What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You know you might be a closet dick licker if you obsess over queers on online forums...

 

[g5000]

Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?

"Separate but equal", eh?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Gay civil unions are still not equal. Gay people in a state that does not recognize gay marriages are doubly penalized. Because their state does not recognize their marriage, they don't qualify for federal cash and prizes, either.

 

[Redfish]

Marriage is not a right.

Let's stipulate that marriage in and of itself is not a right. Okay.

Religious rites, for the most part, are a right. So if you are married in a religious framework, no one can take that away from you.

Now, how exactly does a same sex marriage impinge on your religious rite of marriage?

It doesn't. Not in any way. Your marriage does not have to be redefined in your church so that gays can get married somewhere outside of your brand of religion.


Let's suppose for a moment that the state and federal governments decided to award $10,000 to anyone who buys a bicycle. However, they deny this award to anyone who is a homosexual. And this practice is maintained with the sanction of the whole society for over 200 years.

What possible rational basis could you give for continuing the denial of that award to gays?

You couldn't. All you have is, "We've always discriminated against this group."

That $10,000 award was established by law. And so we come back to rights again. The right to equal protection of the laws. And that is where the right to marriage recognized and awarded by the states' laws applies.

We have no rational basis for denying the cash and prizes to gays that everyone else is awarded by law for getting married.

the real issue here is the use of the word 'marriage'. No one wants to deprive gays of any rights, no one wants to say that they cannot make a legal binding committment to a person of the same sex in order to get the "cash and prizes" that you erroneously keep referring to.

The bottom line is that many human beings the world over do not consider a gay union to be a marriage.

Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?

We all know the reason, now don't we? Its because the gay agenda is to use the government to mandate societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority consider to be deviant and wrong.

Denying a certain group of married people the right to use the word 'married' is by definition a depriving of a right.

Look dude, we just disagree on this. Last time I checked that was still permitted in this country.

Your arrogant presumption that everyone must agree with you or be called names just shows that you have no idea what this country is all about.

When the people of a civilized society disagree on something they put it to a vote and the majority view is followed by all. I am willing to accept the will of the people, but I want them to have a voice.

Will you accept the will of the people?
Remember, our rights were established by majority vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote.

 

[Redfish]

Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?

"Separate but equal", eh?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Gay civil unions are still not equal. Gay people in a state that does not recognize gay marriages are doubly penalized. Because their state does not recognize their marriage, they don't qualify for federal cash and prizes, either.

If they cash and prizes are equal, then they are equal. Why the obsession with the word?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Well that's not true. A number of States currently have SSCM based solely on State level action through the legislature and ballot votes.


>>>>

some states will never recognize it. If you want it recognized nationally, you need a constitutional amendment.

Ummm...

No you don't. SSCM is already recognized nationally at the federal level. People can get married in any state and move to any other state and are recognized as Civilly Married by the federal government.


>>>>

 

[PredFan]

Marriage is not a right.

Let's stipulate that marriage in and of itself is not a right. Okay.

Religious rites, for the most part, are a right. So if you are married in a religious framework, no one can take that away from you.

Now, how exactly does a same sex marriage impinge on your religious rite of marriage?

It doesn't. Not in any way. Your marriage does not have to be redefined in your church so that gays can get married somewhere outside of your brand of religion.


Let's suppose for a moment that the state and federal governments decided to award $10,000 to anyone who buys a bicycle. However, they deny this award to anyone who is a homosexual. And this practice is maintained with the sanction of the whole society for over 200 years.

What possible rational basis could you give for continuing the denial of that award to gays?

You couldn't. All you have is, "We've always discriminated against this group."

That $10,000 award was established by law. And so we come back to rights again. The right to equal protection of the laws. And that is where the right to marriage recognized and awarded by the states' laws applies.

We have no rational basis for denying the cash and prizes to gays that everyone else is awarded by law for getting married.

1. Gay marriage doesn't affect me in any way.
2. I don't now nor have I ever wanted to deny the benefits of marriage to gays.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the real issue here is the use of the word 'marriage'. No one wants to deprive gays of any rights, no one wants to say that they cannot make a legal binding committment to a person of the same sex in order to get the "cash and prizes" that you erroneously keep referring to.

The bottom line is that many human beings the world over do not consider a gay union to be a marriage.

Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?

We all know the reason, now don't we? Its because the gay agenda is to use the government to mandate societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority consider to be deviant and wrong.

You are ignoring the fact that many of the people that were banning SSCM were ALSO banning Civil Unions. It was social authoritarians that took Civil Unions off the table. For example here is the Virginia Amendment:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Only since SSCM has begun winning in the courts, winning at the legislature, and winning at the ballot box has "Civil Unions" suddenly become acceptable to those same people.

A little late. What goes around comes around.


>>>>

 

[g5000]

Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?

"Separate but equal", eh?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Gay civil unions are still not equal. Gay people in a state that does not recognize gay marriages are doubly penalized. Because their state does not recognize their marriage, they don't qualify for federal cash and prizes, either.

If they cash and prizes are equal, then they are equal. Why the obsession with the word?

You are the one obsessing over the word marriage, not me. You want to be the definer. Too bad, you aren't.

 

[Seawytch]

Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?

"Separate but equal", eh?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Gay civil unions are still not equal. Gay people in a state that does not recognize gay marriages are doubly penalized. Because their state does not recognize their marriage, they don't qualify for federal cash and prizes, either.

If they cash and prizes are equal, then they are equal. Why the obsession with the word?

You are the one obsessing over the word marriage, not me. You want to be the definer. Too bad, you aren't.

But Chickenfish will swear up and down that's it's gays hung up on the word...despite my telling him time and again to go ahead and get the word changed...for everyone.

Chickenfish just doesn't feel special if gays get what he does.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

If you see a man strolling down the street with a 10 foot penis exposed- call the police and the Guinness Book of Records......

 

[kaz]

A goat isn't a consenting adult. I oppose dog fighting too

Neither is a child... and why is that? Because the law says so.

Right, I keep telling you that, I am referring to consenting adults and you keep talking about children and goats

So now, all we're waiting on is the law to change to provide for EQUAL PROTECTION for the bestiality and pedophile cults.

SAME MENTAL DISORDER: DIFFERENT PRESENTATION.

Now, please Kaz... explain to the board, how you'll defend the culture from the EQUAL PROTECTION OFFENSE by the Polygamist, Pedophile and The People Who Love their Animals Too Much?

You have a reading problem Keys?

My argument is for CONSENTING ADULTS. What is your problem at this point? How is that not clear to you?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

If you see a man strolling down the street with a 10 foot penis exposed- call the police and the Guinness Book of Records......

And Vivid Video...

 

[kaz]

Strawman, I feel that 2% of the population having sex don't affect the nucleus of civilization.

Kaz... come on. Are you truly willing to separate the demand by the Homosexual advocacy, that marriage be redefined, from the potential harm that is intrinsic to homosexuality?

I said this thread isn't about gay marriage. I only said that because the left takes every thread there, gay or not, it's been beaten to death.

I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with gays having sex

Dude, ya can't ask about the harm that something represents and deny the harm that such represents. (Well, ya CAN... ya just can't and expect to be lent any sense of credibility.)

So since I said I'm referring to sex between consenting adults and asking what the problem with that is. I said I am not referring to non-concentual sex or sex with a victim like a child. I am not referring government marriage which is about legalese, not relationships.

So since you have to go out of bounds, that means you're agreeing that in the context of my question, there is no harm?

 

[Syriusly]

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.
.

Wow- way to ignore the other 6 or so rulings that are not Loving.

Loving was about marriage first- and race second- note again this sentence:
"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."

My favorite however is Griswold

"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."

I think that is a lovely sentiment and I agree with that statement entirely- and applies equally to same gender couples as it does to my wife and I.

 

[kaz]

Strawman. My point was that a disease isn't proof of anything...

Actually, disease which comes as a consequence of behavior, is proof certain of the HARMFUL nature of that behavior.

The OP asks how homosexuality is harmful... the consequential disease of the behavior, answers that query.

More heterosexuals died of syphilis than did homosexuals.

Well now THAT is SHOCKING TO EVERYONE who has no sense of scale.

Thank you for that Gilligan. Some Readers may not know that you're an imbecile.

Let's step back to the issues you dodged?

Does Nature consider Christ's chosen sexual orientation, i.e. celibacy, to be normal?

This is why I hate being on the same side as a liberal. Even when you are right, you are an idiot

 

[Syriusly]

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.
.

Sorry- we don't live in the world of your pretend Constitution and laws.

The Supreme Court has ruled on constitutionality of State marriage laws three times already- and is preparing to do so again this year.

No constitutional amendment required- any more than there was a need for a Constitutional Amendment in the Loving case.

 

[kaz]

Neither is a child... and why is that? Because the law says so.


So now, all we're waiting on is the law to change to provide for EQUAL PROTECTION for the bestiality and pedophile cults.

SAME MENTAL DISORDER: DIFFERENT PRESENTATION.

Now, please Kaz... explain to the board, how you'll defend the culture from the EQUAL PROTECTION OFFENSE by the Polygamist, Pedophile and The People Who Love their Animals Too Much?

Where is the popular support for legalizing pedophile sex?

Sweet mother you're a waste of skin. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
Start HERE: International Journal of Cyber Criminology-robertetaljan2009

I want to hear you tell me in your own words where the popular support for legalizing pedophilia is.

Well you're a classic example of such Gilligan, as an unapologetic Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.

But I can prove that by simply asking you to provide for the board's consideration, your contest of pedophilia... which means I'm asking you to tell the board why Pedophiles should NOT be provided EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

Where you deflect from that challenge one iota, your concession will be noted and accepted.

For the same reason we don't allow the publication of child pornography to be protected by the first Amendment.

Suddenly you get that?

 

[Syriusly]

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

Loving had a very simple yardstick: Provide a rational basis for banning a marriage.

None of you opponents to gay marriage has ever managed to pull a rational basis out of your collective asses. Many of your arguments are identical to the anti-interracial marriage arguments. Same bullshit, different decade.

So when the Supreme Court applies the same question to same sex marriages, the outcome will be the same as Loving.

Do you really want societal views of right and wrong dictated to you? Would you take the same position if the 9 SC justices were all far right Bible thumpers? r.

The Supreme Court is not ruling on 'societal views of right and wrong' - they are ruling on the constitutionalty of laws.

Without the Supreme Court power to review, there is no check on unconstitutional laws. For instance- a state could ban guns by popular demand of the state, and without a Supreme Court to overturn those laws, the Constitutional protections of the First Amendment mean nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I appreciate them dumbass, marriage just isn't a right.

You say marriage isn't a right.

The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.

Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....

 

[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.

Sure it is. You want to move the goal posts your way, period. If two men can marry what arguement would you use against a man and his dad?

See this is where you are either dishonest or fundamentally ignorant of the issue.

We have the right to marry- and the state can only take away that right with a compelling state interest. A large number of states passed laws specifically to ensure that gay couples could not marry. Those laws were challenged, and the courts told the states:
"What are the compelling state interest to prevent gays from marrying?'- and the States were as unable as yourself to provide such a compelling state interest."

Marrying a parent or a child is a different issue- a completely different issue- it is as different as asking what the compelling state interest was in banning mixed race marriages.

I can think of some compelling reasons why the State would ban the marriages between a Mother and son- or between a Father and son- more than "its icky"- can't you?