Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage

[High_Gravity]

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

That's precedence, my friend.

Marriage is not a right it's a choice...

Not to mention "marriage" is - at least to me - 99.99% based on religion, however our government treats "it" like a contract.

Honestly, civicly I have absolutely no problem with civil unions.... However gays aren't the humblest bunch....

I've unfortunately ran into the Chicago gay pride parade one time and there were dudes grabbing other dudes dongs, people so drunk puking everywhere and overall disrespect for society and gays find that pride??

Quite frankly I find gays to be disrespectful belligerent assholes ....

To be fair us hetero folks act the same way during mardi gras and spring break.

 

[Mr.Nick]

If someone wants to marry more than 1 woman I'm fine with it I guess, besides you can already have more than 1 wife anyways, if you only register one with the courts you can have as many women living as your wives in your house and nobody can stop you legally. I'm just saying having 1 wife is enough work as it is, I couldn't imagine having more than 1.

I totally understand and understood your point, however there are all sorts of weirdo's out there that want to marry pets or inanimate objects and if you let gays marry then they would be discriminated against.

Proposition 8 showed us, even in progressive states even gay civil unions are not accepted by the majority therefore if only .0001% of the population is crazy enough to marry their pet and they were denied from doing such then that would have to be discrimination too, even if you or I find marrying a pet illogical...

I just believe we need to draw the line somewhere......

Besides marriage is a religious theme and civil unions are nothing more than contract..

Theres a difference between 2 women getting married and someone who wants to marry a horse or a chair, the 2 women can give their consent as adults, the horse or chair cannot give consent or sign any legal documents.

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

It is discrimination if a state doesn't issue a blind man a drivers license. Discrimination is defined as ": the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually". Since the decision to limit blind people from driving on public highways is base on they belonging to a category or group it is discrimination. Descrimination is neither good nor bad, discrimination just is. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

The question is, is there a valid compelling government interest in allowing such discrimination. The answer of course is, Yes. The compelling reason has to do with public safety since having a blind person operating a multi-ton vehicle on the roads is a clear and present danger to others on the roads.



As it pertains to Civil Marriage, if the government is going to recognize such a legal status and then craft laws around such a status, the question become does the government have a compelling government interest in crafting such discrimination. The decision will eventually based on the comparison of two groups: those allowed to Civilly Marry and those that are denied Civil Marriage. The question will be what is the compelling government interest in denying equal treatment under the law based on gender. Why should the government treat law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples differently law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples?


>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

I totally understand and understood your point, however there are all sorts of weirdo's out there that want to marry pets or inanimate objects and if you let gays marry then they would be discriminated against.

Proposition 8 showed us, even in progressive states even gay civil unions are not accepted by the majority therefore if only .0001% of the population is crazy enough to marry their pet and they were denied from doing such then that would have to be discrimination too, even if you or I find marrying a pet illogical...

I just believe we need to draw the line somewhere......

Besides marriage is a religious theme and civil unions are nothing more than contract..

Theres a difference between 2 women getting married and someone who wants to marry a horse or a chair, the 2 women can give their consent as adults, the horse or chair cannot give consent or sign any legal documents.

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

How can a horse give consent and sign documents?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

That's precedence, my friend.

Marriage is not a right it's a choice...

Not to mention "marriage" is - at least to me - 99.99% based on religion, however our government treats "it" like a contract.

Honestly, civicly I have absolutely no problem with civil unions.... However gays aren't the humblest bunch....

I've unfortunately ran into the Chicago gay pride parade one time and there were dudes grabbing other dudes dongs, people so drunk puking everywhere and overall disrespect for society and gays find that pride??

Quite frankly I find gays to be disrespectful belligerent assholes ....

To be fair us hetero folks act the same way during mardi gras and spring break.

Well the kids will eventually grow up (hopefully).......... Not to mention we're only talking one city in the US. Most of the rich fool college kids just go to foreign countries and puke all over their shit..

I suppose I cant blame foreigners for not liking US citizens given that notion..

 

[Mr.Nick]

Theres a difference between 2 women getting married and someone who wants to marry a horse or a chair, the 2 women can give their consent as adults, the horse or chair cannot give consent or sign any legal documents.

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

How can a horse give consent and sign documents?

But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent??

 

[WorldWatcher]

I totally understand and understood your point, however there are all sorts of weirdo's out there that want to marry pets or inanimate objects and if you let gays marry then they would be discriminated against.

Proposition 8 showed us, even in progressive states even gay civil unions are not accepted by the majority therefore if only .0001% of the population is crazy enough to marry their pet and they were denied from doing such then that would have to be discrimination too, even if you or I find marrying a pet illogical...

I just believe we need to draw the line somewhere......

Besides marriage is a religious theme and civil unions are nothing more than contract..

Theres a difference between 2 women getting married and someone who wants to marry a horse or a chair, the 2 women can give their consent as adults, the horse or chair cannot give consent or sign any legal documents.

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

Being Mute (the inability to verbally make sounds) does not have an impact on mental functioning and does not impede the ability to provide consent.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went against the will of the people to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.

We don't vote on civil rights, period.

Civil rights are won in the court of law (when you look at history). The fact that Mississippi would vote to overturn anti miscegenation laws RIGHT NOW if it went to the ballot box is just one of the reasons.

Well, if MS actually tried that, they'd find a lot of companies would move out, a lot of tourist dollars would be lost, etc. So even if you found a poll that said that, it probably wouldn't be true.

It wasn't a stretch at all. The 14th Amendment made it legal for blacks to marry whites, because it made them citizens. Passing laws against interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th Amendment- therefore unconstitutional.

There is really nothing in the constitution about letting people of the same gender marry. A gay can get married to any person of the opposite sex who will have them, therefore, they have the SAME rights as straight people.

Now, if you want to change the law, change the law at the ballot box or in the legislature. That's what they are there for.

But if you are going to trust your fortunes to judges, you are opening a very serious can of nasty worms. That isn't democracy.

Somehow, I don't think you were one of the people who were cheering when the courts decided Gore vs. Bush in Bush's favor.

Specious argument that would get a low D in a college class.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

That's precedence, my friend.

Marriage is not a right it's a choice...

Not to mention "marriage" is - at least to me - 99.99% based on religion, however our government treats "it" like a contract.

Honestly, civicly I have absolutely no problem with civil unions.... However gays aren't the humblest bunch....

I've unfortunately ran into the Chicago gay pride parade one time and there were dudes grabbing other dudes dongs, people so drunk puking everywhere and overall disrespect for society and gays find that pride??

Quite frankly I find gays to be disrespectful belligerent assholes ....

So...are you saying that choices can't be a right? Please answer yes or no.

As to your description of the Chicago Gay Pride Parade....I call shennanigans.

 

[bodecea]

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

How can a horse give consent and sign documents?

But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent? ?

So, this is the condition of your argument now?




Really?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

It is discrimination if a state doesn't issue a blind man a drivers license. Discrimination is defined as ": the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually". Since the decision to limit blind people from driving on public highways is base on they belonging to a category or group it is discrimination. Descrimination is neither good nor bad, discrimination just is. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

The question is, is there a valid compelling government interest in allowing such discrimination. The answer of course is, Yes. The compelling reason has to do with public safety since having a blind person operating a multi-ton vehicle on the roads is a clear and present danger to others on the roads.



As it pertains to Civil Marriage, if the government is going to recognize such a legal status and then craft laws around such a status, the question become does the government have a compelling government interest in crafting such discrimination. The decision will eventually based on the comparison of two groups: those allowed to Civilly Marry and those that are denied Civil Marriage. The question will be what is the compelling government interest in denying equal treatment under the law based on gender. Why should the government treat law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples differently law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples?


>>>>

Good, let a blind man drive and let an individual fuck a chimp..

It sounds "progressive" to me...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

It is discrimination if a state doesn't issue a blind man a drivers license. Discrimination is defined as ": the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually". Since the decision to limit blind people from driving on public highways is base on they belonging to a category or group it is discrimination. Descrimination is neither good nor bad, discrimination just is. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

The question is, is there a valid compelling government interest in allowing such discrimination. The answer of course is, Yes. The compelling reason has to do with public safety since having a blind person operating a multi-ton vehicle on the roads is a clear and present danger to others on the roads.



As it pertains to Civil Marriage, if the government is going to recognize such a legal status and then craft laws around such a status, the question become does the government have a compelling government interest in crafting such discrimination. The decision will eventually based on the comparison of two groups: those allowed to Civilly Marry and those that are denied Civil Marriage. The question will be what is the compelling government interest in denying equal treatment under the law based on gender. Why should the government treat law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples differently law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples?


>>>>

Good, let a blind man drive and let an individual fuck a chimp.. It sounds "progressive" to me...

Let a libertarian pretend he can learn critical thinking skills, too.

 

[Mr.Nick]

How can a horse give consent and sign documents?

But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent? ?

So, this is the condition of your argument now?




Really?

The quantity doesn't matter..

Ya motherfucking tyrant that doesn't understand equal rights...

You can bet there are at least 5,000 deaf-mute illiterate people in this nation

 

[rdean]

I think it's a fuckin' disease, but to each their own and who the fuck am I to get in the way of that.

A disease of a different sort?

 

[High_Gravity]

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

How can a horse give consent and sign documents?

But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent??

We don't have an effective way to really communicate with horses and find out what they want, as far as the illiterate mutes maybe sign language?

 

[Mr.Nick]

How can a horse give consent and sign documents?

But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent? ?

So, this is the condition of your argument now?




Really?

Sure why not??

What makes gays any better than an illiterate mute???

Laugh all you want.. It shows how liberal you are.

 

[Mr.Nick]

How can a horse give consent and sign documents?

But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent??

We don't have an effective way to really communicate with horses and find out what they want, as far as the illiterate mutes maybe sign language?

I suppose we do have an effective way of communication with horses considering the fact individuals possess domesticated horses or animals for that matter and people train them via linguistics.

 

[High_Gravity]

But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent??

We don't have an effective way to really communicate with horses and find out what they want, as far as the illiterate mutes maybe sign language?

I suppose we do have an effective way of communication with horses considering the fact individuals possess domesticated horses or animals for that matter and people train them via linguistics.

Training a horse is one thing but I still don't know how we could know whether a horse wants to marry a man or not.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Theres a difference between 2 women getting married and someone who wants to marry a horse or a chair, the 2 women can give their consent as adults, the horse or chair cannot give consent or sign any legal documents.

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

Being Mute (the inability to verbally make sounds) does not have an impact on mental functioning and does not impede the ability to provide consent.



>>>>

Not being able to talk then being incapable of writing does...

That doesn't change the fact there are people in this world who have a difficult time talking but don't know how to write because they may have a lower IQ than others for example..

 

[bodecea]

But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent? ?

So, this is the condition of your argument now?




Really?

Sure why not??

What makes gays any better than an illiterate mute???
Laugh all you want.. It shows how liberal you are.

Even better!