NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[OCA]

No, you STILL fail to understand. Right and wrong, to have any meaning at all must be discussed in terms of consequences. That which leads to the harm of oneself, another or both is wrong. That which is beneficial to oneself, another or both is right. Committed, long term, monogamous relationships between same-gender couples causes no demonstrable harm to you, or anyone else. How much simpler can I make it for you?

Smoking kills some 400,000 people on a yearly basis, yet it remains legal. Your similes suck and your arguments are no better.

No you fail to understand, society must have a moral compass and absolutes, neither of these are rooted solely in terms of consequences. Sorry you are losing this battle, take your Ohio vote as an example. You must somewhere in yourself find the courage to fight this insidious plague and quit being a willing dupe to their assault upon American society.

I think somewhere above is a post that points to your irrelevancy on key issues on this board...you know being a terrorist sympathizer and all.

 

[OCA]

Just as your ignorance taints your views.

Bully I could outthink you in even the event I get Alzheimers. Just the fact that you mop piss for a living points to your low intellectual ability.

 

[mattskramer]

and b) completely natural.

How is two people with the same sexual organs mating natural? This I gotta hear.

LOL - OCA is so predictable and reactionary.

Anyway, in answer to your question: "Natural" (as well as "Normal") is a subjective term. I can no more explain why someone would think it is natural for him to mate with someone having the same sexual organs than you can explain how it is that other activities are natural. Is smoking a "natural" behavior?

It simply seems right and natural for some people. They become deeply, romantically, and sexually attracted to people who may or may not have the same sex organs.

Additionally, homosexual acts/behavior is a choice to the same extent that heterosexual behavior is a choice. Even if (and this is a big "If") we assume for the sake of argument, that such behavior is not natural, what difference does it make? Should there be a law declaring all unnatural activity illegal and never to be legalized? I wonder if smoking would survive such a law.

 

[5stringJeff]

LOL - OCA is so predictable and reactionary.

Anyway, in answer to your question: "Natural" (as well as "Normal") is a subjective term. I can no more explain why someone would think it is natural for him to mate with someone having the same sexual organs than you can explain how it is that other activities are natural. Is smoking a "natural" behavior?

It simply seems right and natural for some people. They become deeply, romantically, and sexually attracted to people who may or may not have the same sex organs.

Additionally, homosexual acts/behavior is a choice to the same extent that heterosexual behavior is a choice. Even if (and this is a big "If") we assume for the sake of argument, that such behavior is not natural, what difference does it make? Should there be a law declaring all unnatural activity illegal and never to be legalized? I wonder if smoking would survive such a law.

Dude! Welcome back... where have you been??

BTW, no one wants to outlaw homosexual behavior. We (conservatives) only want to prevent it from being normalized in our culture.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully I could outthink you in even the event I get Alzheimers. Just the fact that you mop piss for a living points to your low intellectual ability.

Ahhh yes...Unable to argue the issue in any rational manner, you (<i>true to form</i>) take the low road of puerile insults and childish jibes. It sounds like you're already well on the way to early onset Alzheimer's. Have a nice trip.

 

[no1tovote4]

LOL - OCA is so predictable and reactionary.

Anyway, in answer to your question: "Natural" (as well as "Normal") is a subjective term. I can no more explain why someone would think it is natural for him to mate with someone having the same sexual organs than you can explain how it is that other activities are natural. Is smoking a "natural" behavior?

It simply seems right and natural for some people. They become deeply, romantically, and sexually attracted to people who may or may not have the same sex organs.

Additionally, homosexual acts/behavior is a choice to the same extent that heterosexual behavior is a choice. Even if (and this is a big "If") we assume for the sake of argument, that such behavior is not natural, what difference does it make? Should there be a law declaring all unnatural activity illegal and never to be legalized? I wonder if smoking would survive such a law.

Or skydiving, scuba diving, space exploration, flying in airplanes, skiing, barbecueing food, birthing with anesthesia, surgery, driving, etc.

None of those are "natural" and none are illegal.

 

[Johnney]

No, you STILL fail to understand. Right and wrong, to have any meaning at all must be discussed in terms of consequences. <b>That which leads to the harm of oneself, another or both is wrong</b>. That which is beneficial to oneself, another or both is right. Committed, long term, monogamous relationships between same-gender couples causes no demonstrable harm to you, or anyone else. How much simpler can I make it for you?

Smoking kills some 400,000 people on a yearly basis, yet it remains legal. Your similes suck and your arguments are no better.

there ya go, ya said it right there. queerness is harmful to everyone involved. not jsut to the fags buttfucking in the gutter, but the little boys they rape too.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bully,

How would you explain the decision to be inclusive for couples but not polygamists. All of the same arguments you and others have used here...a right being denied, being inclusive, their choice not ours, interracial marriage, etc. etc. can hold true for polygamists as well. How will you explain to them that your grand notion of being an inclusive society under the law doesn't refer to them?

Oh...and you're still wrong about the whole "rights" issue.

A right is EXTENDED...if it is given to people who didn't have it before. If people not born in this nation were not permitted to marry here...and they were given that right...the right to get married to a person of the opposite sex would be EXTENDED to them.

If there has never been a precedent of same-sex marriage being legal, if it was something that has never been formally recognized by our nation before...if it is new...which gay-marriage being legal in the US would be....then it is a NEW right.

Not extending the right, Bully....making a new one. Now we can discuss whether or not that new right makes sense...but it isn't an extension of the old right....because the old right is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex....the new right would be the right to marry someone of the same sex.

That is an excellent point Gem. (sorry, wasn't able to add to your rep) If only the NY activist judges could understand the difference as well.

Extending marriage to gays is not an extension of heterosexual marriage, it is creating a new right for a different group of people. Otherwise by that same "right to extension", we would have to extend marriage rights to polygamists as well as gays. Thus if we create a new right to marriage it should happen not through a judge's ruling based on the false premise of extension, but through the legislative process.

 

[Johnney]

That is an excellent point Gem. (sorry, wasn't able to add to your rep) If only the NY activist judges could understand the difference as well.

Extending marriage to gays is not an extension of heterosexual marriage, it is creating a new right for a different group of people. Otherwise by that same "right to extension", we would have to extend marriage rights to polygamists as well as gays. Thus if we create a new right to marriage it should happen not through a judge's ruling based on the false premise of extension, but through the legislative process.

christ then they would be forced to create rights for every freak other freak out there that thought of something else to get into and wanted it recognized. i can see it now, people wanting to marry toasters, microwaves, refridgerators.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No you fail to understand, society must have a moral compass and absolutes, neither of these are rooted solely in terms of consequences. Sorry you are losing this battle, take your Ohio vote as an example. You must somewhere in yourself find the courage to fight this insidious plague and quit being a willing dupe to their assault upon American society.

I think somewhere above is a post that points to your irrelevancy on key issues on this board...you know being a terrorist sympathizer and all.

The only thing irrelevant here is you. And the only plague is the plague of ignorance, of which you are a victim. And what are you basing your groundless accustaions of my being a "terrorist sympathizer" beyond your fever dreams?

 

[Johnney]

The only thing irrelevant here is you. And the only plague is the plague of ignorance, of which you are a victim. And what are you basing your groundless accustaions of my being a "terrorist sympathizer" beyond your fever dreams?

so everyone that disagrees with you is plagued with ignorance? because, like you, everyone else dosnt see sucking cock is a normal thing and should be rewarded and reconized by marriage? fucktard
as for a terrorist sympathizer.... we you do sound a bit like michael moore. bad America this, bad America that, bad Bush this bad Bush that. i wouldnt be a bit suprised if you had one of them rag head costumes at the box you stay in under the bridge with the other trolls.

 

[Bullypulpit]

so everyone that disagrees with you is plagued with ignorance? because, like you, everyone else dosnt see sucking cock is a normal thing and should be rewarded and reconized by marriage? fucktard
as for a terrorist sympathizer.... we you do sound a bit like michael moore. bad America this, bad America that, bad Bush this bad Bush that. i wouldnt be a bit suprised if you had one of them rag head costumes at the box you stay in under the bridge with the other trolls.

You're not ignorant if I disagree with you. If you can't make a valid argument as to why I should agree with you or resort to cheap name-calling...Then you're ignorant.

You never answered my question...Is a woman fellating a man or having anal sex with him abnormal? If not, why?

As for the terrorist symp crap, that's just typical meaningless rhetoric for those who can't make a cogent argument. Accuse those who oppose you of being unpatriotic, America-hating...blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.

Dismissed.

 

[Johnney]

You're not ignorant if I disagree with you. If you can't make a valid argument as to why I should agree with you or resort to cheap name-calling...Then you're ignorant.

<b>You never answered my question...Is a woman fellating a man or having anal sex with him abnormal? If not, why? </b>

As for the terrorist symp crap, that's just typical meaningless rhetoric for those who can't make a cogent argument. Accuse those who oppose you of being unpatriotic, America-hating...blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.

Dismissed.

why? because chicks are supposed to suck cock, not guys.

and yes it does seem as though if someone doesnt agree with you they are ignorant. you even say it yourself right in your post.

You're not ignorant if I disagree with you. If you can't make a valid argument as to why I should agree with you or resort to cheap name-calling...Then you're ignorant.

you havent made one valid argument why anyone should agree with you about legalized marriage for fags. not one. and you keep beating the stuffing out of the tired old one you use. "its not diviant, its natural." you know that draws me to believe your a closet pole smoker.

and get over it, your unpatriotic by 90% of the drivel you post.

 

[musicman]

Uh, men *can't* have abortions, so why would they want the right to have one?

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. You complain that gay men do not enjoy the same rights as women - e.g., the right to marry a man. Will you now concede that some rights and institutions are, by definition, gender-specific? Marriage is the solemnization of mating; men cannot mate with men.

Man trying to mate with man is sickness and degeneracy. The American medical community removed homosexuality from it's list of diseased perversions some years ago, it's true. Would that medicine were the only institution to show it's cowardice in the face of the PC juggernaut. No matter - the facts speak for themselves.

Homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population, yet account for a staggering 25-40% of child molestations. Doesn't that say something to you?

The behavior of the homosexual community at the outset of the AIDS epidemic should be their everlasting shame. The medical community - although thoroughly cowed by the gay lobby by this time - advanced the quite sensible suggestion that the 4000 or so early cases of AIDS be quarantined until more could be learned about the disease. To hell with that! That may have portrayed homosexuality in a negative light, you see. Public safety be damned, common sense be damned - we can't be portraying homosexuality in a negative light! "AIDS is a health issue, not a gay issue", homosexuals are fond of saying. Too bloody right, guys. You've SEEN to that, haven't you? Thanks a lot.

Our founding fathers were not equipped with a crystal ball, but they possessed a profound understanding of human nature. Men are moved by self-interest, and - left unchecked - will always resort to tyranny to advance their ends. Such is the nature of political correctness, and their favorite weapon is the courts. In this manner, they can circumvent the will of the American people, and force their agenda on us whether we like it or not.

That is why our founding fathers left matters of behavior, such as homosexual marriage, to the people. If we, as a people, have reached a point where we can ask ourselves, "Who am I to say two men can't get married?", then so be it. But put this question where it belongs - before the voters.

 

[Bullypulpit]

why? because chicks are supposed to suck cock, not guys.

and yes it does seem as though if someone doesnt agree with you they are ignorant. you even say it yourself right in your post.


you havent made one valid argument why anyone should agree with you about legalized marriage for fags. not one. and you keep beating the stuffing out of the tired old one you use. "its not diviant, its natural." you know that draws me to believe your a closet pole smoker.

and get over it, your unpatriotic by 90% of the drivel you post.

You're really going to have to do better than that. Maybe you should join the debate team at the junior high-school you attend.

 

[Johnney]

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. You complain that gay men do not enjoy the same rights as women - e.g., the right to marry a man. Will you now concede that some rights and institutions are, by definition, gender-specific? Marriage is the solemnization of mating; men cannot mate with men.

Man trying to mate with man is sickness and degeneracy. The American medical community removed homosexuality from it's list of diseased perversions some years ago, it's true. Would that medicine were the only institution to show it's cowardice in the face of the PC juggernaut. No matter - the facts speak for themselves.

Homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population, yet account for a staggering 25-40% of child molestations. Doesn't that say something to you?

The behavior of the homosexual community at the outset of the AIDS epidemic should be their everlasting shame. The medical community - although thoroughly cowed by the gay lobby by this time - advanced the quite sensible suggestion that the 4000 or so early cases of AIDS be quarantined until more could be learned about the disease. To hell with that! That may have portrayed homosexuality in a negative light, you see. Public safety be damned, common sense be damned - we can't be portraying homosexuality in a negative light! "AIDS is a health issue, not a gay issue", homosexuals are fond of saying. Too bloody right, guys. You've SEEN to that, haven't you? Thanks a lot.

Our founding fathers were not equipped with a crystal ball, but they possessed a profound understanding of human nature. Men are moved by self-interest, and - left unchecked - will always resort to tyranny to advance their ends. Such is the nature of political correctness, and their favorite weapon is the courts. In this manner, they can circumvent the will of the American people, and force their agenda on us whether we like it or not.

That is why our founding fathers left matters of behavior, such as homosexual marriage, to the people. If we, as a people, have reached a point where we can ask ourselves, "Who am I to say two men can't get married?", then so be it. But put this question where it belongs - before the voters.

AMEN!

 

[Johnney]

You're really going to have to do better than that. Maybe you should join the debate team at the junior high-school you attend.

i was just trying to keep it on the same level as your used to playing on. about high school level should be it, was a good guess on my part. or maybe yo uwant me to pass you a note while the teachers back is turned? you know something bully? your quite the waste of skin. stop breathing my oxygen, i may need it later

 

[acludem]

I completely agree with an earlier post from Andy. Churches should be allowed to marry same-sex couples if they wish, or not to marry them if they don't wish to. The Government, however, has a duty under the Constitution to provide equal protection under the law unless there is a specific reason to deny that protection. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to argue that allowing two unrelated adults of the same gender to be legally married causes a societal harm such that we should deny them equal protection. Fortunately, the righties don't have the votes to get a gay marriage amendment out of the Senate. Personally, I think it's time we took the age old advice, live and let live.

acludem

 

[musicman]

It will be difficult, if not impossible, to argue that allowing two unrelated adults of the same gender to be legally married causes a societal harm such that we should deny them equal protection.

acludem

Despite the fact that they only comprise 2-3% of the population, homosexuals account for 25-40% of child molestations. Homosexuality harms people - innocent people. You seek to confer a right where no right now exists. Trouble is, that would necessitate the legitimization of a lifestyle that is demonstrably perverse and dangerous to the community. The American voter will never allow it, which is why tyrannical liberals - who don't care a whit about the will of the people - seek to ram in through the courts.

 

[Johnney]

I completely agree with an earlier post from Andy. Churches should be allowed to marry same-sex couples if they wish, or not to marry them if they don't wish to. The Government, however, has a duty under the Constitution to provide equal protection under the law unless there is a specific reason to deny that protection. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to argue that allowing two unrelated adults of the same gender to be legally married causes a societal harm such that we should deny them equal protection. Fortunately, the righties don't have the votes to get a gay marriage amendment out of the Senate. Personally, I think it's time we took the age old advice, live and let live.

acludem

personally i think they fags need to stop trying to poke fun at the institute of marriage. they have done nothing but make fun of it since they started this little... "camping trip".
hey i know, lets give equal rights to child molesters! its not their faults they molest children, its the kids fault they do!

fucking retarded