Kansas Homophobic Bill: DEAD!

[GISMYS]

Oh dear. You're leaps of logic have entire continents between them. Just bad garbage.

I support your right to argue against same sex marrage but at least come out with something better than that. Try reading Green Bean's posts. I couldn't disagree with them more but at least the arguments have more validity than "well if that happens then I say that this will be next so it must be true!"

===============Truth does seem to hurt some. and you? We already see multi-partner marrage,child marrage and sex with animals as "just another life style" in many parts of this world,do we really want that sick perversion here in river city?

If you had included just one nugget of truth in your hysterical gibber I'd tell you if the truth hurt or not.

I'm not going to pass judgement on what primative cultures deem right as I was brought up Christian and was taught not to judge people as that's God's job. I realised as an adult that whilst that notion might not be true, it was probably just.

I do however know that bestiality, poligamy and paedophillia laws WILL NOT change because of same sex marriage and anyone claiming they will do does so because they have not bothered to learn any of the better arguements against same sex marriage.

PS I fixed your post for you. You're welcome.

Dream on!!!! The very same arguments used to support the sick perversion of same sex marrage are used for multi-partner marrage,child marrage and sex with animals!!! Wake up!!!

 

[Manchester]

===============Truth does seem to hurt some. and you? We already see multi-partner marrage,child marrage and sex with animals as "just another life style" in many parts of this world,do we really want that sick perversion here in river city?

If you had included just one nugget of truth in your hysterical gibber I'd tell you if the truth hurt or not.

I'm not going to pass judgement on what primative cultures deem right as I was brought up Christian and was taught not to judge people as that's God's job. I realised as an adult that whilst that notion might not be true, it was probably just.

I do however know that bestiality, poligamy and paedophillia laws WILL NOT change because of same sex marriage and anyone claiming they will do does so because they have not bothered to learn any of the better arguements against same sex marriage.

PS I fixed your post for you. You're welcome.

Dream on!!!! The very same arguments used to support the sick perversion of same sex marrage are used for multi-partner marrage,child marrage and sex with animals!!! Wake up!!!

If you say so. Personally I'm all for free gun ownership in Europe countries but according to those against it in EU land first you make guns legal, then you make shoot them in public legal and before you know it murder is legal and the streets are war zones. I'm guessing you'll agree with them as your bullshit argument goes along similar lines.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So denying 50 people the right to marry each other does not deny them equal protection?

Its not a strawman, its a legitamate critique of the concept that equal protection is in-voidable. Your argument supporting same sex marriage requires equal protection TO BE in-voidable.

No it doesn't it, requires that the government provide (depending on level of scrutiny) either a rational basis or compelling government interest to demonstrate why differentiated treatment is warranted. No rights are "in-voidable". Take for example "liberty", we often restrict the liberty of criminals by placing them in prison. We restrict the right to exercise religion, we don't allow an individual to stand in 4-lanes of traffic to preach their religion. "Free Speech" is restricted by libel and slander laws.

The test isn't some mythical "in-voidable" claim, the test is the government demonstrating a valid secular compelling government interest in why like situated groups are treated differently. In this case you have same-sex couples and different sex couples - both tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults - yet in many places one can enter into Civil Marriage and one cannot based on the gender classification of the individuals in the couple.

If, or when, bigamy laws are challenged - it will be the governments responsibility to demonstrate a rationale as to why limiting Civil Marriage to two consenting adults has a rational reason. (BTW - Strict scrutiny will not be applicable because Civil Marriage wouldn't be limited based on race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.) Bigamy laws will either be upheld or struct based on the merits of THAT case and not simply because the gheys were allowed equal treatment as a couple with straights.


>>>>

Most of the people here supporting same sex marriage DO run to equal protection and claim it is the only reason you HAVE to allow same sex marriage. My point is that their point means we HAVE to allow multi-marriage.

No the government does not HAVE to as it is a different question.

If we apply the whole compelling interest test to our laws then 90% of them should go out the window. My view is the States are allowed to set the rules for any given contract they recognize, and as long as the contract does not EXPLICITLY violate their own constitution or the federal constitution then it should be up to said states legislature and thus the people to decide what they want to allow. If same sex people want a similar contract have them petition the state legislatures to recognize their own new contract.

There is no reason to use courts to force states to change the marriage contract against their wills. There is also no constitutional rationalization for it beyond a judge wanting it to be so and making crap up.

Under this reasoning then the Constitutional bans on interracial marriage passed by the people of Alabama would still be in force since the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say States can't define Civil Marriage along racial lines.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

No it doesn't it, requires that the government provide (depending on level of scrutiny) either a rational basis or compelling government interest to demonstrate why differentiated treatment is warranted. No rights are "in-voidable". Take for example "liberty", we often restrict the liberty of criminals by placing them in prison. We restrict the right to exercise religion, we don't allow an individual to stand in 4-lanes of traffic to preach their religion. "Free Speech" is restricted by libel and slander laws.

The test isn't some mythical "in-voidable" claim, the test is the government demonstrating a valid secular compelling government interest in why like situated groups are treated differently. In this case you have same-sex couples and different sex couples - both tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults - yet in many places one can enter into Civil Marriage and one cannot based on the gender classification of the individuals in the couple.

If, or when, bigamy laws are challenged - it will be the governments responsibility to demonstrate a rationale as to why limiting Civil Marriage to two consenting adults has a rational reason. (BTW - Strict scrutiny will not be applicable because Civil Marriage wouldn't be limited based on race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.) Bigamy laws will either be upheld or struct based on the merits of THAT case and not simply because the gheys were allowed equal treatment as a couple with straights.


>>>>

Most of the people here supporting same sex marriage DO run to equal protection and claim it is the only reason you HAVE to allow same sex marriage. My point is that their point means we HAVE to allow multi-marriage.

No the government does not HAVE to as it is a different question.

If we apply the whole compelling interest test to our laws then 90% of them should go out the window. My view is the States are allowed to set the rules for any given contract they recognize, and as long as the contract does not EXPLICITLY violate their own constitution or the federal constitution then it should be up to said states legislature and thus the people to decide what they want to allow. If same sex people want a similar contract have them petition the state legislatures to recognize their own new contract.

There is no reason to use courts to force states to change the marriage contract against their wills. There is also no constitutional rationalization for it beyond a judge wanting it to be so and making crap up.

Under this reasoning then the Constitutional bans on interracial marriage passed by the people of Alabama would still be in force since the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say States can't define Civil Marriage along racial lines.



>>>>

No, it wouldn't because a marriage between a man and a woman is a marriage between a man and a woman, because race does not fundementally change the relationship between the two parties. having same sex people able to marry DOES fundementally change the relationship between the two parties.

If a State wants to redefine the contract to allow same sex couples to use it, I have no issue. What I do not see is a constitutional right to FORCE the states to change the contract.

 

[GISMYS]

No it doesn't it, requires that the government provide (depending on level of scrutiny) either a rational basis or compelling government interest to demonstrate why differentiated treatment is warranted. No rights are "in-voidable". Take for example "liberty", we often restrict the liberty of criminals by placing them in prison. We restrict the right to exercise religion, we don't allow an individual to stand in 4-lanes of traffic to preach their religion. "Free Speech" is restricted by libel and slander laws.

The test isn't some mythical "in-voidable" claim, the test is the government demonstrating a valid secular compelling government interest in why like situated groups are treated differently. In this case you have same-sex couples and different sex couples - both tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults - yet in many places one can enter into Civil Marriage and one cannot based on the gender classification of the individuals in the couple.

If, or when, bigamy laws are challenged - it will be the governments responsibility to demonstrate a rationale as to why limiting Civil Marriage to two consenting adults has a rational reason. (BTW - Strict scrutiny will not be applicable because Civil Marriage wouldn't be limited based on race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.) Bigamy laws will either be upheld or struct based on the merits of THAT case and not simply because the gheys were allowed equal treatment as a couple with straights.


>>>>

Most of the people here supporting same sex marriage DO run to equal protection and claim it is the only reason you HAVE to allow same sex marriage. My point is that their point means we HAVE to allow multi-marriage.

No the government does not HAVE to as it is a different question.

If we apply the whole compelling interest test to our laws then 90% of them should go out the window. My view is the States are allowed to set the rules for any given contract they recognize, and as long as the contract does not EXPLICITLY violate their own constitution or the federal constitution then it should be up to said states legislature and thus the people to decide what they want to allow. If same sex people want a similar contract have them petition the state legislatures to recognize their own new contract.

There is no reason to use courts to force states to change the marriage contract against their wills. There is also no constitutional rationalization for it beyond a judge wanting it to be so and making crap up.

Under this reasoning then the Constitutional bans on interracial marriage passed by the people of Alabama would still be in force since the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say States can't define Civil Marriage along racial lines.



>>>>

Yes! There have been some laws that are unconstitutional === ""interracial""???? There is only one human race=humans!

 

[Manchester]

Most of the people here supporting same sex marriage DO run to equal protection and claim it is the only reason you HAVE to allow same sex marriage. My point is that their point means we HAVE to allow multi-marriage.

No the government does not HAVE to as it is a different question.

If we apply the whole compelling interest test to our laws then 90% of them should go out the window. My view is the States are allowed to set the rules for any given contract they recognize, and as long as the contract does not EXPLICITLY violate their own constitution or the federal constitution then it should be up to said states legislature and thus the people to decide what they want to allow. If same sex people want a similar contract have them petition the state legislatures to recognize their own new contract.

There is no reason to use courts to force states to change the marriage contract against their wills. There is also no constitutional rationalization for it beyond a judge wanting it to be so and making crap up.

Under this reasoning then the Constitutional bans on interracial marriage passed by the people of Alabama would still be in force since the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say States can't define Civil Marriage along racial lines.



>>>>

Yes! There have been some laws that are unconstitutional === ""interracial""???? There is only one human race=humans!

Ahhhh political correctness. Bask in it's willful blindness.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Most of the people here supporting same sex marriage DO run to equal protection and claim it is the only reason you HAVE to allow same sex marriage. My point is that their point means we HAVE to allow multi-marriage.

No the government does not HAVE to as it is a different question.

If we apply the whole compelling interest test to our laws then 90% of them should go out the window. My view is the States are allowed to set the rules for any given contract they recognize, and as long as the contract does not EXPLICITLY violate their own constitution or the federal constitution then it should be up to said states legislature and thus the people to decide what they want to allow. If same sex people want a similar contract have them petition the state legislatures to recognize their own new contract.

There is no reason to use courts to force states to change the marriage contract against their wills. There is also no constitutional rationalization for it beyond a judge wanting it to be so and making crap up.

Under this reasoning then the Constitutional bans on interracial marriage passed by the people of Alabama would still be in force since the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say States can't define Civil Marriage along racial lines.



>>>>

No, it wouldn't because a marriage between a man and a woman is a marriage between a man and a woman, because race does not fundementally change the relationship between the two parties. having same sex people able to marry DOES fundementally change the relationship between the two parties.

If a State wants to redefine the contract to allow same sex couples to use it, I have no issue. What I do not see is a constitutional right to FORCE the states to change the contract.

And prior to 1967...

Marriage (in many States) was between a man and a woman of the same race. Those that opposed marriage equality under the law did view allowing interracial marriages as a fundamental change in the relationship.

And many then opposed the idea that the 14th meant equal treatment by the States, the opposed a constitutional right to FORCE the states to change the contract.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

No the government does not HAVE to as it is a different question.




Under this reasoning then the Constitutional bans on interracial marriage passed by the people of Alabama would still be in force since the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say States can't define Civil Marriage along racial lines.



>>>>

No, it wouldn't because a marriage between a man and a woman is a marriage between a man and a woman, because race does not fundementally change the relationship between the two parties. having same sex people able to marry DOES fundementally change the relationship between the two parties.

If a State wants to redefine the contract to allow same sex couples to use it, I have no issue. What I do not see is a constitutional right to FORCE the states to change the contract.

And prior to 1967...

Marriage (in many States) was between a man and a woman of the same race. Those that opposed marriage equality under the law did view allowing interracial marriages as a fundamental change in the relationship.

And many then opposed the idea that the 14th meant equal treatment by the States, the opposed a constitutional right to FORCE the states to change the contract.



>>>>

Based on the intent of the 14th amendment, as aptly stated by Justice Harlan in his dissent on Plessey V. Furgeson he saw the 14th amendments equal protection clause as creating a colorblind government. Those states were able to keep those laws on the books due to the miscarriage of justice under Plessey, which was corrected by desicions such as Loving v Virginia.

Here the states were CLEARLY violating the 14th, by denying a marriage contract between a man and a woman soley on their race. The contract was between a man and a woman as specified or implied. To make the jump to completely change the purpose of the contract by allowing same sex people to use it does not create equal protection, it re-writes the contract completely, and is thus under the purview of the state legislatures, not the courts.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

WOO HOO! Faggots can continue to FORCE their beliefs on others who have a religious reason to not do business with them! WOO HOO lets celebrate! Its only religious discrimination after all!

Hallelujah!

yes!!!! sick sexual perversion is an abomination,a compound sin as you try to say your sin is not sin thus denying the truth of God's word!!!

So sayith God himself, right? Everyone knows what god thinks, because he wrote a book.

Everyone knows that god wrote it, because he said he did.

 

[Asclepias]

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

I agree with her. Fundamentally it is the exact same. The only difference is you cannot see a gay person coming.

 

[Asclepias]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

No its your right for 2 consenting adults to love. Animals and children have no voice and cannot make that decision.

 

[GISMYS]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

No its your right for 2 consenting adults to love. Animals and children have no voice and cannot make that decision.

"2 consenting adults to love" Yes love but not sick sexual perversion,sick sexual perversion is not love,sick sexual perversion is an abomination that has and will ruin millins of lives!!!!

 

[Manchester]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

No its your right for 2 consenting adults to love. Animals and children have no voice and cannot make that decision.

"2 consenting adults to love" Yes love but not sick sexual perversion,sick sexual perversion is not love,sick sexual perversion is an abomination that has and will ruin millins of lives!!!!

Oh dear. Using the same phrase twice in a sentance is trying to convince someone of it validity, using it three times is trying to convince yourself. Someone thinks about homosexuals too much.

 

[Asclepias]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

No its your right for 2 consenting adults to love. Animals and children have no voice and cannot make that decision.

"2 consenting adults to love" Yes love but not sick sexual perversion,sick sexual perversion is not love,sick sexual perversion is an abomination that has and will ruin millins of lives!!!!

Whats sexual perversion? is it having sex without clothes on?

 

[GISMYS]

No its your right for 2 consenting adults to love. Animals and children have no voice and cannot make that decision.

"2 consenting adults to love" Yes love but not sick sexual perversion,sick sexual perversion is not love,sick sexual perversion is an abomination that has and will ruin millins of lives!!!!

Whats sexual perversion? is it having sex without clothes on?

why try to debate what you know nothing about? Why try to prove ignorance?

 

[GreenBean]

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

I agree with her. Fundamentally it is the exact same. The only difference is you cannot see a gay person coming.

Pull- Leeeeze !!!! I don't want to see a Gay Person Coming ! ... or going for that matter .... GET HELP OR ... just get BACK in your closets and everybody will be happy

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"2 consenting adults to love" Yes love but not sick sexual perversion,sick sexual perversion is not love,sick sexual perversion is an abomination that has and will ruin millins of lives!!!!

Whats sexual perversion? is it having sex without clothes on?

why try to debate what you know nothing about? Why try to prove ignorance?

????

Refusing to debate another member based on the fact that YOU ALMIGHTY are superior?

Good one, noob.

 

[GreenBean]

"2 consenting adults to love" Yes love but not sick sexual perversion,sick sexual perversion is not love,sick sexual perversion is an abomination that has and will ruin millins of lives!!!!

Whats sexual perversion? is it having sex without clothes on?

why try to debate what you know nothing about? Why try to prove ignorance?

The attempt is to normalize Homosexuality, or at least have it appear as normal as can be.

It's similar to normalizing insanity and more akin to normalizing Man-Boy relationships {NAMBLA - another Gay movement}

 

[Asclepias]

"2 consenting adults to love" Yes love but not sick sexual perversion,sick sexual perversion is not love,sick sexual perversion is an abomination that has and will ruin millins of lives!!!!

Whats sexual perversion? is it having sex without clothes on?

why try to debate what you know nothing about? Why try to prove ignorance?

Dont get frustrated. Please explain to me what sexual perversion consists of.

 

[Asclepias]

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

I agree with her. Fundamentally it is the exact same. The only difference is you cannot see a gay person coming.

Pull- Leeeeze !!!! I don't want to see a Gay Person Coming ! ... or going for that matter .... GET HELP OR ... just get BACK in your closets and everybody will be happy

What is scary about gay people? Why should they hide in a closet? Do they burn your eyes?