Gay Marriage supporters said this would never happen...

[Boss]

The article also blames the Pill and the legalization of homosexuality (as in consenting adults).

Is that your stance? That the birth control pill should be banned and adult homosexual activity should be re-criminalized?

The article doesn't "blame" any damn thing, moron. I have no idea what you're even talking about here. The article talks about this conference held at Cambridge by your liberal social GODS, arguing that pedophilia is NORMAL! And we all fucking know, if the European academia are making the argument for it, then it's just a matter of time before it becomes an American Liberal's cause du jour.

My OP concluded with a very reasonable approach to solving the whole issue, and it did not include re-criminalizing homosexuality or banning the pill. Apparently, you didn't read that... or maybe you did and your just too stupid to understand it?

So now you want to deny saying this:

My argument against governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is that once you've established under the law, that sexual proclivity can be a determinate factor in marriage, all bets are off... you can essentially argue for ANY sexual proclivity to be legitimized on the basis of "equal protection" and the Constitution. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it is a MORAL issue with profound ramifications and consequences.

You want to argue that because same sex marriage might be ruled similar enough to opposite sex marriage that 'equal protection' is applicable,

therefore pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc., must all therefore be sufficiently similar to opposite sex marriage that they also merit 'equal protection' status?

You're stupid.

Marriage has always been the marital union of a man and woman, it has no component of sexuality implied. There is no prerequisite the man and woman be heterosexual, in fact, many married couples are homosexual. It is an irrelevant aspect to marriage as defined. However.... when you change that and redefine what marriage is, to specify same sex, sexuality becomes a component. You have changed what marriage is and defined it based on sexual proclivity.

Once you've done this, the genie is out of the bottle. Any other sexual proclivity can make the exact same arguments to legitimize their lifestyle through marriage. Since this was allowed for homosexuals, it has to be allowed for any other similar group. It's not stupid, it's Constitutional. It's not paranoia, it will happen. We can see the groundwork currently being laid.

Rather than having government sanction sexuality through marriage, opening a can of Constitutional worms you really do not want to open... Why not adopt an approach to deal with the issue that doesn't redefine marriage or put government in the position of sanctioning sexuality? Why not totally avoid the prospects of having to extend marital benefits to all sorts of sexual proclivities you will not be comfortable supporting? Why not resolve the issue to the relative satisfaction of all involved? Civil Unions is such a solution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The article doesn't "blame" any damn thing, moron. I have no idea what you're even talking about here. The article talks about this conference held at Cambridge by your liberal social GODS, arguing that pedophilia is NORMAL! And we all fucking know, if the European academia are making the argument for it, then it's just a matter of time before it becomes an American Liberal's cause du jour.

My OP concluded with a very reasonable approach to solving the whole issue, and it did not include re-criminalizing homosexuality or banning the pill. Apparently, you didn't read that... or maybe you did and your just too stupid to understand it?

So now you want to deny saying this:

My argument against governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is that once you've established under the law, that sexual proclivity can be a determinate factor in marriage, all bets are off... you can essentially argue for ANY sexual proclivity to be legitimized on the basis of "equal protection" and the Constitution. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it is a MORAL issue with profound ramifications and consequences.

You want to argue that because same sex marriage might be ruled similar enough to opposite sex marriage that 'equal protection' is applicable,

therefore pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc., must all therefore be sufficiently similar to opposite sex marriage that they also merit 'equal protection' status?

You're stupid.

Marriage has always been the marital union of a man and woman, it has no component of sexuality implied. There is no prerequisite the man and woman be heterosexual, in fact, many married couples are homosexual. It is an irrelevant aspect to marriage as defined. However.... when you change that and redefine what marriage is, to specify same sex, sexuality becomes a component. You have changed what marriage is and defined it based on sexual proclivity.

Once you've done this, the genie is out of the bottle. Any other sexual proclivity can make the exact same arguments to legitimize their lifestyle through marriage. Since this was allowed for homosexuals, it has to be allowed for any other similar group. It's not stupid, it's Constitutional. It's not paranoia, it will happen. We can see the groundwork currently being laid.

Rather than having government sanction sexuality through marriage, opening a can of Constitutional worms you really do not want to open... Why not adopt an approach to deal with the issue that doesn't redefine marriage or put government in the position of sanctioning sexuality? Why not totally avoid the prospects of having to extend marital benefits to all sorts of sexual proclivities you will not be comfortable supporting? Why not resolve the issue to the relative satisfaction of all involved? Civil Unions is such a solution.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into the marriage contract, the same contract as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties have been invalidated by the courts accordingly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You pervert trash are free to do whatever you want with each other. The problem is when you demand me to embrace your behavior and demand the right to indoctrinate my kids in the schools I pay for. NO.

Last I checked...no one is making you have or even go to a gay marriage.

Read my post again. Don't use my schools to push your agenda. You're not going to teach.my kid that being a queer is as normal as heterosexuality.

What's unfortunate is that children will be taught to practice the ignorance and hate you and others exhibit toward gay Americans.

 

[Boss]

Do you know that gay marriage isn't illegal? Do you understand that? Do you understand that pedophilia is against the law?

Do you understand the difference?

You keep equating gay marriage with pedophilia, even though your own "statistics" don't support that claim. "9%-40%" is a pretty wide margin, and at the most it still equates to ten percent less than half of the LGBT population. But which is it? 9 or 40? 9% is less than 10%, which would mean that over 90% of the LGBT community are not pedophiles. If it's 40% of gays and lesbians are pedophiles then that would mean that the 60% majority are not. But that is still a pretty wide margin.

So you want to make gay marriage illegal for the majority of law-abiding LGBT Americans because of what 9-40% of them do? That doesn't make any sense.

Why don't you just stop trying to make gay marriage illegal? Everyone knows that the Christian right only wants to make gay marriage illegal because the Bible says so, and everyone knows that the First Amendment to the US Constitution says that the Bible cannot dictate our laws. So which do you want? A democracy or a theocracy? It can't be both. That's why the First Amendment says what it says.

Do you understand that laws change everyday? Do you comprehend that things are made legal that were previously illegal, all the time? Do you understand that opposition to gay marriage doesn't automatically mean people hate gays or want to outlaw homosexuality? Do you know that percentages and statistics have absolutely NOTHING to do with constitutionality?

Do you understand the very same arguments you can use to justify gay marriage, can be used to justify lowering the age of consent to allow marriage of children? To allow people to marry animals? To allow multiple partners? Once you've re-established marriage as a means to legitimize sexual behaviors, the Constitution is clear on what you MUST allow.

 

[bodecea]

You pervert trash are free to do whatever you want with each other. The problem is when you demand me to embrace your behavior and demand the right to indoctrinate my kids in the schools I pay for. NO.

Last I checked...no one is making you have or even go to a gay marriage.

Read my post again. Don't use my schools to push your agenda. You're not going to teach.my kid that being a queer is as normal as heterosexuality.

So...admitting that there are gay people and that we go thru our lives as law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...and that we have families too......that's bad?

 

[bodecea]

Do you know that there are heterosexual pedophiles?

Do you know that?





Do you?

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18. Guess what...it's not gays doing it. Sadly, a lot of the time it's FATHERS, BROTHERS, GRANDFATHERS, UNCLES, family friends. And they are heteros.

 

[bodecea]

Do you know that there are heterosexual pedophiles?

Do you know that?


Do you?

Yes, and I know that within the hetero culture, they are beaten, thrown into jail and put in protective custody there because even the lowest of the low [their fellow felons] see them as dirtbags who need to die.

In contrast, gays celebrate their pedophiles and have even enshrined one of them as a matter of law as representative of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world. They defend them. They put them on pedastals. And in "pride" parades across the nation, gays and lesbians perform lewd sex acts in public in broad daylight where they anticipate and hope children will be looking on.

Do you see the difference?

Do you?

And here's another difference. It shows that among ALL molestations of children, gays at a mere 2% of the population account for up to 40% of All the molestations going on. That's what we call in statistics, "a propensity to molest".

Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual
pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),
or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).
3,6,10,29
The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other
adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

How do you function thru life lying so blatantly like that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the states available to those eligible to marry – that is why state measures enacted by those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans are repugnant to the Constitution.

Marriage contract law allows only consenting adults who are not related to each other to enter into the marriage contract, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the aberration exists with the states seeking to deny same-sex couples marriage they're eligible to participate in.

Siblings may not marry, adults may not marry children – this has always been the case and will not change as the states obey the Constitution and acknowledge the right of same-sex couples to marry.

To argue otherwise is ignorant demagoguery, hyperbole, and fear-mongering.

 

[Boss]

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into the marriage contract, the same contract as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties have been invalidated by the courts accordingly.

Sorry, same sex couples are NOT eligible to marry because that isn't marriage. You want to redefine marriage to include same sex couples, in order to legitimize homosexual lifestyle. You do not have a civil right to legitimize your sexual behavior through marriage, nor does society wish to allow such nonsense. It's not a 14th Amendment issue because marriage, the union of a man and woman in matrimony, is not being prohibited to homosexuals.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the states available to those eligible to marry – that is why state measures enacted by those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans are repugnant to the Constitution.

Marriage contract law allows only consenting adults who are not related to each other to enter into the marriage contract, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the aberration exists with the states seeking to deny same-sex couples marriage they're eligible to participate in.

Siblings may not marry, adults may not marry children – this has always been the case and will not change as the states obey the Constitution and acknowledge the right of same-sex couples to marry.

To argue otherwise is ignorant demagoguery, hyperbole, and fear-mongering.

Yeah, kind of like arguing that we are a "nation of laws", right? - Nazi Hypocrite.

 

[bodecea]

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into the marriage contract, the same contract as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties have been invalidated by the courts accordingly.

Sorry, same sex couples are NOT eligible to marry because that isn't marriage. You want to redefine marriage to include same sex couples, in order to legitimize homosexual lifestyle. You do not have a civil right to legitimize your sexual behavior through marriage, nor does society wish to allow such nonsense. It's not a 14th Amendment issue because marriage, the union of a man and woman in matrimony, is not being prohibited to homosexuals.

Sorry, but it most certainly is. But not to worry...you do not have to participate if it bothers you.

 

[NLT]

Do you know that there are heterosexual pedophiles?

Do you know that?





Do you?

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18. Guess what...it's not gays doing it. Sadly, a lot of the time it's FATHERS, BROTHERS, GRANDFATHERS, UNCLES, family friends. And they are heteros.

You bring this up every pedo thread, I wonder why? HMMMMMMMM.

 

[bodecea]

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the states available to those eligible to marry – that is why state measures enacted by those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans are repugnant to the Constitution.

Marriage contract law allows only consenting adults who are not related to each other to enter into the marriage contract, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the aberration exists with the states seeking to deny same-sex couples marriage they're eligible to participate in.

Siblings may not marry, adults may not marry children – this has always been the case and will not change as the states obey the Constitution and acknowledge the right of same-sex couples to marry.

To argue otherwise is ignorant demagoguery, hyperbole, and fear-mongering.

Yeah, kind of like arguing that we are a "nation of laws", right? - Nazi Hypocrite.

We ARE a nation of laws.

 

[bodecea]

Do you know that there are heterosexual pedophiles?

Do you know that?





Do you?

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18. Guess what...it's not gays doing it. Sadly, a lot of the time it's FATHERS, BROTHERS, GRANDFATHERS, UNCLES, family friends. And they are heteros.

You bring this up every pedo thread, I wonder why? HMMMMMMMM.

Because it is a fact. Do you feel uncomfortable with me bringing out facts? HMMMMMMM?

 

[Montrovant]

I'm honestly unaware. Has there been any legal ruling in the US which allowed or upheld same-sex marriage where the ruling was based on 'sexual proclivity'? I don't know what the wording or rationales of the same-sex cases in our courts have been. I ask to establish if there is a precedent involving sexual proclivity as described in the OP.

As far as removing marriage from government, while I tend to agree it would be better for marriage to work more like other contracts, rather than the state-run institution we have now, I don't think it's a realistic goal, at least in the near future. That would require a greater change in societal thinking than same-sex marriage. And before anyone brings up the fact that government is involved in contract law, the point is that as it stands now, marriage is a formalized institution which generally has little variance between couples.

I also think simply removing the word marriage from the equation, legally, would circumvent many of the issues we see. Let marriage be a private affair and the contracts between consenting adults become civil unions. Again, though, I don't see this happening any time soon. I think people are too wedded (pun intended ) to the idea of their marriage being sanctioned by the state.

I don't see pedophilia being any sort of inevitability based on same-sex marriage. Age of consent laws would almost certainly be seen as an overriding, compelling state interest, even if there is some sort of legal precedent in same sex marriage that could create an equal protection argument, IMO. An inability to legally consent also would prevent accepting a contract I would think, and marriage is a form of contract. So no, I don't believe there is a valid equal protection argument for pedophilia, bestiality, marriage to inanimate objects, etc.

If the OP can provide an example of legal rulings which set such a precedent, I'd appreciate it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the states available to those eligible to marry – that is why state measures enacted by those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans are repugnant to the Constitution.

Marriage contract law allows only consenting adults who are not related to each other to enter into the marriage contract, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the aberration exists with the states seeking to deny same-sex couples marriage they're eligible to participate in.

Siblings may not marry, adults may not marry children – this has always been the case and will not change as the states obey the Constitution and acknowledge the right of same-sex couples to marry.

To argue otherwise is ignorant demagoguery, hyperbole, and fear-mongering.

Yeah, kind of like arguing that we are a "nation of laws", right? - Nazi Hypocrite.

We ARE a nation of laws.

Of course we are.....That's why this president refuses to enforce border laws, narcotics laws, IRS laws, Hell, pretty much ANY law he decides NOT to enforce.

You'd be wise to wake up. 90% of the "laws" passed today are to enslave - not free.

Then go back and read the oath that YOUR president swore to. Now we have to endure this "latrine Lawyer" Jones and his bullshit preaching. Hypocrite.

 

[NLT]

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18. Guess what...it's not gays doing it. Sadly, a lot of the time it's FATHERS, BROTHERS, GRANDFATHERS, UNCLES, family friends. And they are heteros.

You bring this up every pedo thread, I wonder why? HMMMMMMMM.

Because it is a fact. Do you feel uncomfortable with me bringing out facts? HMMMMMMM?

Because you know so much about pedo men?
Too bad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On May 19, Senior U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball of Salt Lake City ruled that the 1,300 marriages performed prior to that date were valid, and that the state had to recognize them. (The Justice Department in Washington decided to treat those marriages as valid for purposes of federal marital laws and benefits.)

New test on same-sex marriage due at Court soon (UPDATED) : SCOTUSblog

The fact that the courts and the Justice Department recognize the marriages performed in Utah proves that marriage law in that state and the other 49 states are currently written to accommodate same-sex couples, where – again – marriage is unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

 

[Boss]

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into the marriage contract, the same contract as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties have been invalidated by the courts accordingly.

Sorry, same sex couples are NOT eligible to marry because that isn't marriage. You want to redefine marriage to include same sex couples, in order to legitimize homosexual lifestyle. You do not have a civil right to legitimize your sexual behavior through marriage, nor does society wish to allow such nonsense. It's not a 14th Amendment issue because marriage, the union of a man and woman in matrimony, is not being prohibited to homosexuals.

Sorry, but it most certainly is. But not to worry...you do not have to participate if it bothers you.

Sorry, it most certainly isn't. But you are correct, I don't have to participate in it... I can choose to participate instead, in an initiative to draft a Constitutional Amendment establishing marriage as the union of a man and woman. Such an Amendment would likely be ratified since basically every 'gay marriage' initiative has failed overwhelmingly at the ballot box. So okay... you don't want to be reasonable and accept my idea of Civil Unions to resolve the issue? Fine... we'll see how you like the alternative.

 

[Boss]

On May 19, Senior U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball of Salt Lake City ruled that the 1,300 marriages performed prior to that date were valid, and that the state had to recognize them. (The Justice Department in Washington decided to treat those marriages as valid for purposes of federal marital laws and benefits.)

New test on same-sex marriage due at Court soon (UPDATED) : SCOTUSblog

The fact that the courts and the Justice Department recognize the marriages performed in Utah proves that marriage law in that state and the other 49 states are currently written to accommodate same-sex couples, where – again – marriage is unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Should we go through history and look at all the assorted things that the US Justice Dept and a District Court Judge has ruled "law of the land" that was later rescinded?