Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[sitarro]

I meant the 14th Amendment as an issue of homosexual marriage, not just individual rights as they apply to gays and lesbians.

By the way, by any rational evolutionary standard, homosexual are "normal". Homosexuality occurs among many different animal species.

But I agree with your basic point.

So this is what passes for science in Europe today? What do you know about animals dumbass? Does your dog hump your leg? Do you think it is because he is a homosexual? Because a chimpanzee plays with his shit does that make you think it is appropriate behavior? Animals don't work the same way as humans, only a dimwitted liberal would use animal behavior to justify stupid behavior. Most people with any knowledge of animal behavior understand that they aren't homosexual, they will do things that may look like what homos do to each other but it is a form of domination over others or submission to others, it's not about sex(check the prisons for the same animal like behavior). Evolutionary standard....what a maroon. In the real world if a species isn't capable of reproducing itself it disappears by any evolutionary standard. It is either a birth defect or a lifestyle choice....period.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So, Gunny kicks your ass, so you pull out the old "you changed the subject" card? PAthetic.
Gunny didnt change the topic, the issue of whether it is states rights or federal rights was already on the table. He pointed out how its the FEDS who will be limiting the privledge of marriage away from same sex partners, and how ironic it is that its the same homosexual lobby that doesnt want the feds involved now, were the same ones who got them involved in the first place.

If you cant get that, then GUnny was right, you need to go back to second grade (or was that first grade?)

One last question, do you think anybody at all read your entire post?

For those unable to follow along, each of these posts quoted the previously noted quote (with the only exception being the statement in blue):

First Matrixx8 makes a statement regarding "homosexual marriage'.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437279&postcount=11

GunnyL attempts to change the subject to sodomy.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437380&postcount=15

What "it" are you talking about if "it" isn't homosexual marriage???

Matrixx8 tries to get him back on path.



GunnyL won't have any of it... he's insistent on changing the subject


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437391&postcount=17



They chit-chat about physiology and stuff now that Gunny has changed the subject...

Then in bursts me sort of wildly flailing about:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437476&postcount=27


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437528&postcount=33

Nevermind his, and I'm quoting, "And I agree it is a matter of State's rights; however, the lefty backdoor sliders (no pun intended) took it to the Supreme Court..." after QUOTING Matrixx8's very first post which was obviously about "homosexual marriage".

I then say:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437545&postcount=34

To which he replies with a case about sodomy:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437547&postcount=35

To which I call him on, since the beginning of this line of discussion was clearly about gay marriage, well, "homosexual marriage."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437554&postcount=36


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437557&postcount=37


Following a bit of bickering about who's doing what...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437597&postcount=41


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437597&postcount=42



http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437597&postcount=44

Perhaps you need to read your very first response to Matrixx8 before you go making that statement.




Don't take my word for it... read the friggin' thread.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry, I overlooked this post, Gunnyl.

If you're referring to the source of this article, Reason.com, I'm not sure they're any more desperate than other political groups in the U.S., including a growing number of conservatives. Reason.com is in the Libertarian camp and many supported Bush II in 2000 and 2004. They seem a bit disillusioned with the Bush administration at present -- as are a large majority of Americans, if the polls on Iraq and immigration are any gauge.

No matter how one might stand on gay marriage, the real issue here is probably whether a proposed amendment to the constitution is a valid legal avenue for settling what is essential a social and an individual rights' question.

In that sense, the Libertarians probably agree with strict constitutionalist conservatives.

I doubt that this is an issue at all for liberals. Many probably support gay marriage as a right. Others believe that "marriage" is only necessary for tax and legal purposes. In which case, civil unions would do just fine, thank you.

Actually, if a LAW were passed by the FEDS, then the courts could rule they got out of their realm of authority. BUT if they actually amend the COTUS, then the courts cant over rule that. It will be the supreme law of the land. Thats what the Constitution stands for. The amendment will not be subserviant to states laws or any other law.

Im not sure how the amendment would be worded, but it might not take any of the authority away from the states to regulate marriage (which is further proof it is a privledge and not a right, cuz rights arent regulated. Whenever a govt entity gives licenses for an activity or status, then that activity or status cannot be a right, cuz the govt has no Constitutional Authority to restrict a persons rights, unless they have committed a felony).

Now the amendment could be worded to simply put a federal restriction involving same sex unions and ONLY same sex unions.

So, if marriage is a right, then cannot a brother and sister marry? Or a mother and son? or Father and daughter? how about daughter and grandfather?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If it's restricted to licensing, not definitions, there would be no problem.


Looks to me like you're trying to draw fire. I notice you didn't provide any link to support these statements. I think you're stereotyping here. I'm an American who has lived in Europe for many years. I am quite familiar with the issues you mention and have done considerable research in this area. It would be interesting to compare notes, but I don't think this is the right thread to do so..

I see you are fairly new here. I have been challenged to provide proof many times in these forums on this site, and EVERY time I provided the information. The sources I have are extremely reliable and thats where I get my information. Unemployment has skyrocketed. The rest is quite easily verifiable.

Again, you're making very broad statements. Gay marriage is pretty much an established fact in Canada and western in Europe. Like the sexual revolution of the 60s, it looks to me like another one of those ideas whose time has come. But I guess we'll have to wait and see how long it takes to pursuade a majority of Americans of this.

wont happen. People were ready to die for both sides of the civil rights/ slave issues. NOBODY is willing to die to get same sex marriage legalized. TOOO many Americans are opposed to it. And they wont be persuaded. Beyond accepting homosexuals and not socially accepting harrasment of them anymore, thats about all the radical homosexual groups are going to get. Americans are quite tired of the "its my right" line.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Proof is not the right word. Science provides accumulated evidence. It's a self-correcting system. When new, contradictory evidence emerges -- e.g. when Hubbel demonstrated that Einstein's theory of space as "static" was wrong --, it makes whatever adjustments are necessary to fit in the facts.

I posted this link in an earlier post on this thread. It is early days for this particular line of research. But there does seem to be considerable emperical evidence.

semantics.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

See my above post. I think history will look back upon this debate and remember only that it was an era ripe with bigotry. The same bigotry that this country has been fighting for over 200 years. A hatred of something that we do not understand and fear for apparently no reason.

Why dont you give me a list of reasons why gay marriage is wrong, and when I prove everyone of them wrong, we can have a nice discussion as to why I just completely rolled you. Science, logic and reasoning trump fear mongering.

So now you have a crystal ball? Was that part of your "superior" education than mine? hahhahaha, yea, you know all about how much education I have.

Gay marriage should be illegal because a vast majority of Americans want it that way. WE are still a form of democracy. And dont give me that "well, slavery was legal" line. It wont wash. Some behaviors are so morally repugnant, they cannot be accepted over time whether legal or not. You simply cannot find anything in denying same sex marriage that would prove as painful as a lynching of a slave.

Yea, you will prove them all wrong? In your own mind, the same one that has already concluded I have limited education. Oh what liberal freedom you take with ASSumptions.

You have already lost with just the first one. YOUR OPINION does not overide the will of the people. The majority of Americans have spoken through the vote and they say Im RIGHT and you are WRONG.

Besides, you are so idiotic, please go back and show where I ever said it is "Wrong".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

By your logic, then, the leftys took the issue of Brown v. Board of Education to the SCOTUS and involved the federal government, thus circumventing "the will of the people". .

Its not logical at all to conclude that because Gunny points out certain times when the homosexual lobby skirted the will of the people means that EVERY time the SCOTUS rules, it is skirting the will of the people. That is quite ILLOGICAL.

And that is the purpose of the courts, to redress the grievances that result when the "will of the people" is wrong and unjust..

Nope, it is not the purpose of the courts to decide what is wrong and unjust. It is the courts place to interpet the LAWS written by the other two arms of the federal govt. And to determine at times if the law or laws presented and passed are in fact in conflict with the COTUS.

But, more to the point, why do you care if a same-gender couple is afforded the same rights, responsibilities and priviledges extended to traditional married couples? Do you feel threatened because you are unsure of your own sexuality? Would some physical or psychological harm fall upon you and your family if same-gender couples are allowed to marry? Define, clearly, just what it is that leads you oppose the marriage of same-gender couples.

The liberals have already done enough damage to marriage, hence kids, by the acceptance of no fault divorce. This will only lead to the further erosion. And anyways, the family courts are already so clogged up they often dont have enough time to fully investigate custody disputes and often the kids wind up in dire, dangerous and deadly situations because of the backlog. Now all we need to do is throw some more cases in the already overburdened courtrooms, with gay couples arguing over who gets custody of the pink poodle.

Also, liberals can scream all they want that homosexuality is natural and normal, but most of us are NEVER going to accept that when a man doesnt find a Halle Barry of Angeliina Joli, sexually stimulating, that there isnt something wrong with him.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

So now you have a crystal ball? Was that part of your "superior" education than mine? hahhahaha, yea, you know all about how much education I have.

Gay marriage should be illegal because a vast majority of Americans want it that way. WE are still a form of democracy. And dont give me that "well, slavery was legal" line. It wont wash. Some behaviors are so morally repugnant, they cannot be accepted over time whether legal or not. You simply cannot find anything in denying same sex marriage that would prove as painful as a lynching of a slave.

Yea, you will prove them all wrong? In your own mind, the same one that has already concluded I have limited education. Oh what liberal freedom you take with ASSumptions.

You have already lost with just the first one. YOUR OPINION does not overide the will of the people. The majority of Americans have spoken through the vote and they say Im RIGHT and you are WRONG.

Besides, you are so idiotic, please go back and show where I ever said it is "Wrong".

Did you just completely miss my first post or are you trying to look stupid? Please. How many times do we have to tell you. 1 - The United States is a Federal Republic. 2 - The Constitution exists to prevent the tyranny of the minority by the majority and to ensure that all people have the same unequivocable rights. Slavery was morally acceptable in its time. By taking it out of its time period you completely take slavery out of context. The more adept and correct analogy is to that of interracial marriage, something that was banned for quite a long time on many of the same grounds. In reality it came down to choice. Does an individual have the right to marry whom they choose (a consenting adult)? The answer of the courts was yes. You can claim that they overrode the majority opinion, but again I state that the majority opinion means jack. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and regardless of how much you kick and scream about how we are a "democracy" you cannot just negate the rights that are afforded in the Constitution.

I make my assumptions on how you respond. I wouldn't assume you dont have an education if you didn't sound like a 12 year old on steroids trying to make a point.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Its not logical at all to conclude that because Gunny points out certain times when the homosexual lobby skirted the will of the people means that EVERY time the SCOTUS rules, it is skirting the will of the people. That is quite ILLOGICAL.



Nope, it is not the purpose of the courts to decide what is wrong and unjust. It is the courts place to interpet the LAWS written by the other two arms of the federal govt. And to determine at times if the law or laws presented and passed are in fact in conflict with the COTUS.



The liberals have already done enough damage to marriage, hence kids, by the acceptance of no fault divorce. This will only lead to the further erosion. And anyways, the family courts are already so clogged up they often dont have enough time to fully investigate custody disputes and often the kids wind up in dire, dangerous and deadly situations because of the backlog. Now all we need to do is throw some more cases in the already overburdened courtrooms, with gay couples arguing over who gets custody of the pink poodle.

Also, liberals can scream all they want that homosexuality is natural and normal, but most of us are NEVER going to accept that when a man doesnt find a Halle Barry of Angeliina Joli, sexually stimulating, that there isnt something wrong with him.

Look you keep complaining about how it is only the liberals who accept gays to be normal. I think you'd find it interesting to find that most moderate conservatives that I know at least have no issues with gays and them wanting the tax breaks and legal benefits construed upon them by state issued marriages. The issue though is that there are two seperate entities of marriage here, 1 - State issued which recognizes the legal status of the couple, and 2 - Church issued marriages which recognize the couple before God, Allah, the Pink Elephant etc. The problem is the State marriage component. If we were to change State unions to Civil Unions for all Parties, this would simply not be an issue. Thereby allowing Gays to have the full legal benefits that Married couples now enjoy. Couples who are Married before God would still have that, and it would be a completely religious debate at that point. Seperate but Equal will not fly either.

 

[sitarro]

Look you keep complaining about how it is only the liberals who accept gays to be normal. I think you'd find it interesting to find that most moderate conservatives that I know at least have no issues with gays and them wanting the tax breaks and legal benefits construed upon them by state issued marriages. The issue though is that there are two seperate entities of marriage here, 1 - State issued which recognizes the legal status of the couple, and 2 - Church issued marriages which recognize the couple before God, Allah, the Pink Elephant etc. The problem is the State marriage component. If we were to change State unions to Civil Unions for all Parties, this would simply not be an issue. Thereby allowing Gays to have the full legal benefits that Married couples now enjoy. Couples who are Married before God would still have that, and it would be a completely religious debate at that point. Seperate but Equal will not fly either.

I can imagine how divorce lawyers are licking their lips raw waiting for homosexuals to start getting married. Easily the most unstable of any group, you progressives are going to whine and protest until you get it and then you will pretend you had nothing to do with it once it proves to be just another screw up.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Its not logical at all to conclude that because Gunny points out certain times when the homosexual lobby skirted the will of the people means that EVERY time the SCOTUS rules, it is skirting the will of the people. That is quite ILLOGICAL.

Nor, is it logical to conclude that when a ruling by the courts runs contrary to public opinion on an issue that it is due to the actions of 'activist judges' as many conservatives are wont to do.

Nope, it is not the purpose of the courts to decide what is wrong and unjust. It is the courts place to interpet the LAWS written by the other two arms of the federal govt. And to determine at times if the law or laws presented and passed are in fact in conflict with the COTUS.

What else are laws except the "will of the people" made manifest? And if those laws are interpreted by the courts as being in conflict, with the US Constitution, are those laws not then determinied to be wrong and unjust?

The liberals have already done enough damage to marriage, hence kids, by the acceptance of no fault divorce. This will only lead to the further erosion. And anyways, the family courts are already so clogged up they often dont have enough time to fully investigate custody disputes and often the kids wind up in dire, dangerous and deadly situations because of the backlog. Now all we need to do is throw some more cases in the already overburdened courtrooms, with gay couples arguing over who gets custody of the pink poodle.

Well golly, why are divorce rates higher than average amongst the 'Bible-belt' states, while Massachussetts, the only state in the country to legally sanction the marriage of same-gender couples has the lowest? And come to think of it, the incidence of divorce amongst "born again" Christians is no different from other, non-Christian, populations. Crappy people make crappy marriages...Good people make good marriages. It doesn't matter if they're straight or gay...Christian or not. And you point about family courts is a non-sequitur as is the point about the pink poodle. That latter point would be more in line with Brittany Spears and KFed...talk about defiling the sanctity of marriage.

Also, liberals can scream all they want that homosexuality is natural and normal, but most of us are NEVER going to accept that when a man doesnt find a Halle Barry of Angeliina Joli, sexually stimulating, that there isnt something wrong with him.

By implication then, the women you mentioned are no more than sex objects. And while they are beautiful, they simply don't hold the interest for me that my wife does. Hmmm...Do you perhaps find them sexually stimulating?

 

[jasendorf]

I can imagine how divorce lawyers are licking their lips raw waiting for homosexuals to start getting married. Easily the most unstable of any group, you progressives are going to whine and protest until you get it and then you will pretend you had nothing to do with it once it proves to be just another screw up.

Then bring on the gay marriage! If you're right, you can gloat and gloat... I guess you're too worried that you're wrong.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

I can imagine how divorce lawyers are licking their lips raw waiting for homosexuals to start getting married. Easily the most unstable of any group, you progressives are going to whine and protest until you get it and then you will pretend you had nothing to do with it once it proves to be just another screw up.

There is no reason to expect that homosexual marriages would result in a disproportionally large rate of divorce. I think you'd find it coincides quite nicely with the average rate for heterosexual marriages at this time.

 

[OCA]

There is no reason to expect that homosexual marriages would result in a disproportionally large rate of divorce. I think you'd find it coincides quite nicely with the average rate for heterosexual marriages at this time.

Search USMB, the facts on these things that I will state have been posted dozens of times: homosexuals are disproportionately higher represented in spousal(partner) and drug and alcohol abuse not to mention that they carry a higher instance of infectious communicable diseases and they are represented higher in instances of pedophilia, kind of goes with the territory when you have to live with a disastorous lifestyle choice that they made. Don't ya think that these factors will ultimately lead to a high divorce if by some act of the devil they are granted the right to *gulp* marry?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Search USMB, the facts on these things that I will state have been posted dozens of times: homosexuals are disproportionately higher represented in spousal(partner) and drug and alcohol abuse not to mention that they carry a higher instance of infectious communicable diseases and they are represented higher in instances of pedophilia, kind of goes with the territory when you have to live with a disastorous lifestyle choice that they made. Don't ya think that these factors will ultimately lead to a high divorce if by some act of the devil they are granted the right to *gulp* marry?

I've seen the sites that you have quoted before, and your results are completely unfounded. The fact of the matter is that there is a lack of evidence either way in regards to these statements. If you can provide me with objective research from someone who might know what they're talking about then we can begin to discuss it, (I'm not saying I'm right, but I want credible sources).

 

[OCA]

I've seen the sites that you have quoted before, and your results are completely unfounded. The fact of the matter is that there is a lack of evidence either way in regards to these statements. If you can provide me with objective research from someone who might know what they're talking about then we can begin to discuss it, (I'm not saying I'm right, but I want credible sources).

The sources are credible and the facts are clear, you refuse to believe that which damages your argument, I cannot help you with your problem.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Did you just completely miss my first post or are you trying to look stupid? Please. How many times do we have to tell you. 1 - The United States is a Federal Republic. 2 - The Constitution exists to prevent the tyranny of the minority by the majority and to ensure that all people have the same unequivocable rights..

Baloney. WHere does it say that?

[Slavery was morally acceptable in its time...

No it wasnt, NEVER, not the type of slavery imposed on Africans shipped here.
You know who wrote AMAZING GRACE? Figure that one out and you may begin to have a clue.

.By taking it out of its time period you completely take slavery out of context. The more adept and correct analogy is to that of interracial marriage, something that was banned for quite a long time on many of the same grounds...

Baloney, its a poor analogy at best. First off, a vast majority of blacks HATE it when people compare the two.
Interracial marriage has to do with how you were BORN, homosexual marriage and slavery both have something to do with a persons actions that can be construed, and is by most, as immoral. Is it immoral to be born with black skin? No, I dont think even you can go that far.

[ In reality it came down to choice. Does an individual have the right to marry whom they choose (a consenting adult)? The answer of the courts was yes. You can claim that they overrode the majority opinion, but again I state that the majority opinion means jack...

You are delusional. The ONLY time the minority usurps the majority, is when the majority try to take away a Constitutional right by instituting a law without changing the Constitution. The majority can at any time, if they have a large enough majority, change the Constitution to anything they want. They can make slavery legal, they can put a nuclear power plant in your back yard. Majority rules, your psuedo liberal parroting of "minorities are protected from the majority" blah, blah blah, bullshit dont wash with me. SHOW ME where it says that.

[The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and regardless of how much you kick and scream about how we are a "democracy" you cannot just negate the rights that are afforded in the Constitution...

IDIOT, the Constitution was written, amended (still is today) and put into law because THE MAJORITY voted for it. The MAJORITY can change it anytime they want. THE MINORITY NEVER CAN NEVER.

[I make my assumptions on how you respond. I wouldn't assume you dont have an education if you didn't sound like a 12 year old on steroids trying to make a point.

12 year old on steroids taking you apart piece by piece, hahha, you should be ashamed.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Look you keep complaining about how it is only the liberals who accept gays to be normal. I think you'd find it interesting to find that most moderate conservatives that I know at least have no issues with gays and them wanting the tax breaks and legal benefits construed upon them by state issued marriages. The issue though is that there are two seperate entities of marriage here, 1 - State issued which recognizes the legal status of the couple, and 2 - Church issued marriages which recognize the couple before God, Allah, the Pink Elephant etc. The problem is the State marriage component. If we were to change State unions to Civil Unions for all Parties, this would simply not be an issue. Thereby allowing Gays to have the full legal benefits that Married couples now enjoy. Couples who are Married before God would still have that, and it would be a completely religious debate at that point. Seperate but Equal will not fly either.

what is a moderate conservative????????
anyways, you dont know if most think like that. Your personal experiences with them is irrlevant, unless you travel the whole country and talk to hundreds of them in each location. Besides, how can that be? when the issue went to the ballot box in about 18 states, every one of them overwhelmingly voted to ban same sex marriage. Some by nearly 80%, thats AN INCREDIBLE percentage. Only Saddam ever did better, getting 99% and 100%, respectively, of the votes in Iraq, for his presidency.
And those who dont have issues with same sex marriage all that much are for the most part just thinking, as long as they dont bother me....

Homosexuals shouldnt have the same tax benefits of married couples. Why should a homosexual have a tax break that a single person doesnt get? Married couples are afforded tax breaks because for the most part, they are the ones who have kids, kids ARE EXPENSIVE, the tax break is for the kids, not the adults.

seperate but equal is a red herring, nice try though.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I can imagine how divorce lawyers are licking their lips raw waiting for homosexuals to start getting married. Easily the most unstable of any group, you progressives are going to whine and protest until you get it and then you will pretend you had nothing to do with it once it proves to be just another screw up.

No, they will blame the high divorce rate of homosexuals on something else, like, well, repubs still dont accept them socially, and its the peer pressure brought on by.....they will somehow blame it on us.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Nor, is it logical to conclude that when a ruling by the courts runs contrary to public opinion on an issue that it is due to the actions of 'activist judges' as many conservatives are wont to do.?

Red herring, Did I make that claim???

What else are laws except the "will of the people" made manifest? And if those laws are interpreted by the courts as being in conflict, with the US Constitution, are those laws not then determinied to be wrong and unjust??

HA ! NO, they are determined to be Unconstitutional or not, not wrong or right.

Well golly, why are divorce rates higher than average amongst the 'Bible-belt' states, while Massachussetts, the only state in the country to legally sanction the marriage of same-gender couples has the lowest? And come to think of it, the incidence of divorce amongst "born again" Christians is no different from other, non-Christian, populations. Crappy people make crappy marriages...Good people make good marriages. It doesn't matter if they're straight or gay...Christian or not. And you point about family courts is a non-sequitur as is the point about the pink poodle. That latter point would be more in line with Brittany Spears and KFed...talk about defiling the sanctity of marriage.?

You know mass. also has the highest teen suicide rate?
The divorce rates can be attributed to many things. You would have to do an in depth study to make a cause and effect determination. You never know, maybe 90% of the non religous people in the Bible belt get divorces, while the religous divorce rate would be around 15%. Do you know the actual stats on that? NO? Did I hear you say NO? I didnt think you did know.

and as for Christians having the same divorce rate, did you do an in depth study on that? Its quite possible that a vast majority of them had their divorces BEFORE they became saved. It was the case with me.

By implication then, the women you mentioned are no more than sex objects. And while they are beautiful, they simply don't hold the interest for me that my wife does. Hmmm...Do you perhaps find them sexually stimulating?

another classic deduction by illogic. Because I declare a woman sexy, does that mean she is a sex object only? Shit man, get it together. I would have to say, if you were on a desert island, and went without it for 6 months, and Halle Barry showed up half naked, if you didnt get excited, then yes, there would be something wrong with you. First thing you would think is maybe Im impotent now. Heterosexual men go to the doctor all the time if a woman cant give him an erection, but homosexual men never do. Dont they think that maybe, just maybe something is wrong if a woman doesnt arouse him? Its almost like having a car that doesnt run and you push it around listening to the stereo and denying anything is wrong with it cuz it gets you where you want to go.