NYC say's "no way" to the queers!

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Moi
Maybe not. But the constitution says they can't be president. What more perfect example of the fallacy of equal protection meaning the same thing as exact same rights, rules and regulations.

This is true, I haven't thought about that.

So what do you think, WW, what would you say if naturalized citizens started protesting for their rights to be president of the USA? And what would you say if some activist judges granted them the right to be on the ballots?

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That's where the problem lies, the queers do! They aren't stopping with civil unions, even though it will give them what they profess to desire. The good thing is that the more they push the more people are pushing back. You are slowly starting to see states change their laws to protect against activist judges. The states will hopefully decide this issue and grant civil unions and define marriage as between one man and one woman. Should that get out of hand then a constitutional amendment will be necessary.

My point is that what they claim they want doesn't equal what they are asking. Civil unions will give them everything they're asking for. Why shouldn't that be good enough?

It's because of people labelling them queers and trying to deny them rights that the issue has become such a big deal.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
This is true, I haven't thought about that.

So what do you think, WW, what would you say if naturalized citizens started protesting for their rights to be president of the USA? And what would you say if some activist judges granted them the right to be on the ballots?

It wouldn't bother me if Arnold could run for president.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
It wouldn't bother me if Arnold could run for president.

But would you support activist judges that ran against the constitution to do so? Should all the other naturalized citizens have this right?

 

[wonderwench]

No, I do not support activists judges legislating from the bench on any topic. We have a tri-partite form of government for a reason.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
No, I do not support activists judges legislating from the bench on any topic. We have a tri-partite form of government for a reason.

What about the right of the naturalized citizens to run for president? Are they not americans now? How can we not give them the same rights?

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
What about the right of the naturalized citizens to run for president? Are they not americans now? How can we not give them the same rights?

Good question. If they feel concerned about it, then let them draft a constitutional amendment.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Good question. If they feel concerned about it, then let them draft a constitutional amendment.

I've never heard ANY citizen complain about this before. Any thoughts on why this is acceptable, even though one citizen is being denied the same rights as another citizen?

 

[Moi]

I just don't see how any law in this country could be upheld if suddenly the supreme court decides that homosexuals have to be allowed to marry.

There is not one single law in place today which could then be upheld.

laws against Polygamy? Nope.
laws against Incest? Nope.
laws against Statutory rape? Nope.
Welfare? Nope.
Non-flat income tax? Nope.
Seat belt laws? Nope.
Affirmative Action? Nope.
Single sex locker rooms? Nope.
Assigned seating in theatres and sports complexes? Nope.
911 surcharge? Nope.
laws against Suicide? Nope.

The age factor in the constitution for presidency and voting would be eliminated.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
I just don't see how any law in this country could be upheld if suddenly the supreme court decides that homosexuals have to be allowed to marry.

There is not one single law in place today which could then be upheld.

laws against Polygamy? Nope.
laws against Incest? Nope.
laws against Statutory rape? Nope.
Welfare? Nope.
Non-flat income tax? Nope.
Seat belt laws? Nope.
Affirmative Action? Nope.
Single sex locker rooms? Nope.
Assigned seating in theatres and sports complexes? Nope.
911 surcharge? Nope.
laws against Suicide? Nope.

The age factor in the constitution for presidency and voting would be eliminated.

OH MY GOD! The world is coming to an end. Run, run for the hills! Hide under your bed. Oh no, there's a monster under the bed. Hide in the closet instead.

Your examples are a bowl of mixed fruit. Two consenting adults entering into a voluntary relationship is not rape. There is no unwilling victim. There is no underage child.

A case can be made for polygamy without gay marriage - the fact that a man can marry one woman is used to justify being able to marry more than one by those who advocate it.

I personally agree with getting rid of welfare, income taxes, and affirmative action. Despite the intellectual gymnastics used to defend them as being constitutional, they aren't.

Single sex locker rooms is a non-sequitor - having equivalent facilities available is all that gyms need to do.

Assigned seating is a voluntary product purchase - one is not forced to attend sporting and entertainment events.

Again - if gays being able to form a legally binding union will strike such a blow to civilization, its far too fragile to begin with.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
OH MY GOD! The world is coming to an end. Run, run for the hills! Hide under your bed. Oh no, there's a monster under the bed. Hide in the closet instead.

So you have no problems with the filthy animal queers. Others do.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench

Your examples are a bowl of mixed fruit. Two consenting adults entering into a voluntary relationship is not rape. There is no unwilling victim. There is no underage child.

Statutory rape is not forcible rape. I don't see how if a female at the age of 18 can consent to sex that it's legal to say one under that age cannot. That's age discrimination.

Originally posted by wonderwench


Single sex locker rooms is a non-sequitor - having equivalent facilities available is all that gyms need to do.

Well, having equivalent ways for homosexuals to protect their property doesn't seem to do it. Although it seems to have worked for all single people in this country for over 200 years.

Originally posted by wonderwench


Assigned seating is a voluntary product purchase - one is not forced to attend sporting and entertainment events.

As is engaging in homosexual behavior.

Originally posted by wonderwench

Again - if gays being able to form a legally binding union will strike such a blow to civilization, its far too fragile to begin with.

If that were the rationalization for all laws, there just wouldn't be any.

I find it humorous that you continue to advocate for homosexuals being allowed to marry because otherwise they are being denied equal treatment yet haven't found (or articulated) a compelling argument on why the rest of the laws of this country shouldn't be struck down for the same reasons.