake them a wedding cake....however, I will not support attacking religious people who object to making a wedding cake....if they also bake goods for everything else for gay people.......

I will leave the deeper aspects to God and hopefully he will let me know what he wanted when and if I see him on the other side.....

 

[Newby]

Well, I'm confused too, because your op asked why God would make gays and then want them to be unhappy. That is a statement built upon multiple presumptions that may or may not be true. Who's to say that a gay person who accepts what God's word is and gives their lives over God would be unhappy? I assumed you were asking Christians that since they are for the most part against gay marriage, but believe in a loving God? My response is that we are all offered challenges and temptations in life, denying them doesn't necessarily lead to unhappiness. So if you are a Christian, you would see gay sex as a sin, i.e. sin outside of marriage, (same with two heterosexual people who are not married), and you wouldn't believe that God would advocate such a marriage, so you would see the gay person as someone who has challenges and temptations in life, same as everyone else, that they have to turn to God for in order to overcome. If you believe in God and what the Bible tells you, God can overcome anything, I just don't think you're looking at it from the perspective of a Christian.

I don't necessarily think it matters what the secular government/society does with regards to gay marriage, abortion has been legal for 40 years and God certainly wouldn't sanction that either. Jesus Christ is about salvation of the individual, not the society, and each individual will answer to Him for what they do or don't do, we can't control what society does.

Your question is basically the same as 'Why does God want single people to be unhappy?' Single people aren't supposed to have sex either, so if they follow God's word, will they be 'unhappy'? Is it an unreasonable expectation for humans to go without sex? And for the record, sex and love are two different things.

I think too many people think of God as being focused on being obsessed with tracking every mistake we make so he can nail us for it later, rather than God wanting us to learn and grow. Learning and growing involves making more mistakes. I'm a Red Wings fan, the Red Wings are known for continual rebuilding, we made the playoffs 24 straight seasons. Second is Pittsburgh with nine. The Wings are great obviously at developing young players.

You do that by letting them make mistakes and then learn from it, not by blasting them for mistakes and holding it against them You make mistakes and you may or may not go forward with the team depending how you learn and adapt. You play it safe and maybe you won't make any mistakes, but you will get cut for sure. I think God wants us to go for it. Just make sure you don't hurt people on purpose and you ... learn ... from them and I think you'll be fine. I don't think God thinks like us either, I think God puts it in our terms to help us. Too many people misunderstand that

Go Pens! Altho, we lost in freakin' overtime last night...

Everyone obviously has different perceptions of "God", but a Christian is using the Bible as their guide, which is supposed to contain His word. Jesus Christ preached against sin over and over, so you're either walking towards Him, or you're walking away from Him, I don't believe there is any middle ground. You're either genuinely trying to follow His word or you're not. And sure, everyone is going to mess up and make mistakes from time to time, but there is a difference between making a mistake, i.e. screwing up, and blatantly just choosing to go your own way in spite of what His word tells you. Regarding sexual activity, it's pretty clear what God intended, and if you're not following His word on that, then you're choosing to go your own way and not listen to His word. What are the consequences of that, if any? Only God knows, right? But He will be able to say to you that He told you what was sin, and you didn't listen, and there will be no denying it. If you are a Christian. And I think you're right, that you should be growing and learning in your walk with God, and that means to me that you're getting closer to Him, not further away. The Bible says many times that sin separates you from God, so I'm not sure how a person could continually decide to go against God's word, i.e. sin, and yet still insist that they're walking with Him?

The Bible is a guide, but it's not an instruction manual. You still have to think it through. Though shalt not kill. What if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family? I think that's clearly not applicable. What if someone says they are going to do it and you believe them? Wow, that's gray. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, not being gay when you are gay does harm you. I'm not saying your point's not valid, but it's not that simple

But for Christians it is that simple if they truly believe the Bible is the word of God. If you're not going to follow it and listen to what God is telling you, then why bother with it at all? You're not really a Christian then. How can you give any of it validity if you're going to just reassure yourself that God didn't really mean what He was saying when He said that particular thing, but He did in this circumstance. You might as well invalidate the entire thing then, because YOU are deciding what's valid or not, not God.

The bible is not that unambiguous. If someone breaks into your house and threatens your family and you shoot them, is that a violation of the Ten Commandments? I can't believe it is, there was no intent on your part. But you did kill. On the other extreme if you wife cheated on her, would you stone her to death?

The Bible is a guide, not an instruction manual. Things like intentionally harming other people are consistently wrong. But God wanted you to think

That's your point of view, but, right or wrong, millions of Christians disagree with you. You're basically nullifying it and making it worthless, which is your prerogative of course.

There are verses that deal with the situation you describe, as a matter of fact, if you allow innocents to suffer without aiding them when you have the capability to aid, you are as guilty of their death as the person who actually committed the deed.

I don't have a wife, but I wouldn't stone my husband to death were he to cheat on me either, but not quite sure what that has to do with anything?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All rights are unrestricted?

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yet another Relativist who is simply not capable of understanding what a right is and from where such come.

LOL! Classic...

Abortion is a right in the US. Where does that come from?

No.. Abortion is merely approved in modern law. There's no potential for a right, which axiomatically strips innocent human life, of it's means to exercise its right to that life.

That's just your opinion and an invalid one at that.

You reject the Constitution's authority to protect rights?????

whoa

 

[Seawytch]

All rights are unrestricted?

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yes it is.

But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.

It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.

An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure- I have the right in the United States to own a gun.

That doesn't mean I can automatically own a .50 Browning machine gun. Nor does it mean that I cannot have that right taken away if I commit a felony.

In order to restrict a right- the State(Federal or State) must be able to provide a compelling State/Public interest in denying that right.

And "just because we think its icky" has proven to be a failing argument.

But it should, and we are working to get that right re-established. It actually says in the constitution that we have that right, It doesn't say that about marriage. You fail. Want to try again?

You asked: Are all rights unrestricted

And I answered correctly- rights are restricted all of the time- you do not have an absolute right to own a gun- States can and do remove that right from convicted felons.

You also have the right to free speech- but that doesn't mean you can yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater. I can go on.

You just didn't like it when I pointed out reality to you.

I asked no such thing. You asked and I answered.

I do have those rights. They are restricted by a tyrannical government against its own constitution, it's still a right. I have every right to yell fire anywhere I want to. I have to accept the consequences of my actions as I do for any right.

You have those rights- and they are restricted. You asked whether or not 'Are all rights unrestricted' and the answer is clearly no- you have no unrestricted right to own a gun, no unrestricted right to freedom of speech even if it endangers others lives. You have no unrestricted right to assemble in the middle of the Freeway.

That you believe that everyone else is wrong in restricting your rights- well that is your opinion- but not reality.

So, you are telling me that my right to marriage is restricted. If it wasn't restricted by the government then I would be able to get married when I wanted to? Is that what you are trying to say?

All of our rights to marriage are restricted. Regardless of whatever state you live in, you cannot legally marry a 5 year old of any gender.
You probably cannot legally marry your mother or someone who is not mentally competent.

You have the right to marry- the States can restrict your rights, but in order for that to be Constitutional, the state must be able to demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so- like imprisoning a person convicted of murder can be justified as both necessary for justice and for safety.

 

[PredFan]

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yes it is.

But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.

It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.

An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.

No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.

I have proven the irrelevancy if your argument. You don't agree. Your opinion means nothing. It's still not a right.

 

[Syriusly]

All rights are unrestricted?

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yes it is.

But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.

It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.

Sure you can demand your right to get married. That is what the courts are for.

The Supreme Court has ruled at least 3 times on marriage because Americans demanded their right to marry and argued that state laws were unconstitutional.

 

[PredFan]

But it should, and we are working to get that right re-established. It actually says in the constitution that we have that right, It doesn't say that about marriage. You fail. Want to try again?

You asked: Are all rights unrestricted

And I answered correctly- rights are restricted all of the time- you do not have an absolute right to own a gun- States can and do remove that right from convicted felons.

You also have the right to free speech- but that doesn't mean you can yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater. I can go on.

You just didn't like it when I pointed out reality to you.

I asked no such thing. You asked and I answered.

I do have those rights. They are restricted by a tyrannical government against its own constitution, it's still a right. I have every right to yell fire anywhere I want to. I have to accept the consequences of my actions as I do for any right.

You have those rights- and they are restricted. You asked whether or not 'Are all rights unrestricted' and the answer is clearly no- you have no unrestricted right to own a gun, no unrestricted right to freedom of speech even if it endangers others lives. You have no unrestricted right to assemble in the middle of the Freeway.

That you believe that everyone else is wrong in restricting your rights- well that is your opinion- but not reality.

So, you are telling me that my right to marriage is restricted. If it wasn't restricted by the government then I would be able to get married when I wanted to? Is that what you are trying to say?

All of our rights to marriage are restricted. Regardless of whatever state you live in, you cannot legally marry a 5 year old of any gender.
You probably cannot legally marry your mother or someone who is not mentally competent.

You have the right to marry- the States can restrict your rights, but in order for that to be Constitutional, the state must be able to demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so- like imprisoning a person convicted of murder can be justified as both necessary for justice and for safety.

Not much of a right then is it?

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right repeatedly

So there's no reason to hear this one if it's the same as race. But wait...they are hearing it because it isn't like race at all. If they rule two men can marry then there's no reason a guy can't marry his dad or dad and three brothers. It will be their right.

LOL.....wow is that the best you have?

The Supreme Court has ruled on gun ownership laws multiple times- does that mean there is no need for the Supreme Court to hear the case if Kansas passes a law outlawing the ownership of shotguns?

I don't know why you suddenly want to bring race into the marriage issue- but the Supreme Court has ruled at least three times on state marriage laws- regarding mixed race marriage bans, bans on marrying if a person owes child support and bans on inmates getting married- ruling in each case that these laws/rules were unconstitutional infringements on the right to marriage.

And just like those three cases- the Supreme Court will rule on the bans on 'gay marriage'.

If you want to pursue marrying your dad or your three brothers- you will have to file suit yourself- that is not before the courts, nor is it the same issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus was celibate (allegedly).

Was he born that way? Was it natural? Or was it some sort of abnormal pervesion he acquired?

I think it was a carpenty accident. It's well known that Jesus, though trying to follow in Joseph's footsteps, was just a terrible carpenter.

Yes, shoddy workmanship. That's how Joseph lost his cross building contract with the Romans...

...ironically...

 

[Syriusly]

You asked: Are all rights unrestricted

And I answered correctly- rights are restricted all of the time- you do not have an absolute right to own a gun- States can and do remove that right from convicted felons.

You also have the right to free speech- but that doesn't mean you can yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater. I can go on.

You just didn't like it when I pointed out reality to you.

I asked no such thing. You asked and I answered.

I do have those rights. They are restricted by a tyrannical government against its own constitution, it's still a right. I have every right to yell fire anywhere I want to. I have to accept the consequences of my actions as I do for any right.

You have those rights- and they are restricted. You asked whether or not 'Are all rights unrestricted' and the answer is clearly no- you have no unrestricted right to own a gun, no unrestricted right to freedom of speech even if it endangers others lives. You have no unrestricted right to assemble in the middle of the Freeway.

That you believe that everyone else is wrong in restricting your rights- well that is your opinion- but not reality.

So, you are telling me that my right to marriage is restricted. If it wasn't restricted by the government then I would be able to get married when I wanted to? Is that what you are trying to say?

All of our rights to marriage are restricted. Regardless of whatever state you live in, you cannot legally marry a 5 year old of any gender.
You probably cannot legally marry your mother or someone who is not mentally competent.

You have the right to marry- the States can restrict your rights, but in order for that to be Constitutional, the state must be able to demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so- like imprisoning a person convicted of murder can be justified as both necessary for justice and for safety.

Not much of a right then is it?

I think it is.

I can own a gun- but if I commit a violent felony, I lose my right to possess gun.
I have the right to marry a consenting adult- I can't marry a child who cannot consent.

Sorry you can't appreciate those rights.

 

[Seawytch]

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yes it is.

But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.

It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.

An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.

No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.

I have proven the irrelevancy if your argument. You don't agree. Your opinion means nothing. It's still not a right.

Yes the SCOTUS did. Ignoring their rulings does not invalidate them.

Loving v Virginia
Turner v Safley
Zablocki v Wisconsin

 

[Syriusly]

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yes it is.

But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.

It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.

An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.

No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.
t.

Glad to keep posting the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage- you can disagree with the Supreme Court, but unless you have a reading comprehension issue- you can't deny that they have indeed said that marriage is a right.


Loving v Virginia

"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."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[haissem123]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

i don't know but what makes them want to ride or carry ten foot peni down main street with kids and everybody else being offended? why do they have to worship the almighty dick like it's their God? what is wrong with them exactly?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

All of them. Can anyone anytime get a gun? Is gun ownership a right?

Yet another Relativist who is simply not capable of understanding what a right is and from where such come.

LOL! Classic...

Abortion is a right in the US. Where does that come from?

No.. Abortion is merely approved in modern law. There's no potential for a right, which axiomatically strips innocent human life, of it's means to exercise its right to that life.

That's just your opinion and an invalid one at that.

You reject the Constitution's authority to protect rights?????

whoa

It is my opinion, Gilligan. And as is typical of those opinions, it is also irrefutable fact.

Abortion is merely authorized in modern law.

There's no potential for a right, which axiomatically strips innocent human life, of it's means to exercise its right to that life.

As you've prove. In dozens of debates you lost on this issue, you do not concede your right to your life to those who find you an inconvenience.

 

[Redfish]

Yes it is.

But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.

It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.

An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.

No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.
t.

Glad to keep posting the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage- you can disagree with the Supreme Court, but unless you have a reading comprehension issue- you can't deny that they have indeed said that marriage is a right.


Loving v Virginia

"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."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Loving is about race, it says nothing about same sex marriage.

If you want SSM legalized, then you need a constitutional amendment. otherwise this will continue for years.

when the constitution is silent on something we need amendments, thats why we have the ones we already have.

so draft an amendment, get it on the ballots in every state and get 38 of them to ratify it. Easy, right?

but the truth is that you realize that such an amendment would never pass because a majority of americans would not vote for it. So you are trying to use the SC to mandate societal acceptance of a deviant lifestyle. You may succeed, and the country will lose.