The Homosexual Dilemma

[Carib Gyal]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.

It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.

I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.

 

[Londoner]

Conservatives who get their information from the Rightwing message system don't understand the libertarian minimalist state, nor do they understand the Constitution, which protects everyone's beliefs, including Muslims and Homosexuals, provided those beliefs don't harm others.

(Republicans want a powerful state which imposes their values on others. They want to limit the freedom and full civic participation of groups they find evil, abnormal or otherwise inferior. FYI: these groups shift over time. Homosexuals are the flavor of the month.)

But they weren't always the flavor of the month. Conservative traditionalists (from both political parties) opposed the progress of blacks and women. To understand the disgust these people have for different value systems, research the reaction of Nixon's "Silent White majority" to the feminist revolution of the 60s.

The Rightwing czars of morality have an uneasy relationship to science, which is why they needed to create a massive institutional network of think tanks, which enabled them to tailor their scientific findings to their political goals. If science proves that human sexuality is an automatic response, the job of their think tanks is to show that it is a choice. They can get away with this because their voting coalition includes a block of people who have not had much advanced education, and so are quite vulnerable to the many charismatic pundits who seem to thrive on the Right.

Here is what many Republicans don't understand about the moral duty of the state to protect the sanctity of marriage. Government does not exist to save our souls. This is the job of individuals and families, in the privacy of their own lives. The sacredness of marriage doesn't come from the contract or the state, it comes from free individuals - individuals who are not told by bureaucrats what is good and normal, that is, individuals who are free to practice their own beliefs provided they don't harm others. The marriage contract is only a legal document that stipulates rights and obligations. Only a conservative could confuse a bureaucratic contract with a holy document.

Government exists merely to hand out and enforce legal contracts. We don't want a bureaucrat at the foot of every bed or hiding in every closet to make sure that each American practices the lifestyle and beliefs of conservatives. We want government not to care about our soul, our sexuality, our book purchases, etc. We want a minimalist state.

We want a minimalist state that doesn't play an activist role in morality or beliefs.

We want a minimalist state that hands out contracts and protects our right not to be harmed by others. We don't want Washington to legislate morality and impose a single set of values on all groups. We want maximum freedom for the maximum number of people.

Conservatives, on the other hand, want a big powerful government that imposes a single set of values on all people. In the 1800s they told us it wasn't natural for women to leave their domestic/biological destiny for public or civic leadership. We were told that women were too irrational to meet the rigorous mental demands of politics, and that they were more suited to being man's helper and providing a nurturing home.

Thank god we didn't let conservatives and traditionalists win that fight. Thank god we didn't let them define what was moral and normal behavior for women. [You get the picture right? Every generation of conservatives has a unique set of beliefs and values to be imposed by big government on the rest of us. They always find a group which is abnormal, evil or inferior, and who therefore deserves a lower status, with fewer rights]

Unfortunately, because the centralized power of Washington exists, we are still vulnerable to the centralization and violent imposition of a single value system, one that subjugates all outsiders to a singular system, much like communism, which itself limited a diversity of beliefs and practices for "the good of society".

God help us, because the Nazis were also driven by a very powerful conception of what was good and normal. Study eugenics. All it took was a massive economic downturn, which made the masses vulnerable to a charismatic leader promising moral renewal by expunging from the state all who were not pure.

God help us.

 

[Seawytch]

Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.

Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.

Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?

Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.

Mark

Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.

I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.

That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.

It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.

I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.

Used against me? Not a chance. You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?

Bullshit. Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc. But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.

Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not. Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them. The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion. It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.

Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.

Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?

Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.

It doesn't ******* matter, it's not about the children.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them. The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion. It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.

This, utter nonsense. No wonder you're Catholic, you can't ******* think. Just another dumb drunk Indian still stuck on the Rez, another fine American tradition.

 

[Seawytch]

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda. Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website. If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.

And so it goes with everything else.

The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with. There's no scandal here. The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself. Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.

It doesn't ******* matter, it's not about the children.

Ah, but that's not entirely true. Justice Kennedy brought up "the children":

"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

 

[Carib Gyal]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.

It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.

I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.

Used against me? Not a chance. You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.

I'ze American. Just as much as you are.

 

[80zephyr]

How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?

By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.

Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.

This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.

Michael Sam comes out, he's a "hero". Tebow kneels, people laugh.

Tebow's only mistake is he wasn't a gay Christian.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.

Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.

Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?

Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.

Mark

Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.

I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.

That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Isn't that the same as our belief that kids are "fucked up" being raised by queers? Do you have even one rational bone in your body?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda. Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website. If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.

And so it goes with everything else.

The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with. There's no scandal here. The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself. Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.

It doesn't ******* matter, it's not about the children.

Ah, but that's not entirely true. Justice Kennedy brought up "the children":

"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

Yes he did, and it still doesn't matter.

 

[Skylar]

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill ****** hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.

No, there hasn't. You're offering us anecdotal examples as evidence of a larger trend. But you can't factually establish the larger trend. Argument by Anecdote is a logical fallacy for a reason. And that fallacy is the beating heart of your argument.

Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.

The Family Research Council does what you do: they begin with a conclusion and then cherry pick what they believe supports that position. Where as credible studies begin with no conclusion and doesn't ignore results that contradict their hypothesis.

For example, do you think the Family Research Council would *ever* release results that indicated that gay and lesbian parents do as good a job of raising their families as straights, if that's what the evidence indicated? Of course not. How do we know? They already ignore and omit from mention the legion of research that shows the same.

They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically.

No, they don't. As they omit any results that don't meet their predefined position. The numerous studies that contradict them are never, ever mentioned. That's called cherry picking. Its a fallacy of logic and the antithesiss of the scientific method. As you only accept those results that affirm your hypothesis. And ignore all others. Giving you what is known among the world of science a 'confirmation bias'.

Which are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable.

Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

The Family Research Council is an organization dedicated to the promotion of their perspective on family. Which doens't include gays. You're equating that with say, the American Psychiatric Association, which has no such bias.

Worse, the FRC spins data to a ridiculous degree. Take the way they reached their stats on homosexuals and child abuse of roughly 30%. They counted every act of sexual abuse against a male child by a man as an attack by an homosexual. Even when 75% of these men were heterosexuals involved in a sexual relationship with that child's mother or female relative. With more than 99% of child abusers self identifying as heterosexual.

That's ridiculous. A heterosexual is defined as someone who is sexually attracted to women. Which 3 in 4 abusers of boys demonstratably are, as proven by their sexual relationships with women. And which 99% indicate they are.

Yet the FRC ignored all of that and simply imagined that any male abuser of a child is a male abuser. Even when the very report they were citing draws a HUGE distinction between homosexual pedophiles and homosexual adults, explicitly indicating they are not the same. That's spectacularly dishonest. Which is why no credible social scientists take the FRC seriously.

But you do...because they say what you want to believe. That's confirmation bias squared.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Alas, cherry picking doesn't provide you with a reliable data set, as you ignore anything that doesn't ape what you already believe. And as demonstrated by the FRC's gross and intentional misrepresentation of the sexual abuse numbers, what you're being fed aren't facts.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?

By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.

Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.

This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.

Michael Sam comes out, he's a "hero". Tebow kneels, people laugh.

Tebow's only mistake is he wasn't a gay Christian.

Tebow's mistake is he's a theocratic jerk who doesn't realize that God has better things to do than help him be the top dog in a ******* game!

 

[Seawytch]

The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?

Bullshit. Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc. But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.

Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not. Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them. The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion. It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.

Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.

Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.

 

[Coyote]

You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.

And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.

Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light. Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples. All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.

What statistics?

Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]

Family Research Council

Family Research Council? Seriously?

First of all - Pedophilia, if that is what you are referring to - is it's own category. Offenders are neither hetero nor homo but are attracted to prebuscent children and do not typically have or are able to sustain normal relationships with adults.

Second of all - "Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases" - well...sounds like you are making an argument that adoption should be limited to single women or lesbian couples only then

Why is pedophilia in its own category? Could it be that the left needs it to be, otherwise it would shed a bad light on the gays?

It has nothing to do with "left" or "right" but what is, not what you wish is.

Pedophilia - TIME

It s Not About Homosexuality Blaming the Wrong People for the Sexual Abuse Crisis Rev. James Martin S.J.

Pedophilia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted)... ​

... Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up. ​

Why should I believe you when you say its a separate category? Why is it that many pedophiles will ONLY attacks boys and not girls?

First question - it's not me that says it's a seperate category, it's the psychiatric profession, those who specialize in child sexual abuse, and other professionals.

I reject your "category" classification. Logic and reality tell me it has no basis in fact.

Mark

That's certainly your option but it goes against scientific research.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.

It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.

I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.

Used against me? Not a chance. You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.

I'ze American. Just as much as you are.

No, actually you aren't. You have legal standing of an American, that's all.

 

[80zephyr]

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest? Oh, we don't have one. Well, that's into the can then.

And stop signing your name. It's annoying and nobody gives a **** whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is. This isn't a letter to mommy.

The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.

Might as well call a man and a tree married. It won't make them so.

Oh, by the way, my name is...

Mark

Two men are marrying...probably as we speak and your opinion on the matter does not change the reality. Denying reality does not make that reality go away...it just makes you delusional.

Of course, they can legally marry. Biologically, can't happen. And, by society now calling them "married" doesn't make them so. Only the delusion that if it is legal makes it marriage does.

Mark

 

[Iceweasel]

Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them.

Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?

Where in the Constitution is your right to interstate travel? Do you believe the only rights you have are expressly enumerated in the Constitution? If so, your education fell short. Google "Fundamental Rights" and then Google:

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Wisconsin.

Then get back to us if you still have questions.

I'll get back to you right now, and I prefer a different search engine thankyouverymuch. You are the ill informed one here so you go google it.

The Constitution puts restrictions on government, there is nothing in the Constitution to restrict my travel. It's a right unless there's a reason, and there are public areas I can't go or am limited to some degree when I get there. And that has exactly what to do with two homosexuals mimicking marriage? States can define marriage how they want as long as it doesn't interfere with a Constitutional right, like a black man being treated differently than a white man.

Race, gender and religion ARE Constitutionally protected from government treating them differently. Now, go find sexual relationships or sexual preference in the Constitution and get back to us.

 

[Carib Gyal]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.

It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.

I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.

Used against me? Not a chance. You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.

I'ze American. Just as much as you are.

No, actually you aren't. You have legal standing of an American, that's all.

Yes, I am. I have the same rights as someone who thinks Americans and all of humanity are a disease and should be wiped off the face of the Earth.