The Problem with Gays.

[dilloduck]

Adoption!
The part that matter is " basic civil right". So I guess you are for denying a group of people a basic right?

You, as a person, have the basic civil right to marry the man of your choosing.

How much more simple do you need it?

So if I felt you shouldn't marry someone because I thought it was irregular or abnormal because they have bad taste in shoes or something, it is alright for me to deny you that right?
When it is defined as a "basic civil right", you can't then use a loop hole to deny someone that right.

marriage-----the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN is a basic right---

 

[Luissa]

Nothing in that case stated that marriage is a right, you need to really about that case. From your own link:


Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation[/b]. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.

Damn you're so thick in the brain Luissa.

And you are a even bigger idiot! When the supreme court defines something a basic right, what do you think is going to happen when they hear a gay marriage case in the next year?
You cannot define something as a right, and then clasify that it only applies to a certain group of people. Even with the Pro Conservative court, I will bet you that when they hear the first case to legalize marriage someone will bring up this case and they will have no choice but to make it legal.

Context is everything Luissa, apparently you haven't grasped this.

You can't define something as a right, and then say context is everything!
Just watch when the Supreme Court makes gay marriage legal due to Loving, I will get to take great pleasure in laughing in your face. You cannot deny someone a right because you don't agree with them, that is the part you are not grasping. Which is pretty funny!

 

[Luissa]

You, as a person, have the basic civil right to marry the man of your choosing.

How much more simple do you need it?

So if I felt you shouldn't marry someone because I thought it was irregular or abnormal because they have bad taste in shoes or something, it is alright for me to deny you that right?
When it is defined as a "basic civil right", you can't then use a loop hole to deny someone that right.

marriage-----the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN is a basic right---

So you want the 2nd amendent undefined, with not limitations, but when it comes to 14amendment, I guess it is okay to put limitations on that.

 

[Dis]

Adoption!
The part that matter is " basic civil right". So I guess you are for denying a group of people a basic right?

You, as a person, have the basic civil right to marry the man of your choosing.

How much more simple do you need it?

So if I felt you shouldn't marry someone because I thought it was irregular or abnormal because they have bad taste in shoes or something, it is alright for me to deny you that right?
When it is defined as a "basic civil right", you can't then use a loop hole to deny someone that right.

You are SO grasping at straws, it's not even funny anymore.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

So if I felt you shouldn't marry someone because I thought it was irregular or abnormal because they have bad taste in shoes or something, it is alright for me to deny you that right?
When it is defined as a "basic civil right", you can't then use a loop hole to deny someone that right.

marriage-----the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN is a basic right---

So you want the 2nd amendent undefined, with not limitations, but when it comes to 14amendment, I guess it is okay to put limitations on that.

the 14th amendment says nothing about marriage. Try doing some reading.

 

[Luissa]

Nothing in that case stated that marriage is a right, you need to really about that case. From your own link:


Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation[/b]. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.

Damn you're so thick in the brain Luissa.

And you are a even bigger idiot! When the supreme court defines something a basic right, what do you think is going to happen when they hear a gay marriage case in the next year?
You cannot define something as a right, and then clasify that it only applies to a certain group of people. Even with the Pro Conservative court, I will bet you that when they hear the first case to legalize marriage someone will bring up this case and they will have no choice but to make it legal.

Who taught you to accept perversions as "normal" and "right"?

My parents, they taught me to never judge people on what was normal to me. Plus the simple fact I have many friends who are homosexual and are not perveted at all, most knowing before junior high age that they were "different". You taught you to want to deny people a right?

 

[dilloduck]

So if I felt you shouldn't marry someone because I thought it was irregular or abnormal because they have bad taste in shoes or something, it is alright for me to deny you that right?
When it is defined as a "basic civil right", you can't then use a loop hole to deny someone that right.

marriage-----the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN is a basic right---

So you want the 2nd amendent undefined, with not limitations, but when it comes to 14amendment, I guess it is okay to put limitations on that.

listen carefully------blacks did not insist on being called white to gain their freedoms
IF they want equal access they can settle for what their unions are to reach their goals.

 

[Luissa]

marriage-----the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN is a basic right---

So you want the 2nd amendent undefined, with not limitations, but when it comes to 14amendment, I guess it is okay to put limitations on that.

the 14th amendment says nothing about marriage. Try doing some reading.

You are fucking moron bass! The supreme court used the 14th amendment as way to say marriage is a right, denying someone the right to marry goes against the equal protection clause. Along with going against due process. Did you not read the article you posted?

 

[Dis]

And you are a even bigger idiot! When the supreme court defines something a basic right, what do you think is going to happen when they hear a gay marriage case in the next year?
You cannot define something as a right, and then clasify that it only applies to a certain group of people. Even with the Pro Conservative court, I will bet you that when they hear the first case to legalize marriage someone will bring up this case and they will have no choice but to make it legal.

Who taught you to accept perversions as "normal" and "right"?

My parents, they taught me to never judge people on what was normal to me. Plus the simple fact I have many friends who are homosexual and are not perveted at all, most knowing before junior high age that they were "different". You taught you to want to deny people a right?

Their rights aren't being denied at all. They have a perfect right to find the perfect wife, and marry her.

So, your parents taught you it's perfectly ok to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without ever looking at the moral right/wrong of a situation, OR suffering the consequences of your actions so long as YOU'RE happy?

Well, that explains an awful lot.

 

[Luissa]

marriage-----the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN is a basic right---

So you want the 2nd amendent undefined, with not limitations, but when it comes to 14amendment, I guess it is okay to put limitations on that.

listen carefully------blacks did not insist on being called white to gain their freedoms
IF they want equal access they can settle for what their unions are to reach their goals.

So you are for defining a constitutional right? I will remember that during a Anti Gun debate! Gays are asking for a right, something that they should already have since it a "basic civil right". They are not asking to be defined as anything else.

 

[Luissa]

Who taught you to accept perversions as "normal" and "right"?

My parents, they taught me to never judge people on what was normal to me. Plus the simple fact I have many friends who are homosexual and are not perveted at all, most knowing before junior high age that they were "different". You taught you to want to deny people a right?

Their rights aren't being denied at all. They have a perfect right to find the perfect wife, and marry her.

So, your parents taught you it's perfectly ok to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without ever looking at the moral right/wrong of a situation, OR suffering the consequences of your actions so long as YOU'RE happy?

Well, that explains an awful lot.

So you are bitching because my parents taught me not to be a bigot?
And to not push my values on someone else?

 

[dilloduck]

So you want the 2nd amendent undefined, with not limitations, but when it comes to 14amendment, I guess it is okay to put limitations on that.

listen carefully------blacks did not insist on being called white to gain their freedoms
IF they want equal access they can settle for what their unions are to reach their goals.

So you are for defining a constitutional right? I will remember that during a Anti Gun debate! Gays are asking for a right, something that they should already have since it a "basic civil right". They are not asking to be defined as anything else.

yes they are---they are demanding the term marriage be redefined.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

So you want the 2nd amendent undefined, with not limitations, but when it comes to 14amendment, I guess it is okay to put limitations on that.

the 14th amendment says nothing about marriage. Try doing some reading.

You are fucking moron bass! The supreme court used the 14th amendment as way to say marriage is a right, denying someone the right to marry goes against the equal protection clause. Along with going against due process. Did you not read the article you posted?

Idiot, the Supreme Court used 14th Amendment in Loving case because the due process of law clause was violated, but the 14th Amendment itself makes no reference to marriages.

 

[bobbcat]

not unless they change the meaning of a word first

What do you suppose the word means to the states (and countries abroad) that have legalized gay marriage?

 

[Dis]

My parents, they taught me to never judge people on what was normal to me. Plus the simple fact I have many friends who are homosexual and are not perveted at all, most knowing before junior high age that they were "different". You taught you to want to deny people a right?

Their rights aren't being denied at all. They have a perfect right to find the perfect wife, and marry her.

So, your parents taught you it's perfectly ok to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without ever looking at the moral right/wrong of a situation, OR suffering the consequences of your actions so long as YOU'RE happy?

Well, that explains an awful lot.

So you are bitching because my parents taught me not to be a bigot?
And to not push my values on someone else?

It doesn't sound like they taught you any at all - but simply taught you to do whatever you want - if something happens, someone else will clean up the mess for you.

I'm of the full belief that you can NOT control who you fall in love with, be it male, or female. But, by choosing to act on those feelings, you're making the choice to give up certain privileges you would otherwise be entitled to had you chosen a different road.

Your choice, your fault. Stop trying to make the rest of the world cater to your selfish demands.

 

[dilloduck]

not unless they change the meaning of a word first

What do you suppose the word means to the states (and countries abroad) that have legalized gay marriage?

it certainly doesn't mean the same thing it use to mean----When the answer is so simple as to come up with a word to define a gay union I have no sympathy what so ever for their angst. This one is a no brainer. I'm a man-----you don't demand to be called a man to have the same rights as I do.

 

[Luissa]

the 14th amendment says nothing about marriage. Try doing some reading.

You are fucking moron bass! The supreme court used the 14th amendment as way to say marriage is a right, denying someone the right to marry goes against the equal protection clause. Along with going against due process. Did you not read the article you posted?

Idiot, the Supreme Court used 14th Amendment in Loving case because the due process of law clause was violated, but the 14th Amendment itself makes no reference to marriages.

So it is alright to use the 14th amendment to establish interracial couples can marry, but not that same sex couples can get married? So you are alright with denying someone a right, which is what marriage was clasified as in that case? You are hypocrite Bass!

 

[dilloduck]

You are fucking moron bass! The supreme court used the 14th amendment as way to say marriage is a right, denying someone the right to marry goes against the equal protection clause. Along with going against due process. Did you not read the article you posted?

Idiot, the Supreme Court used 14th Amendment in Loving case because the due process of law clause was violated, but the 14th Amendment itself makes no reference to marriages.

So it is alright to use the 14th amendment to establish interracial couples can marry, but not that same sex couples can get married? So you are alright with denying someone a right, which is what marriage was clasified as in that case? You are hypocrite Bass!

Women demanded the same rights as men---they DIDN"T demand to be CALLED men

WAKE UP

 

[Dis]

You are fucking moron bass! The supreme court used the 14th amendment as way to say marriage is a right, denying someone the right to marry goes against the equal protection clause. Along with going against due process. Did you not read the article you posted?

Idiot, the Supreme Court used 14th Amendment in Loving case because the due process of law clause was violated, but the 14th Amendment itself makes no reference to marriages.

So it is alright to use the 14th amendment to establish interracial couples can marry, but not that same sex couples can get married? So you are alright with denying someone a right, which is what marriage was clasified as in that case? You are hypocrite Bass!

Next you'll be insisting that parents can marry their children, and their children can marry their invisible friends, and their invisible friends can marry the childrens goldfish.

Really. You sound ridiculous.

 

[bobbcat]

I'm a man-----you don't demand to be called a man to have the same rights as I do.

What?