What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[RKMBrown]

Well thanks for sharing that totally unrelated post.

Meanwhile

Well why is the Supreme Court even hearing this case today?

Oh thats right because a couple dozen judges disagree with you.

And the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not a gay persons 14th Ammendment guarantees of equal protection before the law are being violated by not being allowed to marry the person of their choice.

Just think, if they rule in your favor, you can marry your sister, your mother, your father, your brother-------------------------because you love them.
.

You really don't have a clue what the case is that the Supreme Court is hearing do you?

Not a clue.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender couples can marry- you still will not be able to marry your favorite sister, or your mother, or your father.

You are the one who does not get it. If SC rules that two people of the same sex may marry, then there is no prohibition of mother/daughter or father/son marriage. If the only criteria is that they love each other and want to commit to each other, then it will happen.

I don't know whether you are stupid or just deliberately lying.

Right now it is legal for a man to marry a woman, but it is illegal for a man to marry his mother.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

Your claim is false- and probably a lie.

quote the federal statute that makes it illegal to marry your father or mother. BTW when both parties are of the same sex and over the age of majority, its not incest. Its perversion, but not incest.

You're an idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?

Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.

Secondly, downs syndrome doesn't automatically disqualify you from getting a drivers license. People with downs syndrome that have demonstrated the capability to operate a vehicle safely can get licenses.

Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?

Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to see to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.

Its the same exact thing,

Not even close.


>>>>

It depends on how we define marriage. for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman.

Actually for over 3,000 years marriage has been both a union of one man and one woman, and one man and many women.

You are essentially arguing that based upon tradition, polygamy should be legal.

there were, and are, a few cultures that allow polygamy, but the vast majority believed in one man one woman marriage. .

There have been cultures that have allowed polygamy going back at least 3,000 years.

Do you think polygamy should be treated legally the same as the marriage between a man and a woman?

 

[Syriusly]

Well thanks for sharing that totally unrelated post.

Meanwhile

Well why is the Supreme Court even hearing this case today?

Oh thats right because a couple dozen judges disagree with you.

And the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not a gay persons 14th Ammendment guarantees of equal protection before the law are being violated by not being allowed to marry the person of their choice.

Just think, if they rule in your favor, you can marry your sister, your mother, your father, your brother-------------------------because you love them.
.

You really don't have a clue what the case is that the Supreme Court is hearing do you?

Not a clue.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender couples can marry- you still will not be able to marry your favorite sister, or your mother, or your father.

You are the one who does not get it. If SC rules that two people of the same sex may marry, then there is no prohibition of mother/daughter or father/son marriage. If the only criteria is that they love each other and want to commit to each other, then it will happen.

I don't know whether you are stupid or just deliberately lying.

Right now it is legal for a man to marry a woman, but it is illegal for a man to marry his mother.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

Your claim is false- and probably a lie.

quote the federal statute that makes it illegal to marry your father or mother. BTW when both parties are of the same sex and over the age of majority, its not incest. Its perversion, but not incest.

LOL......god you really are stupid and ignorant.

Federal Statutes do not control marriage at all.
The Supreme Court is addressing state laws banning same gender marriage.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on same gender bans, it will not change state laws that ban immediate relatives from marrying.

 

[Redfish]

Gays have every right that straights have. The constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, it does not guarantee that you will find it. It is not bigoted to believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition. Gay marriage is an oxymoron to a majority of human beings on planet earth.

What you are asking for is for the government to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage in spite of the beliefs of a majority of americans. You want to legislate beliefs and legislate revisions to human biology.

The bigotry here is coming from the left. It is you who are intolerant----intolerant of any beliefs but yours.

And finallly, race and sexual deviancy are two completely different things.

You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.

and for the record, I don't give a flying pig turd what gays do to each other in private. But calling a gay union a marriage is an abomination on humanity.

You claiming gays an abomination on humanity with your picture in the dictionary under "abomination on humanity" is actually pretty funny. How many people have you killed lately on your holy crusade?

none, how many gays have been killed by islamists? The difference is that we are tolerant of those who differ from us or believe differently.

But you, like the islamists, want to demonize and destroy anyone who dares disagree with your far left bullshit.

Conservative Christians specifically passed laws not only to prevent gay marriage, but all civil unions- such is your 'tolerance'.
Conservative Christians specifically opposed ending consensual sodomy laws targeting homosexuals- even thought the Supreme Court ruled that such laws are unconstitutional- such is your tolerence.

And going not too far back- Conservatives demonized homosexuals- passing laws to prevent them from being employed.

If you want to take great pride in the fact that you are not actually calling for the 'death to homosexuals' - go for it- yes, the United States is a better place than Saudi Arabia and Nigeria- your attitude is more like those of Russia.

this is not about religion, you fail every time you go on that tack. its about biology and anatomy.

blaming rreligion is a losing argument for you. grow up.

 

[Redfish]

Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?

Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.

Secondly, downs syndrome doesn't automatically disqualify you from getting a drivers license. People with downs syndrome that have demonstrated the capability to operate a vehicle safely can get licenses.

Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?

Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to see to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.

Its the same exact thing,

Not even close.


>>>>

It depends on how we define marriage. for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman.

Actually for over 3,000 years marriage has been both a union of one man and one woman, and one man and many women.

You are essentially arguing that based upon tradition, polygamy should be legal.

there were, and are, a few cultures that allow polygamy, but the vast majority believed in one man one woman marriage. .

There have been cultures that have allowed polygamy going back at least 3,000 years.

Do you think polygamy should be treated legally the same as the marriage between a man and a woman?

personally? no

what I am saying is that gay marriage will set a valid legal precedent for polygamy and marriage of all kinds.

 

[Redfish]

Just think, if they rule in your favor, you can marry your sister, your mother, your father, your brother-------------------------because you love them.
.

You really don't have a clue what the case is that the Supreme Court is hearing do you?

Not a clue.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender couples can marry- you still will not be able to marry your favorite sister, or your mother, or your father.

You are the one who does not get it. If SC rules that two people of the same sex may marry, then there is no prohibition of mother/daughter or father/son marriage. If the only criteria is that they love each other and want to commit to each other, then it will happen.

I don't know whether you are stupid or just deliberately lying.

Right now it is legal for a man to marry a woman, but it is illegal for a man to marry his mother.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

Your claim is false- and probably a lie.

quote the federal statute that makes it illegal to marry your father or mother. BTW when both parties are of the same sex and over the age of majority, its not incest. Its perversion, but not incest.

LOL......god you really are stupid and ignorant.

Federal Statutes do not control marriage at all.
The Supreme Court is addressing state laws banning same gender marriage.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on same gender bans, it will not change state laws that ban immediate relatives from marrying.

Damn but you are thick headed. if the state laws banning gay marriage are overturned, that action will set a legal precedent for the overturning of other state marriage laws.

Do you understand what "legal precedent" means?

 

[Redfish]

Just think, if they rule in your favor, you can marry your sister, your mother, your father, your brother-------------------------because you love them.
.

You really don't have a clue what the case is that the Supreme Court is hearing do you?

Not a clue.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender couples can marry- you still will not be able to marry your favorite sister, or your mother, or your father.

You are the one who does not get it. If SC rules that two people of the same sex may marry, then there is no prohibition of mother/daughter or father/son marriage. If the only criteria is that they love each other and want to commit to each other, then it will happen.

I don't know whether you are stupid or just deliberately lying.

Right now it is legal for a man to marry a woman, but it is illegal for a man to marry his mother.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

Your claim is false- and probably a lie.

quote the federal statute that makes it illegal to marry your father or mother. BTW when both parties are of the same sex and over the age of majority, its not incest. Its perversion, but not incest.

You're an idiot.

typical stupid retort from a defeated liberal

 

[Iceweasel]

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

On what grounds? Men cannot get men pregnant, which is WHY incest laws exist. That and the moral aspect but we are told that morally no longer matters. You've eliminated any opposition to it with gay marriage. Your side cannot be consistent from one day to the next.

 

[Marxist]

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

On what grounds? Men cannot get men pregnant, which is WHY incest laws exist. That and the moral aspect but we are told that morally no longer matters. You've eliminated any opposition to it with gay marriage. Your side cannot be consistent from one day to the next.

This is an example of a ridiculous slippery slope put forth by homophobes.

 

[RKMBrown]

You really don't have a clue what the case is that the Supreme Court is hearing do you?

Not a clue.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender couples can marry- you still will not be able to marry your favorite sister, or your mother, or your father.

You are the one who does not get it. If SC rules that two people of the same sex may marry, then there is no prohibition of mother/daughter or father/son marriage. If the only criteria is that they love each other and want to commit to each other, then it will happen.

I don't know whether you are stupid or just deliberately lying.

Right now it is legal for a man to marry a woman, but it is illegal for a man to marry his mother.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

Your claim is false- and probably a lie.

quote the federal statute that makes it illegal to marry your father or mother. BTW when both parties are of the same sex and over the age of majority, its not incest. Its perversion, but not incest.

You're an idiot.

typical stupid retort from a defeated liberal

How dumb is Redfish? Redfish thinks the opposite of liberal is liberal.

 

[Syriusly]

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

On what grounds? Men cannot get men pregnant, which is WHY incest laws exist. That and the moral aspect but we are told that morally no longer matters. You've eliminated any opposition to it with gay marriage. Your side cannot be consistent from one day to the next.

On what grounds?

The Supreme Court is not considering incestuous marriage- they are considering same gender marriage.

"Your side" is unable to provide any reason to oppose same gender marriage that is more than "we think its icky" so you bring in the strawman of incestuious marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

You really don't have a clue what the case is that the Supreme Court is hearing do you?

Not a clue.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender couples can marry- you still will not be able to marry your favorite sister, or your mother, or your father.

You are the one who does not get it. If SC rules that two people of the same sex may marry, then there is no prohibition of mother/daughter or father/son marriage. If the only criteria is that they love each other and want to commit to each other, then it will happen.

I don't know whether you are stupid or just deliberately lying.

Right now it is legal for a man to marry a woman, but it is illegal for a man to marry his mother.

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

Your claim is false- and probably a lie.

quote the federal statute that makes it illegal to marry your father or mother. BTW when both parties are of the same sex and over the age of majority, its not incest. Its perversion, but not incest.

LOL......god you really are stupid and ignorant.

Federal Statutes do not control marriage at all.
The Supreme Court is addressing state laws banning same gender marriage.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on same gender bans, it will not change state laws that ban immediate relatives from marrying.

Damn but you are thick headed. if the state laws banning gay marriage are overturned, that action will set a legal precedent for the overturning of other state marriage laws.

Do you understand what "legal precedent" means?

Oh I understand 'legal precedent' just fine.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws three times- and yes- they are valid precedents that establish that marriage is indeed a right- and establish that the Supreme Court can indeed overturn a State marriage law if it is unconstitutional, but none of them, nor would this case be a legal precedent which says "there can be no State marriage restrictions"

What you keep avoiding dealing with is what is the established precedent- which is that marriage is a right- and that State's can only restrict that right if the State can provide a compelling State interest in restricting that right.

Do you think that States cannot provide a compelling state interest to ban for example polygamous marriage? If you think no- then those laws are at risk regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on gay marriage.

If you think yes- then those laws are not at risk regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.

and for the record, I don't give a flying pig turd what gays do to each other in private. But calling a gay union a marriage is an abomination on humanity.

You claiming gays an abomination on humanity with your picture in the dictionary under "abomination on humanity" is actually pretty funny. How many people have you killed lately on your holy crusade?

none, how many gays have been killed by islamists? The difference is that we are tolerant of those who differ from us or believe differently.

But you, like the islamists, want to demonize and destroy anyone who dares disagree with your far left bullshit.

Conservative Christians specifically passed laws not only to prevent gay marriage, but all civil unions- such is your 'tolerance'.
Conservative Christians specifically opposed ending consensual sodomy laws targeting homosexuals- even thought the Supreme Court ruled that such laws are unconstitutional- such is your tolerence.

And going not too far back- Conservatives demonized homosexuals- passing laws to prevent them from being employed.

If you want to take great pride in the fact that you are not actually calling for the 'death to homosexuals' - go for it- yes, the United States is a better place than Saudi Arabia and Nigeria- your attitude is more like those of Russia.

this is not about religion, you fail every time you go on that tack. its about biology and anatomy.

blaming rreligion is a losing argument for you. grow up.

I didn't blame religion- any more than you blamed politics.

You want to blame 'leftists' but you don't want anyone to blame 'Christians' or 'Conservatives'.

 

[Iceweasel]

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

On what grounds? Men cannot get men pregnant, which is WHY incest laws exist. That and the moral aspect but we are told that morally no longer matters. You've eliminated any opposition to it with gay marriage. Your side cannot be consistent from one day to the next.

On what grounds?

The Supreme Court is not considering incestuous marriage- they are considering same gender marriage.

"Your side" is unable to provide any reason to oppose same gender marriage that is more than "we think its icky" so you bring in the strawman of incestuious marriage.

They have to consider every aspect of marriage, especially if they are asked to essentially redefine it for the entire country since state law would no longer apply. There's no law against adults having sex with family members and just because you find it icky they may not agree. But I do understand homosexuals do not want to discuss any other possibilities, for obvious reasons.

 

[Syriusly]

If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.

On what grounds? Men cannot get men pregnant, which is WHY incest laws exist. That and the moral aspect but we are told that morally no longer matters. You've eliminated any opposition to it with gay marriage. Your side cannot be consistent from one day to the next.

On what grounds?

The Supreme Court is not considering incestuous marriage- they are considering same gender marriage.

"Your side" is unable to provide any reason to oppose same gender marriage that is more than "we think its icky" so you bring in the strawman of incestuious marriage.

They have to consider every aspect of marriage, especially if they are asked to essentially redefine it for the entire country since state law would no longer apply. There's no law against adults having sex with family members and just because you find it icky they may not agree. But I do understand homosexuals do not want to discuss any other possibilities, for obvious reasons.

The Supreme Court doesn't have to do anything- but what they are not deciding is incestuous marriage.

And yes-adult incest is a crime in most if not all states. Maybe not in yours.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Supreme Court doesn't have to do anything- but what they are not deciding is incestuous marriage.

And yes-adult incest is a crime in most if not all states. Maybe not in yours.

Between adults? Can you post one up? Unlike yourself, the judges will need to think about the implications of their ruling. They can't live in your bubble and probably don't have your depth of understanding though...

Justice Alito Why Not Let 4 Lawyers Marry One Another CNS News
(CNSNews.com) - In the oral arguments presented yesterday in the Supreme Court on the question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees two people of the same sex the right to marry one another, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether—if two of the same sex have a right to marry—why not four people of opposite sexes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And yes-adult incest is a crime in most if not all states. Maybe not in yours.

Between adults? Can you post one up?

In Virginia incest is a felony.

LIS Code of Virginia 18.2-366

Virginia Revised Statutes
§ 18.2-366
B. Any person who commits adultery or fornication with his daughter or granddaughter, or with her son or grandson, or her father or his mother, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits adultery or fornication with his or her child or grandchild, and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen years of age but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.


>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

In Virginia incest is a felony.

LIS Code of Virginia 18.2-366

Virginia Revised Statutes
§ 18.2-366
B. Any person who commits adultery or fornication with his daughter or granddaughter, or with her son or grandson, or her father or his mother, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits adultery or fornication with his or her child or grandchild, and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen years of age but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.
>>>>

Seems to be talking about 18yo and younger.

 

[Seawytch]

In Virginia incest is a felony.

LIS Code of Virginia 18.2-366

Virginia Revised Statutes
§ 18.2-366
B. Any person who commits adultery or fornication with his daughter or granddaughter, or with her son or grandson, or her father or his mother, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits adultery or fornication with his or her child or grandchild, and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen years of age but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.
>>>>

Seems to be talking about 18yo and younger.

Almost all states criminalize incest between adult relatives.[...]
Rhode Island repealed its criminal (adult) incest statute in 1989,and New Jersey law imposes no criminal penalties for incest where both parties are adults, although marriages between related adults in both states are still void. Other states also prohibit marriage between related people, in addition to imposing criminal penalties for incest.


Incest Sexual Abuse Crimes Criminal Law

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court doesn't have to do anything- but what they are not deciding is incestuous marriage.

And yes-adult incest is a crime in most if not all states. Maybe not in yours.

Between adults? Can you post one up? Unlike yourself, the judges will need to think about the implications of their ruling. They can't live in your bubble and probably don't have your depth of understanding though...
.

Glad to

CA Codes pen 281-289.6

285. Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which
marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who
intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older,
commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison.