The Homosexual Dilemma

[AvgGuyIA]

Why what?

Why are We, The Peeps obligated to treat everyone equally under the law?

'Cause The United States Constitution demands equal treatment under the law despite conditions on the ground since it was published.

Baby steps! ​

It never use to. This is a made up "right".

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Evidence fallacy. Confusing fact with opinion. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

And of course, factually inaccurate. As in 36 states, marriage is also one man and one man or one woman and one woman. Ignoring this fact doesn't change it.

[quote
This is the consequence of the physiological design of the human species.

What relevance does the physiological design of the species have to do with marriage? Remember, you've said repeatedly that you're not arguing that marriage is about procreation. Without procreation, what relevance does your point have to marriage, its purpose, or a valid basis for it?

That an insignificant minority craves legitimacy through the pretense of marriage doesn't change that... and no American is ever going to tolerate that minority attempting to force them to accept their pretense as anything but... and your pretense that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality did not sue innocent people into bankruptcy, JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT WHICH THEY DISAGREED, demonstrates that you're either a liar, or you're delusional.

Given that a majority of the nation supports gay marriage and gay marriage proponents outweigh opponents by a 12 to 19 points, your assessment of what Americans feel on the matter are of no consequence. As you don't know what you're talking about.

A majority disagrees with you. And that majority is growing. Get used to the idea.

Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion. Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.

Factually incorrect. Civil rights may or may not be in line with popular opinion. Interracial marriage bans when it was recognized as unconstitutional was wildly popular. With support in the mid to high 80s. There was very little popular support for interracial marriage, despite the courts recognizing it was a right.

Demonstrating elegantly that civil rights can most definitely be something other than popular opinion. And of course, our law recognizes civil rights. Which might explain the rather horrid record your ilk have had in court.

There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.

And which rights did God 'endow'? And according to who? You can't say with anything more than empty opinion. See, plenty of people claim to speak for God. You included.

Using the reasoning of religion, almost all religion is false. Given that by your own reasoning almost all people who claim to speak for God are wrong, what would be the odds that out of all the people in all the world, across the long span of what is, what has been and what will be......that *you* happened to be the guy to get it right? Especially when there's nothing that mandates that anyone did?

The odds of your accuracy are exceedingly small. Rendering your citation of yourself as the conveyer of God's will unreliable. And of course, without reason or logic.

Oh, and for spice, your claims is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.

More accurately, 'we people' don't accept you as speaking for God. Though I'll be happy to recognize you as the avatar of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. You yourself have said that the appeal to authority fallacy is valid only if its logic and reasoning are valid.

And you can't logically or reasonably establish you claims. Which is why you continue to fail.

 

[Skylar]

What he said if a fact of the irrefutable variety.

You're offering us your opinion. You are claiming that your opinions are facts. Evidence fallacy yet again, as you are equating mere opinion with fact.Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

There is no discrimination in the natural marriage standard against the sexually abnormal. PERIOD!

Evidence fallacy again, were you equate your opinion with facts. See above for the disqualification for consideration.

Nature requires that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...

Nature requires reproduction. It doesn't require marriage. As demonstrated by thee fact that only people marry. And yet species everywhere, from little bugs to great big elephants continue on. If marriage were required by nature, no animal that didn't marry would exist. Yet with a lone exception, all animals exist without marriage. Worse, there's no particular indication that even the one animal that uses marriage requires it.

And of course, you don't offer us a logical or rational basis for your argument. You merely insist that an Authority mandates it must be so. That's an appeal to authority fallacy. With 'nature' as your authority. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

any homosexual is perfectly entitled to marry anyone he or she can talk into it, as long as whoever that is, is a member of the distinct gender.

In 36 of 50 states, there's no such requirement. They can marry the consenting adult of their choice, regardless of gender. You can ignore this fact. But it doesn't change the fact that such marriages happens every day.

 

[Skylar]

Why what?

Why are We, The Peeps obligated to treat everyone equally under the law?

'Cause The United States Constitution demands equal treatment under the law despite conditions on the ground since it was published.

Baby steps! ​

It never use to. This is a made up "right".

You the peeps are required to treat everyone equally in business if your State mandates it be so. Its thus a statutory requirement drawn from the State's authority to regulate intra state commerce.

In your personal life, you can treat people like shit to your heart's content.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

When you look at the gay contribution to the US and the confederate conservative contribution, you wonder why God gave all the talent to the gays. He must love them more.

Brokeback Mountain is a good example of how much gays contribute, right? These two shepherds are supposed to be guarding the sheep. Instead, they're having gay, faggoty butt sex while wolves are killing their sheep. Yet the whole movie was about how they're "victims". This kind of self delusion is at the heart of this thread.

 

[Skylar]

1. DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.

Key provisions of DOMA were overturned by the Supreme Court in the Windsor decision for residents of States in which gay marriage is legally recognized. For those who live in States in which gay marriage is not legally recognized, its more ambiguous. I'd say you're probably right....DOMA simply isn't being enforced for those States.

2. Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality.

And increasingly, its not your view.

Get used to the idea.

3. Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.

The State retains the prerogative to set marriage laws subject to certain constitutional guarantees. No State marriage law can abrogate the privileges or immunities of federal citizens. Nor can any marriage law not offer equal protection in the law for all federal citizens within that State's jurisdiction. Any State marriage law that does is invalid, as rights trump powers.

See the 14th amendment, section 1. And see the Loving v. Virginia ruling for an example of this in practice.

 

[Skylar]

When you look at the gay contribution to the US and the confederate conservative contribution, you wonder why God gave all the talent to the gays. He must love them more.

Brokeback Mountain is a good example of how much gays contribute, right? These two shepherds are supposed to be guarding the sheep. Instead, they're having gay, faggoty butt sex while wolves are killing their sheep. Yet the whole movie was about how they're "victims". This kind of self delusion is at the heart of this thread.

You do realize that Brokeback Mountain is fictional, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.”

Incorrect

The CSA regulating marijuana use is Constitutional (Gonzales v. Raich (2005)), DOMA, not – it in fact failed to pass Constitutional muster (US v. Windsor (2013)).

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.”

Incorrect.

That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:

“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.”

Under the Constitution, the states are required to afford equal protection of the law to all persons eligible to participate in marriage – same- or opposite-sex. Residents of the states do not have the authority to deny gay Americans access to marriage law predicated on something as subjective and as capricious as 'values.' A measure seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

C_Clayton,

The Supreme Court struck down parts of DOMA and I'm not shedding any tears over it. DOMA is unconstitutional and a demonstration of how pro family religious groups can be just as contemptuous of the constitution, pushing their agenda whether it's legal or not. It's rare that the Supreme Court strikes down an entire law, and the aftermath of striking down parts of a law is messy because there's still fragments. We will have to deal with this if the Supreme Court rules against federal Obamacare exchanges being funded. A ruling against this will take out a major component of Obamacare but leave a lot intact. Think of a game of Jenga and pieces are being excised from the foundation. Anyway, the point I was making about DOMA is that the Eric Holder Justice Department announced they would no longer enforce it, this was before parts of it were struck down.

And the point I was making about marijuana laws is that they are currently unenforced. Gonzalez v Raich affirmed again the federal government's right to enforce federal laws against marijuana regardless of state law. This will prove problematic if we ever elect a president who takes seriously his duty to execute the laws of the United States.

 

[ninja007]

How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?

By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.

Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.

 

[ninja007]

 

[Skylar]

How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?

By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.

Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.

More accurately, I'm applying the standard being being set by Mikey for having someone's sexuality 'rubbed in your face'.

If a football layer kissing his boyfriend when being drafted is having 'homosexuality shoved in your face', then a dude making out with a different women each week on prime time reality TV would certainly be the heterosexual equivalent.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The faggots, and logic, won. Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

Yeah, you got it.

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private. But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.

If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do. Talk about a destructive circular paradox!

So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.

BTW, Notice the picture? Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.

You're calling other people assholes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

I disagree.

Beer?

Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.

OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.

As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.

No wonder we get so few visitors.​

Actually our state governments do under the constitution. It isn't an enumerated power of the federal government therefore it becomes a state prerogative. If you object to states regulating marriage by libertarian principle, that's another issue.

Equal protection under the law is a right that the federal government has the power to enforce.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Civil Rights?

Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion. Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.

There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.

And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.

Which God?

The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran can take His Sharia Laws and His patriarchal Christian rules and shove them up His Divine ass. This is America.

Rights are given and withheld by Monkeys with power, as in he who pays the military salary gets to establish what rights exist.

In the case of the USA, authority to give and withhold rights is established by The US Constitution, not a droll collection of ancient Arab stories and it surprises me not that the opposition to both Sharia Law and Christian Rules is growing as our population continues to diversify away from the 'Standard American WASP'.

 

[Mac1958]

.

There will be a time (who knows how long this will take) when homosexuality is not just accepted, but just not an issue.

It may not be that long: My kids and their friends don't give a crap one way or the other, which is pretty much my outlook on the topic.

Once that happens, I'm assuming that "the gay agenda" (which appears to be "we'd like to be able to do the same stuff you do") won't be an irritant to most, because the tactics and behaviors currently displayed by the "gay community" and their supporters will (again, I'm assuming) recede.

.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The faggots, and logic, won. Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?

Your "logic" follows that a man can marry a goat and should not be deprived of that "right". It's what Society allows to occur that is driving this perversion of the marital institution so it follows that man should be able to marry an animal if Society deems it just. It doesn't make it right.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why what?

Why are We, The Peeps obligated to treat everyone equally under the law?

'Cause The United States Constitution demands equal treatment under the law despite conditions on the ground since it was published.

Baby steps! ​

It never use to. This is a made up "right".

Wait a minute now...

You don't believe that ALL Americans should be treated equally by the justice system?

WTF, Dude? That's the definition of elitism. Please explain how we should define who is 'special' in 21st Century America.

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

And Sodom fell
The Bible