how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[bodecea]

Marriage isn't in the Constitution. No place and there is no inalienable right to marry. Otherwise Warren Jeffs wouldn't be in prison.

You might want to check with the SCOTUS. They've ruled that marriage is a fundamental right...on more than one occasion.

Jeffs isn't in prison for marriage, but for rape and for arranging marriages with UNDERAGE girls.

Yep, that very pedophilia that some people think gay marriage will cause.

 

[kaz]

Like children and animals, who are hurt worse. Whereas gay sex between consenting adults hurts nobody. Why is this so hard to understand?

No one is proposing to outlaw gay sex, so that's a non sequitur.

So, if it is not outlawed, why are gay couples not allowed to legally marry?

Gay marriage is just not recognized. It's not against the law, there is just no law saying government recognizes it as marriage. It's like asking why your pretzel is "against the law" because you can't find any law acknowledging your pretzel is a pretzel. And you mock others for not having "logic."

 

[bodecea]

No one is proposing to outlaw gay sex, so that's a non sequitur.

So, if it is not outlawed, why are gay couples not allowed to legally marry?

Gay marriage is just not recognized. It's not against the law, there is just no law saying government recognizes it as marriage. It's like asking why your pretzel is "against the law" because you can't find any law acknowledging your pretzel is a pretzel. And you mock others for not having "logic."

Stay with the topic, we are talking about civil marriage...you know...the kind where you go to the Justice of the Peace and get that legal marriage license. The one where the GOVERNMENT is supposed to treat all law-abiding citizens equally under the law.

 

[Katzndogz]

Then Warren Jeffs shouldn't be in prison at all. Which is probably the way it will be someday. Jeffs will have his own national holiday as a wrongfully imprisoned martyr.

 

[Bern80]

But I don't think that homosexuals can be fixed. They don't need to be fixed. There is nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly fine just the way they are. Homosexuality is a benign abnormality. It doesn't affect anyone else. Homosexuality is an anomaly that has occurred throughout human history and will occur as long as humanity exists.

It's only when the abnormality integrates itself into the larger culture as normal behavior that it becomes toxic to the host. Once that happens the slide into the grotesque is almost impossible to stop. Who is a 'victim" is largely a construct of the legal system. For instance a child who rejects the advances of an adult is only a victim because there is a legal mechanism to say so. That legal mechananism could be changed to say the child is mentally disturbed because rejecting the advances of an adult is not normal behavior. They are in danger of being sexually stunted! We have arbitrary ages of consent that aren't even consistent. Why not lower them to ten, or five, or have them at all?

You lost me. First you said there's nothing wrong with being gay, but then say there's something wrong with society accepting that people are gay. You started out with an objective paragraph that I agree with and immediately followed it with entirely unobjective opinion. How is gay behavior toxic exactly to society at large?

As far legal definition of what constitutes a victim that actually isn't codified via subjective arbitrary definitins of the law. They are a victim because of their bilogical lack of development, specifically in the brain. What consenting adults do is one things and should not be interferred with because they are fully developed and one has the ability to refuse and protect themselves even if only one part consents. Child consent is a problem for two reasons. First if a child does not give consent they don't have the developed stength to physically protect themselves. Secondly they can not intelligiently consent. Even if a child said they consented to a relationship with an adult, that still isn't actual consent. It isn't consent because there brains are not developed enough to give intellegient, informed consent in the first place.

We have certain laws against behavior that shocks the conscience. Homosexuality no longer shocks the conscience. Of course other degenerate behavior will be accepted as normal as the collective conscience is no longer shocked. There is already a question as to whether necrophilia should be legalized. There's no victim! It's little different from masturbation. Would we criminalize that?

The issue with necrophilia would not be whether their's a victim. It is consent. Obvioulsy a dead person can't give consent. You're acting as if people becoming accustomed to different, new behavior is always bad. That simply isn't true. And different behavior does not equal degenerate behavior. I still have yet to see anyone argue what make homosexual acts degenerative. Saying it isn't normal doens't cut it.

You understood correctly. Homosexuality isn't bad, accepting it as normal is. Once we accept perversion as normal, it becomes that much easier to accept expanding perversions.

Different behavior is not always degenerate behavior, it's is only degenerate when it is degenerate.

Obviously a dead person cannot give consent. Neither can a blow up doll, or a canteloupe. We have behavior that we collectively have agreed is perverted. We do not accept that behavior as normal or beneficial.

Again I ask what inherently makes homosexual activity degenerative? Still haven't got an answer. The sexual behavior of homosexuals isn't beneficial or non-beneficial. It's just behavior. You can't seem to separate your subjective opinion from objective truth.

 

[rightwinger]

Then Warren Jeffs shouldn't be in prison at all. Which is probably the way it will be someday. Jeffs will have his own national holiday as a wrongfully imprisoned martyr.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as you have consenting adults forming a relationship. The way I look at it is that a man can be married and have a mistress on the side and he breaks no law. But if he tries to enter a formal relationship with both women .....he goes to jail

 

[Jarhead]

You lost me. First you said there's nothing wrong with being gay, but then say there's something wrong with society accepting that people are gay. You started out with an objective paragraph that I agree with and immediately followed it with entirely unobjective opinion. How is gay behavior toxic exactly to society at large?

As far legal definition of what constitutes a victim that actually isn't codified via subjective arbitrary definitins of the law. They are a victim because of their bilogical lack of development, specifically in the brain. What consenting adults do is one things and should not be interferred with because they are fully developed and one has the ability to refuse and protect themselves even if only one part consents. Child consent is a problem for two reasons. First if a child does not give consent they don't have the developed stength to physically protect themselves. Secondly they can not intelligiently consent. Even if a child said they consented to a relationship with an adult, that still isn't actual consent. It isn't consent because there brains are not developed enough to give intellegient, informed consent in the first place.



The issue with necrophilia would not be whether their's a victim. It is consent. Obvioulsy a dead person can't give consent. You're acting as if people becoming accustomed to different, new behavior is always bad. That simply isn't true. And different behavior does not equal degenerate behavior. I still have yet to see anyone argue what make homosexual acts degenerative. Saying it isn't normal doens't cut it.

You understood correctly. Homosexuality isn't bad, accepting it as normal is. Once we accept perversion as normal, it becomes that much easier to accept expanding perversions.

Different behavior is not always degenerate behavior, it's is only degenerate when it is degenerate.

Obviously a dead person cannot give consent. Neither can a blow up doll, or a canteloupe. We have behavior that we collectively have agreed is perverted. We do not accept that behavior as normal or beneficial.

Again I ask what inherently makes homosexual activity degenerative? Still haven't got an answer. The sexual behavior of homosexuals isn't beneficial or non-beneficial. It's just behavior. You can't seem to separate your subjective opinion from objective truth.

there is nothing degenerative about it whatsoever.

Those against the gay lifestyle seem to equate homosexuality with "sex".

It is no more about sex than heterosexuality.

It is about attraction, companionship, devotion and love. And yes, when those emotions gel, sex is usually the result....but that sex is an act of love and passion....not just an act of "*******".

 

[Jarhead]

Then Warren Jeffs shouldn't be in prison at all. Which is probably the way it will be someday. Jeffs will have his own national holiday as a wrongfully imprisoned martyr.

I believe Jeffs is in jail becuase he raped minors.....if it was just about multiple wives, he likely would have received a fine and probation.

 

[Katzndogz]

Then Warren Jeffs shouldn't be in prison at all. Which is probably the way it will be someday. Jeffs will have his own national holiday as a wrongfully imprisoned martyr.

I believe Jeffs is in jail becuase he raped minors.....if it was just about multiple wives, he likely would have received a fine and probation.

The term "minor" is subjective. It's just a line in a lawbook. Change it. Sort of like the way same sex marriage was prohibited by a line in a lawbook.

It's pretty much a given that all these cultural prohibitions are on their way out. All individuals can do is take precautions to keep the effects away from themselves.

 

[kaz]

So, if it is not outlawed, why are gay couples not allowed to legally marry?

Gay marriage is just not recognized. It's not against the law, there is just no law saying government recognizes it as marriage. It's like asking why your pretzel is "against the law" because you can't find any law acknowledging your pretzel is a pretzel. And you mock others for not having "logic."

Stay with the topic, we are talking about civil marriage...you know...the kind where you go to the Justice of the Peace and get that legal marriage license. The one where the GOVERNMENT is supposed to treat all law-abiding citizens equally under the law.

Well excuse the **** of of me for directly addressing your post, Mr. Logic. Mr. seems to be Mrs. and she's PMSing.

And Citizens are treated the same under the law. If Steve is like me in every way except he is gay, he and I can marry the exact same people. The law is literal. You have to do the worst possible of all things to a liberal. Convince people, not run to a self appointed dictator in a robe.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gay marriage is just not recognized. It's not against the law, there is just no law saying government recognizes it as marriage. It's like asking why your pretzel is "against the law" because you can't find any law acknowledging your pretzel is a pretzel. And you mock others for not having "logic."

Stay with the topic, we are talking about civil marriage...you know...the kind where you go to the Justice of the Peace and get that legal marriage license. The one where the GOVERNMENT is supposed to treat all law-abiding citizens equally under the law.

Well excuse the **** of of me for directly addressing your post, Mr. Logic. Mr. seems to be Mrs. and she's PMSing.

And Citizens are treated the same under the law. If Steve is like me in every way except he is gay, he and I can marry the exact same people. The law is literal. You have to do the worst possible of all things to a liberal. Convince people, not run to a self appointed dictator in a robe.

Just as a counter point you say the law is "literal", and that as long as each aspect of the couple is treated the same there is no discrimination and hence no legal avenue for changing the law. The "literal" readings of the various laws then do not say anything about sexual orientation as a condition of Civil Marriage, the laws are written literally based on a biological condition (gender).

In the past such laws were based on a biological condition (which was race). Now some of those laws are based on a biological condition (which is gender). In the Loving v. Virginia case the government made the exact same argument - that being that since both parties were under the same restrictions, no discrimination occurred. Specifically that the law applied equally to whites and coloreds. That whites were not allowed to marry outside their race and coloreds were not allowed to marry outside their race. The logic of that argument failed and the court rejected it.

Now we have that same logic being applied to another biological condition - gender - that males are not allowed to marry within their gender and women are not allowed to marry within their gender.



The structure of the argument is very similar to one already rejected by the courts.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

In the past such laws were based on a biological condition (which was race)

My marriage is interracial. My ass is white, my wife is Korean. I actually oppose government marriage all together, but that's another topic. Here's the thing, it's not just the end but how you get there as well. Who do you trust? In the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board. But how should it get there?

The legislatures that are answerable to the people should pass such an amendment (which they did BTW)

Judges who are not answerable to the people should just re-read it and word parse an amendment that doesn't exist

In the end, if people are too immoral to do what's right, your system which relies on a moral judiciary coming from an immoral population isn't going to work either. If you want gays to be treated as straights by government force across the board, the answer is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Not 5/9. Or you can just fight it State by State, law by law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In the past such laws were based on a biological condition (which was race)

My marriage is interracial. My ass is white, my wife is Korean. I actually oppose government marriage all together, but that's another topic. Here's the thing, it's not the end it's how you get there. Who do you trust? In the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board. But how should it get there?

The legislatures that are answerable to the people should pass such an amendment (which they did BTW)

Judges who are not answerable to the people should just re-read it and word parse an amendment that doesn't exist

In the end, if people are too immoral to do what's right, your system which relies on a moral judiciary coming from an immoral population isn't going to work either.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

You say that the people passed an Amendment which said that "the Constitution it should state that Government cannot have laws that are race based across the board". I'm assuming that you are referring to the 14th Amendment and I see no limiting criteria in the Amendment that pertains to race, it says all people as citizens of the United States cannot have privileges and immunities abridged and have a right to Due Process and the concept of Equal Protection under the laws.


Is their another amendment that you were referring to that I'm not aware of?


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Then Warren Jeffs shouldn't be in prison at all. Which is probably the way it will be someday. Jeffs will have his own national holiday as a wrongfully imprisoned martyr.

Either you are just getting silly on purpose or you really believe this kind of stuff and that is rather sad.

 

[bodecea]

Then Warren Jeffs shouldn't be in prison at all. Which is probably the way it will be someday. Jeffs will have his own national holiday as a wrongfully imprisoned martyr.

I believe Jeffs is in jail becuase he raped minors.....if it was just about multiple wives, he likely would have received a fine and probation.

The term "minor" is subjective. It's just a line in a lawbook. Change it. Sort of like the way same sex marriage was prohibited by a line in a lawbook.

It's pretty much a given that all these cultural prohibitions are on their way out. All individuals can do is take precautions to keep the effects away from themselves.

You mean like they do in the Bible Belt where the "age of consent" is lower than anywhere else?

Actually, IMO, the age of consent should match the age of adulthood, 18. Across the board.

 

[Katzndogz]

You lost me. First you said there's nothing wrong with being gay, but then say there's something wrong with society accepting that people are gay. You started out with an objective paragraph that I agree with and immediately followed it with entirely unobjective opinion. How is gay behavior toxic exactly to society at large?

As far legal definition of what constitutes a victim that actually isn't codified via subjective arbitrary definitins of the law. They are a victim because of their bilogical lack of development, specifically in the brain. What consenting adults do is one things and should not be interferred with because they are fully developed and one has the ability to refuse and protect themselves even if only one part consents. Child consent is a problem for two reasons. First if a child does not give consent they don't have the developed stength to physically protect themselves. Secondly they can not intelligiently consent. Even if a child said they consented to a relationship with an adult, that still isn't actual consent. It isn't consent because there brains are not developed enough to give intellegient, informed consent in the first place.



The issue with necrophilia would not be whether their's a victim. It is consent. Obvioulsy a dead person can't give consent. You're acting as if people becoming accustomed to different, new behavior is always bad. That simply isn't true. And different behavior does not equal degenerate behavior. I still have yet to see anyone argue what make homosexual acts degenerative. Saying it isn't normal doens't cut it.

You understood correctly. Homosexuality isn't bad, accepting it as normal is. Once we accept perversion as normal, it becomes that much easier to accept expanding perversions.

Different behavior is not always degenerate behavior, it's is only degenerate when it is degenerate.

Obviously a dead person cannot give consent. Neither can a blow up doll, or a canteloupe. We have behavior that we collectively have agreed is perverted. We do not accept that behavior as normal or beneficial.

Again I ask what inherently makes homosexual activity degenerative? Still haven't got an answer. The sexual behavior of homosexuals isn't beneficial or non-beneficial. It's just behavior. You can't seem to separate your subjective opinion from objective truth.

I've given you an answer about half a dozen times. You just don't like it.

 

[bodecea]

Gay marriage is just not recognized. It's not against the law, there is just no law saying government recognizes it as marriage. It's like asking why your pretzel is "against the law" because you can't find any law acknowledging your pretzel is a pretzel. And you mock others for not having "logic."

Stay with the topic, we are talking about civil marriage...you know...the kind where you go to the Justice of the Peace and get that legal marriage license. The one where the GOVERNMENT is supposed to treat all law-abiding citizens equally under the law.

Well excuse the **** of of me for directly addressing your post, Mr. Logic. Mr. seems to be Mrs. and she's PMSing.

And Citizens are treated the same under the law. If Steve is like me in every way except he is gay, he and I can marry the exact same people. The law is literal. You have to do the worst possible of all things to a liberal. Convince people, not run to a self appointed dictator in a robe.

So, let's see.

You think we are equal because....

You fall in love with a person of the opposite sex who you are attracted to, and are allowed to legally marry.

I fall in love with a person of the SAME sex who I am attracted to, but I cannot marry them....but I can marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex I am NOT attracted to.

.....and somehow YOU think this is EQUAL?


BTW, the same sort of argument was used by the Virginia lawyers in front of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia and the Justices laughed out loud at them.

 

[Katzndogz]

I believe Jeffs is in jail becuase he raped minors.....if it was just about multiple wives, he likely would have received a fine and probation.

The term "minor" is subjective. It's just a line in a lawbook. Change it. Sort of like the way same sex marriage was prohibited by a line in a lawbook.

It's pretty much a given that all these cultural prohibitions are on their way out. All individuals can do is take precautions to keep the effects away from themselves.

You mean like they do in the Bible Belt where the "age of consent" is lower than anywhere else?

Actually, IMO, the age of consent should match the age of adulthood, 18. Across the board.

You have no problem whatsoever with imposing your morality on everyone else.

 

[Bern80]

You understood correctly. Homosexuality isn't bad, accepting it as normal is. Once we accept perversion as normal, it becomes that much easier to accept expanding perversions.

Different behavior is not always degenerate behavior, it's is only degenerate when it is degenerate.

Obviously a dead person cannot give consent. Neither can a blow up doll, or a canteloupe. We have behavior that we collectively have agreed is perverted. We do not accept that behavior as normal or beneficial.

Again I ask what inherently makes homosexual activity degenerative? Still haven't got an answer. The sexual behavior of homosexuals isn't beneficial or non-beneficial. It's just behavior. You can't seem to separate your subjective opinion from objective truth.

there is nothing degenerative about it whatsoever.

Those against the gay lifestyle seem to equate homosexuality with "sex".

It is no more about sex than heterosexuality.

It is about attraction, companionship, devotion and love. And yes, when those emotions gel, sex is usually the result....but that sex is an act of love and passion....not just an act of "*******".

Ummm no... I believe you called it perverted and degenerative behavior. You subjective opinion is really starting to rear its head. Sex isn't just '*******' just because it isn't an act of love. Sex that is not out of love is not objectively degenerative. If you don't think it is it begs the question as to why you thought it neccessary to bring up in the context of this discussion.

 

[Jarhead]

Again I ask what inherently makes homosexual activity degenerative? Still haven't got an answer. The sexual behavior of homosexuals isn't beneficial or non-beneficial. It's just behavior. You can't seem to separate your subjective opinion from objective truth.

there is nothing degenerative about it whatsoever.

Those against the gay lifestyle seem to equate homosexuality with "sex".

It is no more about sex than heterosexuality.

It is about attraction, companionship, devotion and love. And yes, when those emotions gel, sex is usually the result....but that sex is an act of love and passion....not just an act of "*******".

Ummm no... I believe you called it perverted and degenerative behavior. You subjective opinion is really starting to rear its head. Sex isn't just '*******' just because it isn't an act of love. Sex that is not out of love is not objectively degenerative. If you don't think it is it begs the question as to why you thought it neccessary to bring up in the context of this discussion.

Becuase when ever homosexuality is brought up in conversation, I usually find people referring to the sex part of it.

So you are correct...I inapproapriately assumed when the term "degenrative" was used, that it was referring to the sex part of it.

Is there something more in depth about that? Maybe. Will put thought into it.

But I am pretty secure in my sentiments about homosexuality. I know I am not gay as I do not find an attraction to the same sex...but that does not make it wrong to be attracted to the same sex.

I do not find short hair on a woman attractive. I do not find ultra skinny, boney women attractive. I do not find obese women attractive.

I do find, however, girl on girl sex very hot. Very hot indeed.