LGBT Election "Victory Fund" Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile

[PaintMyHouse]

The losers are the ones that compromise principles.

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

It this case it's pretty easy, equal before the law to marry the other adult of your choosing.

 

[Syriusly]

The losers are the ones that compromise principles.

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

So you define equal based on results?

I am not sure how I can be more clear than what I said:

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able tochose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The losers are the ones that compromise principles.

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

 

[Conservative65]

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

So you define equal based on results?

I am not sure how I can be more clear than what I said:

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able tochose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

A simple yes or no.

I've been paying income taxes for years. They fund food stamps, welfare, government housing, and all sorts of social welfare handouts. I have yet to receive my EQUAL share of what those who don't pay the taxes that fund them get. Wouldn't it be equal for me to get my share? If you say no, then you define equal differently based on the issue. That means you really don't know what equal means or how to define it.

 

[Conservative65]

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

Marriage is contractual obligation, a license from the state, and all rights have limitations, but here we require those limitations to have a rational basis and denying the right of gay people to get married doesn't have one. Your incest example is much closer and even that is a stretch.

 

[Skylar]

The losers are the ones that compromise principles.

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Dunno. I'm limiting my argument to gays and lesbians at this point. I'll decide if I will extend it to any other groups later.

 

[Skylar]

The losers are the ones that compromise principles.

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

So you define equal based on results?

I define equal by equal protection in the law and and equal due process.

 

[Syriusly]

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

So you define equal based on results?

I am not sure how I can be more clear than what I said:

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able tochose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

A simple yes or no.

I've been paying income taxes for years. They fund food stamps, welfare, government housing, and all sorts of social welfare handouts. I have yet to receive my EQUAL share of what those who don't pay the taxes that fund them get. Wouldn't it be equal for me to get my share? If you say no, then you define equal differently based on the issue. That means you really don't know what equal means or how to define it.

Interesting equivocation.

You asked me what I considered equal- and that is in context of this thread- which is same gender marriage.

And I was very clear in telling you what I considered equal- in context of the discussion in the thread

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

Yes or no- do you think that if two couples in the exact same circumstances other than gender should have equal opportunity for legal marriage?

If you say no- then that means you don't really know what equal means or how to define it.

After we finishing discussing equality in marriage- then we can discuss your new topic- equality in taxes and benefits.

 

[Syriusly]

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

This has been discussed fairly often in the courts.

Marriage is a right- and as such- can only be denied by a compelling state interest, and only when that denying that right accomplishes that state interest.

For example- Wisconsin had a law forbidding men who owed child support from getting married.

The court pointed out that while the State had an interest in ensuring that parents pay for their children, denying those men their right to marriage did not accomplish the State's interest.

Similarly another state did not allow for inmates to marry- but could provide no compelling reason why inmates should not be allowed their right to marriage- so that law was overturned also.

Such is the issue with same gender marriage- if the state wants to deny same gender couples the right to marry, it must provide a compelling state interest to treat them differently- and the states have not been able to provide a compelling interest so far.

 

[Conservative65]

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

This has been discussed fairly often in the courts.

Marriage is a right- and as such- can only be denied by a compelling state interest, and only when that denying that right accomplishes that state interest.

For example- Wisconsin had a law forbidding men who owed child support from getting married.

The court pointed out that while the State had an interest in ensuring that parents pay for their children, denying those men their right to marriage did not accomplish the State's interest.

Similarly another state did not allow for inmates to marry- but could provide no compelling reason why inmates should not be allowed their right to marriage- so that law was overturned also.

Such is the issue with same gender marriage- if the state wants to deny same gender couples the right to marry, it must provide a compelling state interest to treat them differently- and the states have not been able to provide a compelling interest so far.

What it boils down to is the *** marriage supporters believe something they call a right should be unlimited and anyone wanting to limit it is a bigot. However, when they support limiting something they call a right, they ASSume their reasons are valid and everyone should accept them.

 

[Conservative65]

Depends on how you define equal.

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

So you define equal based on results?

I am not sure how I can be more clear than what I said:

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able tochose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

A simple yes or no.

I've been paying income taxes for years. They fund food stamps, welfare, government housing, and all sorts of social welfare handouts. I have yet to receive my EQUAL share of what those who don't pay the taxes that fund them get. Wouldn't it be equal for me to get my share? If you say no, then you define equal differently based on the issue. That means you really don't know what equal means or how to define it.

Interesting equivocation.

You asked me what I considered equal- and that is in context of this thread- which is same gender marriage.

And I was very clear in telling you what I considered equal- in context of the discussion in the thread

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

Yes or no- do you think that if two couples in the exact same circumstances other than gender should have equal opportunity for legal marriage?

If you say no- then that means you don't really know what equal means or how to define it.

After we finishing discussing equality in marriage- then we can discuss your new topic- equality in taxes and benefits.

What you're not man enough to do is provide a simple yes or no answer. You keep running your damn mouth but won't answer.

I'm sorry if you can't equate things on principle. You define equal differently in different situations and expect people to give you any credibility.

 

[Conservative65]

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

So you define equal based on results?

I define equal by equal protection in the law and and equal due process.

So you don't know what you mean by equal. You simply repeat a term your handlers taught you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

This has been discussed fairly often in the courts.

Marriage is a right- and as such- can only be denied by a compelling state interest, and only when that denying that right accomplishes that state interest.

For example- Wisconsin had a law forbidding men who owed child support from getting married.

The court pointed out that while the State had an interest in ensuring that parents pay for their children, denying those men their right to marriage did not accomplish the State's interest.

Similarly another state did not allow for inmates to marry- but could provide no compelling reason why inmates should not be allowed their right to marriage- so that law was overturned also.

Such is the issue with same gender marriage- if the state wants to deny same gender couples the right to marry, it must provide a compelling state interest to treat them differently- and the states have not been able to provide a compelling interest so far.

What it boils down to is the *** marriage supporters believe something they call a right should be unlimited and anyone wanting to limit it is a bigot. However, when they support limiting something they call a right, they ASSume their reasons are valid and everyone should accept them.

It must suck being you. Even when summarizing the arguments of others you get it wrong because you let your emotions get in the way. Do try being rational, just for the heck of it.

 

[Conservative65]

The losers are the ones that compromise principles.

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even a brother/sister marriage of adults? I asked a simple question. All I need is for you to provide a simple answer. That doesn't require anything but a yes or no.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The losers are the ones that compromise principles.

Coming to realize the folly of pointless discrimination isn't 'compromising principles'. Its adopting better principles.

The Principle is Equality, one the right-wingers reject, obviously.

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even a brother/sister marriage of adults? I asked a simple question. All I need is for you to provide a simple answer. That doesn't require anything but a yes or no.

I already answered that, with the necessary qualifications, but if you need a Y/N then Yes, got it now?

Have you stopped raping your daughter, Y/N? Yes or no only please.

 

[Syriusly]

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

So you define equal based on results?

I am not sure how I can be more clear than what I said:

It is really easy for me.

I have been legally married to my wife over 20 years.

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able tochose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

A simple yes or no.

I've been paying income taxes for years. They fund food stamps, welfare, government housing, and all sorts of social welfare handouts. I have yet to receive my EQUAL share of what those who don't pay the taxes that fund them get. Wouldn't it be equal for me to get my share? If you say no, then you define equal differently based on the issue. That means you really don't know what equal means or how to define it.

Interesting equivocation.

You asked me what I considered equal- and that is in context of this thread- which is same gender marriage.

And I was very clear in telling you what I considered equal- in context of the discussion in the thread

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

Yes or no- do you think that if two couples in the exact same circumstances other than gender should have equal opportunity for legal marriage?

If you say no- then that means you don't really know what equal means or how to define it.

After we finishing discussing equality in marriage- then we can discuss your new topic- equality in taxes and benefits.

What you're not man enough to do is provide a simple yes or no answer. You keep running your damn mouth but won't answer.

I'm sorry if you can't equate things on principle. You define equal differently in different situations and expect people to give you any credibility.

LOL...are you in 7th grade? You think I give a damn if you try to throw feeble insults at me that say more about your intellectual maturity than anything else?

This is a discussion about marriage equality- I have addressed marriage equality- you want me to dance with your strawman- but I dont' need to dance to your off key tune.

Once again- I was very clear in telling you what I considered equal- in context of the discussion in the thread

Equal would be for a same gender couple to be able to chose the same legal marriage status that my wife and I chose.

Yes or no- do you think that if two couples in the exact same circumstances other than gender should have equal opportunity for legal marriage?

If you say no- then that means you don't really know what equal means or how to define it.

After we finishing discussing equality in marriage- then we can discuss your new topic- equality in taxes and benefits.

 

[Syriusly]

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

This has been discussed fairly often in the courts.

Marriage is a right- and as such- can only be denied by a compelling state interest, and only when that denying that right accomplishes that state interest.

For example- Wisconsin had a law forbidding men who owed child support from getting married.

The court pointed out that while the State had an interest in ensuring that parents pay for their children, denying those men their right to marriage did not accomplish the State's interest.

Similarly another state did not allow for inmates to marry- but could provide no compelling reason why inmates should not be allowed their right to marriage- so that law was overturned also.

Such is the issue with same gender marriage- if the state wants to deny same gender couples the right to marry, it must provide a compelling state interest to treat them differently- and the states have not been able to provide a compelling interest so far.

What it boils down to is the *** marriage supporters believe something they call a right should be unlimited and anyone wanting to limit it is a bigot. However, when they support limiting something they call a right, they ASSume their reasons are valid and everyone should accept them.

Reading comprehension has always been a difficulty for you hasn't it? One of the real stumbling blocks that kept you from getting your GED?

I gave a rather measured and emotion free response to your insult ridden post.

I gave you a shot at having a conversation- but now I know you for what you are- the person who reduces conversations to ***....n*gger, c*nt, k*ke......all the same kinds of words used by the same kind of people, for the same purpose.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Depends on how you define equal.

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

This has been discussed fairly often in the courts.

Marriage is a right- and as such- can only be denied by a compelling state interest, and only when that denying that right accomplishes that state interest.

For example- Wisconsin had a law forbidding men who owed child support from getting married.

The court pointed out that while the State had an interest in ensuring that parents pay for their children, denying those men their right to marriage did not accomplish the State's interest.

Similarly another state did not allow for inmates to marry- but could provide no compelling reason why inmates should not be allowed their right to marriage- so that law was overturned also.

Such is the issue with same gender marriage- if the state wants to deny same gender couples the right to marry, it must provide a compelling state interest to treat them differently- and the states have not been able to provide a compelling interest so far.

How is marriage a right?

 

[Syriusly]

Being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice would about cover it.

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's ******* each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

This has been discussed fairly often in the courts.

Marriage is a right- and as such- can only be denied by a compelling state interest, and only when that denying that right accomplishes that state interest.

For example- Wisconsin had a law forbidding men who owed child support from getting married.

The court pointed out that while the State had an interest in ensuring that parents pay for their children, denying those men their right to marriage did not accomplish the State's interest.

Similarly another state did not allow for inmates to marry- but could provide no compelling reason why inmates should not be allowed their right to marriage- so that law was overturned also.

Such is the issue with same gender marriage- if the state wants to deny same gender couples the right to marry, it must provide a compelling state interest to treat them differently- and the states have not been able to provide a compelling interest so far.

How is marriage a right?

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."