It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can **** those beautiful knockers.

You're ******* deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I **** teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like ******* goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too ******* deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

So are hebephiles and about 5,000 other odd sexual proclivities. Marriage is the union of a man and woman... there is no requirement on any law book that those parties have to be a certain sexuality.

I am being denied the right to marry Kate Upton!

Why is your brain too deformed to retain the marital requirement of consent?

Please define (specifically) what the Constitution says "consent" means?

 

[Mertex]

In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans

funny, I don't find the word marriage in the Constitution. Can you please point out to me the Article and Section where you're reading this?

Funny you should mention that it isn't in the Constitution.........then where do you get the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman, if it is not in the Constitution?

 

[Mertex]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

Now I see that we're arguing with an imbecile. Of course a person has the right to marry the person they want to, if that person also wants to marry them. You really are ignorant....I'm sure Kate Upton would barf at the thought of marrying you....that's what makes the difference, dimwit.

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Same-sex marriage isn't about homosexuals wanting the right to marry someone that doesn't want to marry them......geez, I didn't realize there were people out there, dumb enough as to suggest something like that. I'm sure that if you write the Supreme Court with your request to marry Kate Upton they'll get right on it to make it happen for you, moron.

 

[Mertex]

ALL religion is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Please state in intelligent words how same sex marriage harms or affects your religion?

 

[Faun]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's in the 14th Amendment and there are at least 4 court cases referencing it. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

It is NOT in the 14th!

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where is there ANYTHING about marriage? IT IS NOT MENTIONED!

You're ******* deranged.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again... Everyone HAD equal protection. Nowhere were gays not allowed to "marry" but marriage is the union of a male and female. Gays weren't allowed to have a homosexual relationship and pretend it is a marriage. That was the issue. Well... We don't allow hebesexual relationships to pretend they are marriages... We don't allow any other sexually deviant behavior to pretend it is marriage and demand a right to it. But apparently, you and SCOTUS think we should!

The statement was made that the Constitution "very correctly declares marriage is a fundamental right" and as I have demonstrated and you are now admitting, it simply "declares" no such thing! Then the statement was altered to say...well, it says it in the 14th! ,,,,No, it's not there either! Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and I think there is a very damn good reason for that! It's not because it's unimportant and they didn't think of it... It's not because they were too stupid to include it... It's because it's not a "fundamental right" and certainly not something ordained or sanctioned by federal government. If it is anything regarding the Constitution, it is a State Right!

Finally, it appears some of you NOW want to shift the original bold statement into a completely different "argument" over whether the SCOTUS has ruled a certain way.... I can't argue that point! It's a matter of ******* public record, the SCOTUS made a ruling that defines marriage as a "fundamental right" and allows it to be redefined to include homosexual behavior. That wasn't the statement or argument we were having, which was regarding this being "very correctly declared" in the Constitution.... it is not mentioned in the Constitution!

Obergefell did not define marriage as a fundamental right. It reaffirmed it. And for the umpteenth time, because you truly are too ******* deranged to understand ... gays were denied the right to marry the person they loved. The court could find no compelling reason to deny gays their 14th Amendment rights.

You've proven conclusively you are simply not capable of comprehending any of this. It's not complicated, yet it's above your creator given limitations. You don't understand there's a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia and you don't understand the concept of consent.

To sum it up in one nice, neat little package -- you're ******* deranged.

 

[Boss]

In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans

funny, I don't find the word marriage in the Constitution. Can you please point out to me the Article and Section where you're reading this?

Funny you should mention that it isn't in the Constitution.........then where do you get the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman, if it is not in the Constitution?

I don't know, maybe 3,000 years of Western culture where it has always been something between males and females? Or... as it is legally defined in any of the 50 States, who have the 10th Amendment power to address these changes or so-called "rights" to the satisfaction of their people through the ballot box?

 

[EverCurious]

Sigh, again, you want to play semantics as some kind of childish "gotcha" when I've noted that I was just paraphrasing the term, I then, for your benefit, noted the words that I use interchangeably for causal conversation such as this board.

The bottom line is that the constitution is interpreted to extend marriage as a fourteenth amendment right. And yes, ALL religions are protected under the first, but in your theory that all rights must be "declared" in the constitution by word, it would not be. By your theory, Satanists could decide that human sacrifice (with consent) was legal in a state and there would be no constitutional defense to repeal it. Christian's could decide that only Christian people could be judges. A state could decide that only whites could be police officers. So on and so forth down the line of crap that people could pull out of their butts and say wasn't specifically protected by specific words in the constitution...

There are unwritten "rights" conferred by the constitution, your argument now appears to be that the SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to decide if a "right" is included for protection in the constitution, but that defies the entire purpose of the SCOTUS. They exist specifically to decide those matters, so if they say that the first's "liberty" statement includes "marriage" then that is the end of the line for the argument that it's not a right.

Arguing that they made the "wrong" decision about marriage being a right since the 1800's because of your personal beliefs about same sex marriage legitimacy is just... dense.

 

[Boss]

To argue that marriage is /not/ a declared right of the constitution's fourteenth amendment statement (specifically liberty) is very similar to saying that the specific religion of "Christianity" is not a declared right of the Constitution's First, after all it's not specifically listed. If you argue that the constitution does not protect the specific right of marriage then you have to also argue that the constitution would not protect a specific right to follow Christian teachings/beliefs.

It's not the same at all because Christianity is a religion. Homosexuality is not a marriage. AND, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is Homosexuality. There is no mention of certain liberties being afforded to homosexuals or any requirement to not discriminate on the basis of homosexual behavior. Now, we have to imagine that our Founding Fathers knew what homosexuals were back in the day, do we not? So why would they fail to mention these rights they seem to have to change customs and traditions to suit their deviant behavior?

 

[Boss]

The bottom line is that the constitution is interpreted to extend marriage as a fourteenth amendment right.

I have no problem with this and if this is what you said, I wouldn't have responded. See? That wasn't so hard, was it? We've all done this, we let our mouths get away from us now and then and say something really stupid... we're all human, it happens.

So now, the SCOTUS has made a ruling. It was a 5-4 decision. You think it was a "very correct" ruling and I think it was a terrible and lawless ruling which will have serious consequences in the future. And THAT is the basis of the argument and thread.

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING! Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior. As citizens, you have the same civil rights as everyone else, you don't get to create your own by redefining the parameters of traditional institutions. The court can't grant you that right, you don't have it! Period! None of us do! We can't have a ******* society where everyone gets to do as they damn well please because they just want to do it! That's not "Liberty" ...it's ANARCHY!

 

[Faun]

You're ******* deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I **** teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like ******* goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too ******* deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

So are hebephiles and about 5,000 other odd sexual proclivities. Marriage is the union of a man and woman... there is no requirement on any law book that those parties have to be a certain sexuality.

I am being denied the right to marry Kate Upton!

Why is your brain too deformed to retain the marital requirement of consent?

Please define (specifically) what the Constitution says "consent" means?

You must first answer my question....

 

[Skylar]

Sigh, again, you want to play semantics as some kind of childish "gotcha" when I've noted that I was just paraphrasing the term, I then, for your benefit, noted the words that I use interchangeably for causal conversation such as this board.

The bottom line is that the constitution is interpreted to extend marriage as a fourteenth amendment right. And yes, ALL religions are protected under the first, but in your theory that all rights must be "declared" in the constitution by word, it would not be. By your theory, Satanists could decide that human sacrifice (with consent) was legal in a state and there would be no constitutional defense to repeal it. Christian's could decide that only Christian people could be judges. A state could decide that only whites could be police officers. So on and so forth down the line of crap that people could pull out of their butts and say wasn't specifically protected by specific words in the constitution...

Where in the constitution does the say that only those rights articulated in the constitution exist? No where.

The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the entire idea. The opponents of the Bill of Rights argued against it because they worried that some hapless fool would read the Bill of Rights and conclude it was an exhaustive list. That ONLY those rights articulated in the Bill of Rights existed.

The proponents of the BIll of Rights argued that no one could be that ******* stupid, that the constitution was a document articulating government power, not individual rights. And that no one would be foolish enough to assume the Bill of Rights was exhaustive. The 9th amendment was a bit of compromise.

The oppoents of the BoR were right to demand the 9th amendment. As dear lord, such morons do exist.

 

[Syriusly]

To try and help you understand how this is going to go for you...

ummm .... here's how it went ...

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they dorespect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find itsfulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf​

Game ...

Set ...

Match!

... g'head ... this is where you *****, moan, and call for the deaths of Liberals everywhere...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Keys keeps repeating that to himself over and over, hoping if he does it long enough he will wake up and it will be true.

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't believe that there is any god.

This tells us all we need to know about you. You're an idiot who believes in fantasies... like universes that pop into existence from nothing.

LOL.

And what pray tell do you believe in?

Surely you can come up with as creative a story for your own beliefs as you have made for me.

Oh, I believe in science, physics and logic, which all indicate a Creator.

So you in your own words- you are an idiot who believes in fantasies...like creators that pop into existence from nothing.

No, that is YOUR words. The Creator is non-physical so it doesn't need creating. Also, you do not need to explain the explanation. This only leads to no explanation for anything.

So you in your own words- you are an idiot who believes in fantasies.....like creators just are here....with no explanation or origin.

All created wholesale from your imagination.

 

[Skylar]

To try and help you understand how this is going to go for you...

ummm .... here's how it went ...

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they dorespect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find itsfulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf​

Game ...

Set ...

Match!

... g'head ... this is where you *****, moan, and call for the deaths of Liberals everywhere...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Keys keeps repeating that to himself over and over, hoping if he does it long enough he will wake up and it will be true.

Keyes is insane. He genuinely believes that his subjective opinion defines all of reality objectively. There's no penetrating that kind of self delusion. But it is fun to point and laugh at.

 

[Syriusly]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic........and have a distorted view of reality....and FYI, you and a bunch of homophobes are condemning homosexuality. And, your little brag about bending over backwards to try and please them is a whole lot of rubbish....you and the rest have never accepted them much less bent over backward to please them. And here's a news flash for you..... "the country has allowed it". In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court......who wields a whole lot more authority than your puny little self.

If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one. But, your little rant isn't going to change anything....they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

Yes... you hit the nail on the head... it has been DEEMED legal, by a rogue court legislating from the bench,. Same way Abortion was "deemed" legal... how's that one working out for ya? Have the Christians accepted it yet?

Working out great.

American women have had access to safe and legal abortion now for 40 years now, despite the efforts of some Christians to harm women's health.

 

[Skylar]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic........and have a distorted view of reality....and FYI, you and a bunch of homophobes are condemning homosexuality. And, your little brag about bending over backwards to try and please them is a whole lot of rubbish....you and the rest have never accepted them much less bent over backward to please them. And here's a news flash for you..... "the country has allowed it". In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court......who wields a whole lot more authority than your puny little self.

If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one. But, your little rant isn't going to change anything....they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

Yes... you hit the nail on the head... it has been DEEMED legal, by a rogue court legislating from the bench,. Same way Abortion was "deemed" legal... how's that one working out for ya? Have the Christians accepted it yet?

Working out great.

American women have had access to safe and legal abortion now for 40 years now, despite the efforts of some Christians to harm women's health.

Its fascinating to watch conservatives lose their shit over the extension of rights. They become outraged when they don't have the ability to impose their will upon others using the power of government. Or when people are allowed to make these decisions themselves.

I worry about a court that extends powers of the government. Not as much about a court that extends rights to the individual.

Its telling to note that conservatives view the extension of rights and freedoms as a threat and a crime.

 

[Syriusly]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic........and have a distorted view of reality....and FYI, you and a bunch of homophobes are condemning homosexuality. And, your little brag about bending over backwards to try and please them is a whole lot of rubbish....you and the rest have never accepted them much less bent over backward to please them. And here's a news flash for you..... "the country has allowed it". In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court......who wields a whole lot more authority than your puny little self.

If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one. But, your little rant isn't going to change anything....they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

But what if I like homosexuals and I just don't like them changing our traditions to include their sexual behavior? Is this like the deal with the black people where I can't disagree with them without being a racist?

If you had posted the exact same OP- only about 'black people' then yes- I am sure that rational people would be calling you a racist.

You don't have to like that marriage has been changed- and I am not calling you a homophobe because of your butthurt that homosexuals now are treated equally.

I call you a homophobe for what you have accused homosexuals of.
I call you a homophobe for your repeated comparisons of homosexuals to pedophiles.
I call you a homophobe for you comparing homosexual marriage to a pedophile marrying a child.
I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.
I call you a homophobe because you suggest that America should be condemning homosexuals for daring to be treated equally before the law.

 

[EverCurious]

The bottom line is that the constitution is interpreted to extend marriage as a fourteenth amendment right.

I have no problem with this and if this is what you said, I wouldn't have responded. See? That wasn't so hard, was it? We've all done this, we let our mouths get away from us now and then and say something really stupid... we're all human, it happens.

So now, the SCOTUS has made a ruling. It was a 5-4 decision. You think it was a "very correct" ruling and I think it was a terrible and lawless ruling which will have serious consequences in the future. And THAT is the basis of the argument and thread.

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING! Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior. As citizens, you have the same civil rights as everyone else, you don't get to create your own by redefining the parameters of traditional institutions. The court can't grant you that right, you don't have it! Period! None of us do! We can't have a ******* society where everyone gets to do as they damn well please because they just want to do it! That's not "Liberty" ...it's ANARCHY!

And again, NOTHING in the Constitution specifically protects "Christianity" either. That does not mean it's not a protected religion. IF you can extend the constitutions intent by "freedom of religion" to include protection of "Christianity" (a term that does not in fact exist within the words of the constitution,) then you must also accept that the constitution can indeed be extended to include the protection to rights that are not "specifically" worded therein. Things like marriage, the right to have (or not have) how ever many kids you want, the right to learn foreign languages, etc., etc. A state cannot enact a constitutional law that dictates that women must have 20 kids any more than they can enact a constitutional law that forbids a woman from having kids. These kinds of laws are non-constitutional because of the rights extended by the constitution. It doesn't matter if a religion could or could not back such a law in theory, it only matters that those are personal and private decisions as far as the constitution is concerned.


Oh the "Traditional" institution of marriage... Do you mean the one that allowed 4 year olds to marry or the new 'modern' tradition of 18 or older unless the parents give consent then maybe 16?

 

[Syriusly]

Have you been arguing to get the gov out of the "marriage business" for your whole life, or only /now/ that the rules of the game are changing about your "ball"?

. The civil unions idea presented, which comes from them, solves the issue of the tax breaks and is a much easier solution.

Civil Unions a much easier solution? Really? Changing the law to civil unions would require rewriting the law in all 50 states- and every law dealing with marriage within the Federal government. Inheritance law- social security survivor benefits- veteran benefits.

Including same gender couples under existing marriage just makes them covered by existing law. What has already been done is far easier.

And of course the very Christians who you whine are being attacked, were the ones who fought to ensure that gay couples could not have civil unions either.

IF you want to advocate eliminating legal marriage in your state- go for it. But pretending that 'Christians' were willing to accept an equal alternative that eliminated legal marriage is just idiotic.