how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[WillowTree]

More consenting adults...

Jerry Springer Show: "Oops ... I Had Sex With a Tranny!" - YouTube

"she pisses on my face"

 

[hortysir]

Check this out....

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

particularly this clause:

And this:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

particularly this part of the decision:

So...the options are, in order to maintain the 14th Amendment requirement that all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens be treated equally under the law:

1) ALL civil marriages cease and cease to be recognised along with the 1000+ benefits, protections, & privileges

-or-

2) Legal civil marriage be opened to all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and not withheld due to gender of both applicants.

The reason behind licensing for marriage was to prevent brothers and sisters or close cousins from marrying.

You, of course, have historical documentation to back that up.

They don't have an absolute right to marry any more than siblings do..

Actually, adoptive or step-siblings DO have the right to marry.

Don't misunderstand me, Bo.
I think you've seen my stance before.
I am all for Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships.
But you can't put an eraser on a Sharpie and call it a Pencil.

The company I work for, and our insurers, recognize and cover gay couples the same as heteros and I'm proud of that benefit we offer.

We've already re-defined "bad", "hot" and "cool"
I'm just not in favor of re-defining 'marriage'.

Then the word "marriage" needs to be stricken from all legal documentation and the words "civil union" needs to be inserted for hetero and homo marriages. Equal under the Law....it's the American Way....or at least it should be.

Just my own recollections.

I should be more specific and add blood-testing done to avoid birth defects.


Strike the word marriage along with it's original definition?
What of the rights of the people that like the original definition?

 

[bodecea]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Getting government benefits because you're shacking up with a fuck buddy is not a right.

You are absolutely correct. People who shack up do not get government benefits, but those heteros who wish to commit to legal marriage have that option. Except in a few states, homos who wish to commit to legal marriage do not have that option.

Thank you for showcasing the exact inequality under current law.

 

[kaz]

What rights are being denied?

The right to a legal marriage of consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults. And it's actual a right denied due to gender, not sexual orientation.

It is gender discrimination by the government....against the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment says that the same citizens can't have different rights. Since the same laws apply to straights and gays the same way, it doesn't apply.

 

[Warrior102]

More intelligent, consenting adults...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnwhmVv3a9s&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL]Jerry Springer Show: My Pimp Wants to Marry Me - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bodecea]

You have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.

Your argument only works on those who are already convinced. Rational people, on the other hand, can see that it's utter crap. Equating a union between people of the opposite sex with a union between people of the same sex is the purest form of demagoguery.

Marriage is a right?
Why do people need a license for it, then?

Check this out....

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

particularly this clause:



And this:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

particularly this part of the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

So...the options are, in order to maintain the 14th Amendment requirement that all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens be treated equally under the law:

1) ALL civil marriages cease and cease to be recognised along with the 1000+ benefits, protections, & privileges

-or-

2) Legal civil marriage be opened to all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and not withheld due to gender of both applicants.

Gender discrimination. Illegal for the government to discriminate based on Gender.

And when that kind of argument was presented during Loving v. Virginia, the Justices actually laughed.

 

[bodecea]

The left wants to embrace degeneracy and legitimize it by calling it normal.

Homosexuality is legal, my friend. But maybe if you moved to a country like....Uganda or Iran, you would be well pleased.

 

[bripat9643]

You have no business worrying about what kind of sex someone has in the privacy of their home in a free country MS.

Well technically he can 'worry' about it all he wants....but that's about it. The better solution to marriage issue however, would be for the government to not legally recognize any type of marriage.

Oh, great. So children should grow up without any right to care from their biological parents?

 

[Katzndogz]

Check this out....

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

particularly this clause:

And this:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

particularly this part of the decision:

So...the options are, in order to maintain the 14th Amendment requirement that all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens be treated equally under the law:

1) ALL civil marriages cease and cease to be recognised along with the 1000+ benefits, protections, & privileges

-or-

2) Legal civil marriage be opened to all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and not withheld due to gender of both applicants.

The reason behind licensing for marriage was to prevent brothers and sisters or close cousins from marrying.

You, of course, have historical documentation to back that up.

They don't have an absolute right to marry any more than siblings do..

Actually, adoptive or step-siblings DO have the right to marry.

Don't misunderstand me, Bo.
I think you've seen my stance before.
I am all for Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships.
But you can't put an eraser on a Sharpie and call it a Pencil.

The company I work for, and our insurers, recognize and cover gay couples the same as heteros and I'm proud of that benefit we offer.

We've already re-defined "bad", "hot" and "cool"
I'm just not in favor of re-defining 'marriage'.

Then the word "marriage" needs to be stricken from all legal documentation and the words "civil union" needs to be inserted for hetero and homo marriages. Equal under the Law....it's the American Way....or at least it should be.

It's not the American way, it is the Chinese way which has no form of marriage other than both parties signing a form. They have not gone so far as to sanction same sex marriage. They are communists, not insane.

 

[bodecea]

As far as Liberals are concerned, what two consensual adults do in the privacy of their homes is normal and acceptable. Like this....

Jerry Springer Show - Shocking Family Secrets - YouTube

You failed Logic, didn't you?

 

[bripat9643]

Then the word "marriage" needs to be stricken from all legal documentation and the words "civil union" needs to be inserted for hetero and homo marriages. Equal under the Law....it's the American Way....or at least it should be.

Wrong, that's pure homosexual fantasy. Check the Constitution and let me know when you find the word "homosexual" in there.

 

[bodecea]

The reason behind licensing for marriage was to prevent brothers and sisters or close cousins from marrying.

You, of course, have historical documentation to back that up.

Actually, adoptive or step-siblings DO have the right to marry.

Don't misunderstand me, Bo.
I think you've seen my stance before.
I am all for Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships.
But you can't put an eraser on a Sharpie and call it a Pencil.

The company I work for, and our insurers, recognize and cover gay couples the same as heteros and I'm proud of that benefit we offer.

We've already re-defined "bad", "hot" and "cool"
I'm just not in favor of re-defining 'marriage'.

Then the word "marriage" needs to be stricken from all legal documentation and the words "civil union" needs to be inserted for hetero and homo marriages. Equal under the Law....it's the American Way....or at least it should be.

Just my own recollections.

I should be more specific and add blood-testing done to avoid birth defects.


Strike the word marriage along with it's original definition?
What of the rights of the people that like the original definition?

Ah, but we've been assured by many posters here that the term "marriage" is owned by religion. Fine with me. Give it up on all legal documents, laws, and statutes.

 

[bripat9643]

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are not equal

In the eyes of the Law, they are supposed to be.

Wrong again. heterosexuality has the possibility of producing offspring. There is no such possibility with homosexuality. So where's the equivalence?

 

[bripat9643]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Getting government benefits because you're shacking up with a fuck buddy is not a right.

You are absolutely correct. People who shack up do not get government benefits, but those heteros who wish to commit to legal marriage have that option. Except in a few states, homos who wish to commit to legal marriage do not have that option.

Thank you for showcasing the exact inequality under current law.

There is no biological or ethical reason to grant them such rights.

 

[bodecea]

Then the word "marriage" needs to be stricken from all legal documentation and the words "civil union" needs to be inserted for hetero and homo marriages. Equal under the Law....it's the American Way....or at least it should be.

Wrong, that's pure homosexual fantasy. Check the Constitution and let me know when you find the word "homosexual" in there.

It's right next to "heterosexual", Hun.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are not equal

In the eyes of the Law, they are supposed to be.

Wrong again. heterosexuality has the possibility of producing offspring. There is no such possibility with homosexuality. So where's the equivalence?

You need to tell my daughter that she doesn't exist yet....or the thousands of children of gay couples thruout the U.S.


And are you going to tell us that couples (like elderly couples) should not be allowed to marry because there is no "possibility"?

You need to be consistant.......no, scratch back, you can be as inconsistant as you want to be....it is the Law that needs to be consistant.

Marriage is not about childbearing and childbearing is not required in any way.

Childbearing is not about Marriage and Marriage is not required in any way.

Therefore your argument is inconsistant.

 

[Katzndogz]

When you come down to abnormal degeneracy equal to normalcy, you are already on the wrong side.

We already have the military being forced to accept beastiality as normal behavior followed closely with pedophilia moved from the mental illness category to the sexual orientation category. Just as what happened with homosexuality a few years ago.

Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation? A Psychologist Breaks Down What Makes a Jerry Sandusky - News - GOOD

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus in the department of psychology at Queen's University, testified before Canada's parliament in February that pedophilia should be considered a sexual orientation. Though you may think he's crazy, Quinsey is not alone. A growing number of medical professionals share his view, and they think it may help society finally fashion a worthwhile response to people who prey on children.

They can make the behavior considered a form of normal behavior.

When you start down the road to degeneracy it seldom stops at anything short of the very bottom.

 

[bripat9643]

Gender discrimination. Illegal for the government to discriminate based on Gender.

Really? Then why do we have separate men's and women's restrooms?

Furthermore, it's not gender discrimination since both men and women have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. In reality its behavior discrimination, and the law discriminates against that all the time.

And when that kind of argument was presented during Loving v. Virginia, the Justices actually laughed.

I doubt that kind of argument was presented. However, that case concerned discrimination based on race. That is clearly not allowed by the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

The left wants to embrace degeneracy and legitimize it by calling it normal.

Homosexuality is legal, my friend. But maybe if you moved to a country like....Uganda or Iran, you would be well pleased.

It may be legal, but that doesn't make it normal. It also doesn't require the rest of society to pretend it's normal.

 

[bodecea]

Getting government benefits because you're shacking up with a fuck buddy is not a right.

You are absolutely correct. People who shack up do not get government benefits, but those heteros who wish to commit to legal marriage have that option. Except in a few states, homos who wish to commit to legal marriage do not have that option.

Thank you for showcasing the exact inequality under current law.

There is no biological or ethical reason to grant them such rights.

The Law is not about biology, it is about equality under it. As for Ethics, nothing is more ethical in this country than the concepts of Freedom and Equality for All.