What rights are the gays missing?

[Setarcos]

Can anyone remind me what the 9th amendment says?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You are such a "wipe", a "stain".

It's kinda cool how the advocates of homosexuality are so consistantly fixated on the anus? Even in their abject failures; where they are unable to advance an intellectually sound retort, they can't resist framing it in terms which expose their own perverse obsessions.

I've yet to see an advocate of gay rights speak publicly about his anus. If you have, by all means give us an example.

So one must speak directly to one's own anus to demonstrate being fixated upon the anus? That's news... Any chance you could show your math on that one?

But the relevant example was cited in the original citation... and is highlighted above.

 

[Setarcos]

PI... why the obsession with gays?

FACT: You're obsessed with gay men

FACT: you dislike women

Conclusion: you're a self-loathing closet case who really needs to learn to accept yourself

 

[Political Junky]

PI... why the obsession with gays?

FACT: You're obsessed with gay men

FACT: you dislike women

Conclusion: you're a self-loathing closet case who really needs to learn to accept yourself

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Frank says D.C. gay rights march misses mark - Yahoo! News

snip,

Many gay rights advocates have criticized President Barack Obama for not moving faster to keep his campaign promises to extend gay rights, and Congress has also drawn flak for not doing more.

I just re-read The Bill of Rights, I'm curious, which rights outlined in that document do not apply to gays?

Interesting question.

Hmmmm, blacks (and others) in America had their rights violated even though there were laws protecting them....and...just that a document grants or acknowledges rights means diddly squat if those rights are not somehow protected.

I guess some people think what the bible says trumps what the Bill of Rights says.

There is nothing in the original US Constitution which 'GRANTS' rights to anyone... The US Framer's understood that governments are not equipped to convey rights to anyone; rights are an endowment from Nature's God... the Bill of Rights does nto convey, grant or otherwise project any sense of advancing rights upon anyone. It merely notes rights common to humanity and the specific enumerated protections which they felt it necessary to preclude the power of the US Government from usurping.

And that someone tries to usurp a right doesn't discredit the right in any way; it only underscores the sustaining duty to defend our rights.

 

[veritas]

Sexuality needn't be a component of a hetero marriage. Marriage is a contract. It's a contract that contains all sorts of other subsets of contracts and rights. What if two hetero people wanted to get married just for those protections? Any two people for the sake of their assets? Or to have their wishes carried out? Two same sex people who are not gay but just want their affairs to be aligned? Opposite sex unions don't require love or sex, but the extensive rights and the contract is relatively inexpensive. What does a marriage license cost? $10? $50? $100?

Then what would it cost for a pair of people to have an all encompassing marriage-like set of contracts drawn up? $1000? $5000? And what of parental rights? Insurance coverage? Opposites can get a cheap contract from the government and same sex people have to go through a legal maze. Even if they were to have contracts drawn up, the laws in each state are different so their contracts wouldn't hold up if they had to move, so they'd have to start the process all over again or at least have the contracts revised.

 

[Rinata]

Some of the posts in this thread have convinced me that the right wing is stark raving mad, I swear.

What is your problem with gays?? They want the same things that everybody else wants. Marriage, children, and the work of their choice. Period.

 

[rightwinger]

Frank says D.C. gay rights march misses mark - Yahoo! News

snip,
I just re-read The Bill of Rights, I'm curious, which rights outlined in that document do not apply to gays?

Still no answer. (aside from RightWinger's post about military service)
I find it funny that certain people want to harp on the fact that 2 gay people of the same sex can't get married, but completely ignore the fact that 2 heterosexuals of the same sex can't get married either. They are treated exactly the same.

No they are not being treated the same because you cannot marry the person you want. When blacks could not marry whites you could have made the same argument. "You are allowed to marry someone of your own kind, so you are not being discriminated against"

The fact is you have to consenting adults who love eachother and want to marry. How does it hurt anyone if they are allowed to do so?

 

[rdean]

It's kinda cool how the advocates of homosexuality are so consistantly fixated on the anus? Even in their abject failures; where they are unable to advance an intellectually sound retort, they can't resist framing it in terms which expose their own perverse obsessions.

I've yet to see an advocate of gay rights speak publicly about his anus. If you have, by all means give us an example.

So one must speak directly to one's own anus to demonstrate being fixated upon the anus? That's news... Any chance you could show your math on that one?

But the relevant example was cited in the original citation... and is highlighted above.

Careful, you're "screaming".

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is nothing intellectual based on discrimination. Discrimination is synonymous with ignorance.

Well as dissemblence goes... that was fairly lame...

But it's out there, so what the hell?

Actually discrimination is based in the biological imperative to survive... Where one chooses to avoid exposure to that which represent harm, discomfort, or to that which is to be avoided.

Can discrimination be based upon ignorance? Sure... But as a general rule, those who fail to discriminate, suffer severe and often catastrophic results from such follishness.

I love it when the right tries to bring up some "biological" reason, yet they don't believe in "evolution.

LOL... Do ya? I wonder if you love it as much I love it when Leftist try to project that evolution somehow challenges Creation...

Actually, since gays seem to pop up in just about every species of mammal, then they may very well be an "evolutionary" or "biological" reason for such behavior.

Clearly... but then there's a biological reason for syphillis... and we all seem to recognize that there being a reason, is not a sound basis for encouraging more of it.

Most of the time, the right simply looks at what they consider the "obvious" without going any deeper.

That's odd because in my experience; I've noticed precisely the opposite. having never heard a Leftist speak to anything which one could consider 'intellectually deep' except where they are crafting some juicy rationalization to undermine a cultural standard... to excuse some negative behavior or otherwise enable decadence.

Simple thoughts for simple people. What can you expect?

Yes... exactly. And I'd be remiss to not point out that this little screed fo yours is a first class demonstration of just that; blind assertions, absent a scintilla of argument delving into examples of such and argument which specifically refutes those simple and specific examples.

I never met someone on the right who didn't have "mystical" beliefs. Beliefs without a shred of evidence.

What's it been kids? Maybe an hour since the last idiot felt it necessary to project that no evidence has been advanced to sustain the assertion that God exists... which would be 55 minutes since the last time someone, in this case myself... posted evidence of just that?

Why do they demand evidence about real things that they can "see" and "touch", yet have total conviction in things invisible and "unknown"? Guess we leave that for another time.

Ahhh, well there ya go... real things are those things which ya can see and touch... thus gravity is necessarily deemed, unreal... a myth. Sub-atomic particles... can't see or touch those... they're out...

It's highly possible that gays are born to help raise young without the competition that comes from every male attempting to pass on their genes. For creatures that live in groups, extra adult hands gathering food, hunting, and raising young without engaging in this competition, would certainly benefit the well being of the group and ensure the survival of the young.

Well the truth is that homosexuality is the means by which nature culls the species of damaged genetic lines. Where populations strain resources, the weaker links in the genetic chain succumb to their weaknesses and thus ends that lineage. As a general rule, wisdom precludes the encouragement of suicide, where the goal is preservation; thus where suicide is a reality, it is the discriminating individual who works to avoid those who advocate for such.

Now, the hysterical part here is how the idiot laid this entire premise on the intellectual prowess of Left-think; while demonstrating severe intellectual limitations...

Funny stuff...

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Life Liberty and the pursuit of HAPPYNESS!

 

[Setarcos]

Well the truth is that homosexuality is the means by which nature culls the species of damaged genetic lines.

Actually, the same cause of homosexuality may be very beneficial to the species

Let me google that for you

 

[Setarcos]

I just re-read The Bill of Rights, I'm curious, which rights outlined in that document do not apply to gays?

Can anyone remind me what the 9th amendment says?

well?

 

[rightwinger]

Well the truth is that homosexuality is the means by which nature culls the species of damaged genetic lines. Where populations strain resources, the weaker links in the genetic chain succumb to their weaknesses and thus ends that lineage. As a general rule, wisdom precludes the encouragement of suicide, where the goal is preservation; thus where suicide is a reality, it is the discriminating individual who works to avoid those who advocate for such.

Now, the hysterical part here is how the idiot laid this entire premise on the intellectual prowess of Left-think; while demonstrating severe intellectual limitations...

Funny stuff...

Pube...

Do you have any proof of this wild assertion? Or are you just speaking out of your ass?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Quite frankly I don't think the gov't has ANY place being in the "marriage" business. States should give out CIVIL UNIONS and then you go to your CHURCH to be married. If your church wants to marry to men or two women who are SO in love that they want to dedicate their lives to each other than so be it.

 

[rdean]

Sexuality needn't be a component of a hetero marriage. Marriage is a contract. It's a contract that contains all sorts of other subsets of contracts and rights. What if two hetero people wanted to get married just for those protections? Any two people for the sake of their assets? Or to have their wishes carried out? Two same sex people who are not gay but just want their affairs to be aligned? Opposite sex unions don't require love or sex, but the extensive rights and the contract is relatively inexpensive. What does a marriage license cost? $10? $50? $100?

Then what would it cost for a pair of people to have an all encompassing marriage-like set of contracts drawn up? $1000? $5000? And what of parental rights? Insurance coverage? Opposites can get a cheap contract from the government and same sex people have to go through a legal maze. Even if they were to have contracts drawn up, the laws in each state are different so their contracts wouldn't hold up if they had to move, so they'd have to start the process all over again or at least have the contracts revised.

Actually, that is the tip of the nail.

Marriage is all about "contract".

Before men started "planting", when people were nomadic, there is the argument that women were the center of society. Men went out and hunted, but women raised the children and cooked and taught. Home was where the woman was. People probably lived in "group" marriages separated by age to prevent "incestuous" relationships.

When people began acquiring property and land, men wanted their "wealth" passed on to their "own" children. Women then became property and were used for political alliance.

So begins the "history of marriage".

Some lucky couples actually fell in love or married for love. But that was probably pretty rare.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sexuality needn't be a component of a hetero marriage.

Actually sexuality is the basis of hetero marriage...

Marriage is the JOINING of two individuals as one... which is a metaphor for sexual intercourse... vaginal intercourse... the precursor to conception...

Marriage is a contract. It's a contract that contains all sorts of other subsets of contracts and rights. What if two hetero people wanted to get married just for those protections?

Well that's akin to buying a 4X4 despite one having no intention of driving off-road. The machine has a purpose; but anyone can buy one and use it for whatever purpose they want. None of which changes or discredits the basis of the design, nor the purpose and the need for such.

Like Marriage it serves a purpose and that people have engaged in it for the wrong reasons, doesn't effect the institutions essential function to the culture.

 

[rightwinger]

Quite frankly I don't think the gov't has ANY place being in the "marriage" business. States should give out CIVIL UNIONS and then you go to your CHURCH to be married. If your church wants to marry to men or two women who are SO in love that they want to dedicate their lives to each other than so be it.

I agree.

Let everyone get a Civil Union and leave marriage to the church

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Some of the posts in this thread have convinced me that the right wing is stark raving mad, I swear.

What is your problem with gays?? They want the same things that everybody else wants. Marriage, children, and the work of their choice. Period.

Well, if you had read the thread, you'd know what our problem with sexual abnormality is... as we've been explaining it in stark detail all day.

That you felt compelled to assert that you've read the thread and come to project that there are no reasons; simply exposes you as a liar and a fool.

Feel better?

 

[manu1959]

Some of the posts in this thread have convinced me that the right wing is stark raving mad, I swear.

What is your problem with gays?? They want the same things that everybody else wants. Marriage, children, and the work of their choice. Period.

they have all that......some just don't want them to use the word marriage to define it....

as for me.....marry your dog if it floats your boat....