What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[Syriusly]

If you want SSM legalized, then you need a constitutional amendment. otherwise this will continue for years.

when the constitution is silent on something we need amendments, thats why we have the ones we already have.

Well that's not true. A number of States currently have SSCM based solely on State level action through the legislature and ballot votes.


>>>>

some states will never recognize it. If you want it recognized nationally, you need a constitutional amendment.

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

 

[Dragonlady]

Well, you know, there comes a day in everyone's life when they have to decide whether or not to be gay. I'm sure you all remember that particular day in your own lives.

"Hmmmm, should I be gay or straight? Henceforth, when I see a woman with big boobs, should I pass on that and go for some dude with a buff body instead? This is so hard!"

And that is how we know God didn't make people gay. He made us all straight, and some dipshits have decided to go against the grain just to be dicks.

"If I decide to be bisexual, will I be twice as likely to get a date for Saturday night?"

Gee, one would think I would remember making such a momentous decision in my life but sadly, I just can't recall ever even thinking about whether I would date men or women because I wasn't ever attracted to other women.

If you had to even think about whether or not to be gay, you're probably gay, or at least bi. I have my suspicions about those claiming to be bi because every bi-sexual person I've met turned out to be on the "bi now, gay later" plan.

I believe that God made gays and God doesn't make mistakes so He must have done it intentionally. I also believe that those who treat gays badly are guilty of judging their behaviour and that they should judge not lest they be judged.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is not a right.

Let's stipulate that marriage in and of itself is not a right. Okay.

Religious rites, for the most part, are a right. So if you are married in a religious framework, no one can take that away from you.

Now, how exactly does a same sex marriage impinge on your religious rite of marriage?

It doesn't. Not in any way. Your marriage does not have to be redefined in your church so that gays can get married somewhere outside of your brand of religion.


Let's suppose for a moment that the state and federal governments decided to award $10,000 to anyone who buys a bicycle. However, they deny this award to anyone who is a homosexual. And this practice is maintained with the sanction of the whole society for over 200 years.

What possible rational basis could you give for continuing the denial of that award to gays?

You couldn't. All you have is, "We've always discriminated against this group."

That $10,000 award was established by law. And so we come back to rights again. The right to equal protection of the laws. And that is where the right to marriage recognized and awarded by the states' laws applies.

We have no rational basis for denying the cash and prizes to gays that everyone else is awarded by law for getting married.

Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?

We all know the reason, now don't we? Its because the gay agenda is to use the government to mandate societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority consider to be deviant and wrong.

It wasn't 'gays' who objected to the term 'civil union'- Fundamentalists insisted that gays be denied 'civil unions' also.

Look at Georgia- where the same law that made 'gay marriage' illegal, also did the same for civil unions and any similar arrangement.

The bigots have been using the government to mandate societal disapproval of homosexuality for decades- this is just another example.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right repeatedly

So there's no reason to hear this one if it's the same as race. But wait...they are hearing it because it isn't like race at all. If they rule two men can marry then there's no reason a guy can't marry his dad or dad and three brothers. It will be their right.

LOL.....wow is that the best you have?

The Supreme Court has ruled on gun ownership laws multiple times- does that mean there is no need for the Supreme Court to hear the case if Kansas passes a law outlawing the ownership of shotguns?

I don't know why you suddenly want to bring race into the marriage issue- but the Supreme Court has ruled at least three times on state marriage laws- regarding mixed race marriage bans, bans on marrying if a person owes child support and bans on inmates getting married- ruling in each case that these laws/rules were unconstitutional infringements on the right to marriage.

And just like those three cases- the Supreme Court will rule on the bans on 'gay marriage'.

If you want to pursue marrying your dad or your three brothers- you will have to file suit yourself- that is not before the courts, nor is it the same issue.

Sure it is. You want to move the goal posts your way, period. If two men can marry what arguement would you use against a man and his dad?

See this is where you are either dishonest or fundamentally ignorant of the issue.

We have the right to marry- and the state can only take away that right with a compelling state interest. A large number of states passed laws specifically to ensure that gay couples could not marry. Those laws were challenged, and the courts told the states:
"What are the compelling state interest to prevent gays from marrying?'- and the States were as unable as yourself to provide such a compelling state interest."

Marrying a parent or a child is a different issue- a completely different issue- it is as different as asking what the compelling state interest was in banning mixed race marriages.

I can think of some compelling reasons why the State would ban the marriages between a Mother and son- or between a Father and son- more than "its icky"- can't you?

Wrong. Don't lecture me with your ignorance and claim the high ground. There is right to marry anyone you want, that's why I asked the question. You can't answer for obvious reasons. There's no reason to deny a dad/son marriage except on social repulsion. Also, states vary on how close the blood line can be between those wanting to tie the knot. What rule should they follow for two like genders and why?

The bottom line is inescapable, gays want the bar moved to include them in marriage to mimic the relationship men and women have enjoyed over time. There's nothing outlining what marriage should be in the Constitution for the states regarding gender or quantity.

 

[Syriusly]

Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?

"Separate but equal", eh?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Gay civil unions are still not equal. Gay people in a state that does not recognize gay marriages are doubly penalized. Because their state does not recognize their marriage, they don't qualify for federal cash and prizes, either.

If they cash and prizes are equal, then they are equal. Why the obsession with the word?

The bigots only started asking that question when it suddenly looked like the courts would make marriage legal for gay couples.

Until then- they fought civil unions as much as marriage.

 

[Iceweasel]

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

Silly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right repeatedly

So there's no reason to hear this one if it's the same as race. But wait...they are hearing it because it isn't like race at all. If they rule two men can marry then there's no reason a guy can't marry his dad or dad and three brothers. It will be their right.

LOL.....wow is that the best you have?

The Supreme Court has ruled on gun ownership laws multiple times- does that mean there is no need for the Supreme Court to hear the case if Kansas passes a law outlawing the ownership of shotguns?

I don't know why you suddenly want to bring race into the marriage issue- but the Supreme Court has ruled at least three times on state marriage laws- regarding mixed race marriage bans, bans on marrying if a person owes child support and bans on inmates getting married- ruling in each case that these laws/rules were unconstitutional infringements on the right to marriage.

And just like those three cases- the Supreme Court will rule on the bans on 'gay marriage'.

If you want to pursue marrying your dad or your three brothers- you will have to file suit yourself- that is not before the courts, nor is it the same issue.

Sure it is. You want to move the goal posts your way, period. If two men can marry what arguement would you use against a man and his dad?

See this is where you are either dishonest or fundamentally ignorant of the issue.

We have the right to marry- and the state can only take away that right with a compelling state interest. A large number of states passed laws specifically to ensure that gay couples could not marry. Those laws were challenged, and the courts told the states:
"What are the compelling state interest to prevent gays from marrying?'- and the States were as unable as yourself to provide such a compelling state interest."

Marrying a parent or a child is a different issue- a completely different issue- it is as different as asking what the compelling state interest was in banning mixed race marriages.

I can think of some compelling reasons why the State would ban the marriages between a Mother and son- or between a Father and son- more than "its icky"- can't you?

Wrong. Don't lecture me with your ignorance and claim the high ground. There is right to marry anyone you want, that's why I asked the question. You can't answer for obvious reasons. There's no reason to deny a dad/son marriage except on social repulsion. Also, states vary on how close the blood line can be between those wanting to tie the knot. What rule should they follow for two like genders and why?

The bottom line is inescapable, gays want the bar moved to include them in marriage to mimic the relationship men and women have enjoyed over time. There's nothing outlining what marriage should be in the Constitution for the states regarding gender or quantity.

I will lecture you however I feel like. And I enjoy lecturing you.

If you can't see what harm could result from a parent being allowed to marry their child- then I am sorry- I really can't help you.

But when it comes to the courts- the courts will be considering same gender couples only.

If you want to marry your father or daughter- you can go to court and make that argument- and the States will be quite capable of arguing exactly the compelling state interest they have in denying your marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

Silly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?

No-its reality

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

 

[Seawytch]

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

Silly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?

The bigots of yore wanted to discriminate based on race. Bigots today want to discriminate based on gender. There's no difference in the discrimination.

 

[kaz]

God made bacon too but forbade that. Trouble with that particular arguement.

He also made poisonous mushrooms and rattlesnakes.

And ticks, fleas and cockroaches.

No, I don't mean the radical, fundie RW kind.

Really, I can't think of even one reason why people should be so invested in harming gays. Live and let live, MYOB and all that.

So you have no problem with NAMBLA????

Irrelevant to the discussion, which is referring specifically to gay sex between consenting adults

But see Gay sex was considered earlier to be just as deviant as anyone that belong to NAMBLA. With the continual eroding of civilized behavior
you should have no problem with a pedofiliac's behavior which in some cases is the extension of gay acceptance.

The thread is about consenting adults, not crimes with a victim

 

[kaz]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I have to say though the gay couples I know seem pretty happy, I don't see how they are doing anything unhealthy for their soul

You're welcome!
I 'm sure your friends seem happy and they probably are. Our soul lies deep inside of us, it's not something we wear on our sleeve. I've had brief sexual encounters with women I didn't even know. One night stands I guess. They made me happy as hell but deep down I knew it was wrong for me to do.

My soul and conscience spoke to me but like any other human I have the capability of not listening. I'm no expert but this is what I believe from my experiences of all the years I've been on earth.

I have Gay friends and family also. Many times I've seen them move from Gay relationships to Straight relationships. This tells me there are conflicts within them. That is not healthy and it's far from being a rare occurrence. In fact it's very common.

Interesting, I've never seen that

 

[kaz]

The Bible is a guide, not an instruction manual. Things like intentionally harming other people are consistently wrong. But God wanted you to think

That's your point of view, but, right or wrong, millions of Christians disagree with you.

Well, I guess their spouses are probably faithful so they don't get stoned to death

You're basically nullifying it and making it worthless, which is your prerogative of course.

Interesting, we feel the complete reverse on that. I want a parent when I am five who tells me what to do. By the time I'm 15, I want to understand why. I get a lot more out of life in growth than being told exactly what to do, but if that's what those Christians want I guess it's not for me to disagree.

There are verses that deal with the situation you describe, as a matter of fact, if you allow innocents to suffer without aiding them when you have the capability to aid, you are as guilty of their death as the person who actually committed the deed.

I don't have a wife, but I wouldn't stone my husband to death were he to cheat on me either, but not quite sure what that has to do with anything?

You don't get to stone your husband to death for cheating on him, only he gets to stone you to death. And seriously, you don't get my point? The Bible says at one point the crime for a cheating wife is being stoned to death. You are saying you don't think, you just do what the bible says, so...

 

[rdean]

What is wrong with being gay exactly?

Right wingers feel left out.

 

[Iceweasel]

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

Silly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?

No-its reality

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

The court does make political rulings, like Row V Wade. There's no basis to deny states the right to protect babies. But the point you can't get through your very thick skull is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.

Nor can you answer what definition the states should have regarding bloodlines since it doesn't matter with like gendered couples.

 

[Seawytch]

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

Silly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?

No-its reality

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

The court does make political rulings, like Row V Wade. There's no basis to deny states the right to protect babies.

Uh, yeah there was. It was called a right to privacy.

But the point you can't get through your very thick skull is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.

Nor can you answer what definition the states should have regarding bloodlines since it doesn't matter with like gendered couples.

You're going to find out you can't treat gender differently either. Marriage does not changing by ending gender discrimination.

States already do have different definitions regarding bloodlines and marriage. Some allow first cousins to marry, some don't. The marriages, however, are valid in all 50.

 

[Edgetho]

States already do have different definitions regarding bloodlines and marriage. Some allow first cousins to marry,

I didn't know that. Interesting that you would

That explains a lot

 

[Seawytch]

States already do have different definitions regarding bloodlines and marriage. Some allow first cousins to marry,

I didn't know that. Interesting that you would

That explains a lot

Yes, it explains that I've been having to explain civil marriage laws to ignorant bigots.

 

[Iceweasel]

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

Silly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?

No-its reality

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

The court does make political rulings, like Row V Wade. There's no basis to deny states the right to protect babies.

Uh, yeah there was. It was called a right to privacy.

Uuuugh no, most Constitutional experts disagree. If you were right it would be legal to kill your baby in the crib.

I said:

But the point you can't get through your very thick skull is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.

Nor can you answer what definition the states should have regarding bloodlines since it doesn't matter with like gendered couples.

You're going to find out you can't treat gender differently either. Marriage does not changing by ending gender discrimination.

States already do have different definitions regarding bloodlines and marriage. Some allow first cousins to marry, some don't. The marriages, however, are valid in all 50.

Liar. Genders are treated differently, we still have male and female restrooms. States have bloodline laws for a reason, that reason goes out the window with like gender. Just because some people cannot see gender as important doesn't mean society needs to bow to their ignorance.

Who's paying you to troll these boards anyway?

 

[Seawytch]

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

Silly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?

No-its reality

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

The court does make political rulings, like Row V Wade. There's no basis to deny states the right to protect babies.

Uh, yeah there was. It was called a right to privacy.

Uuuugh no, most Constitutional experts disagree. If you were right it would be legal to kill your baby in the crib.

Link to "most". Inside my body is not the same as outside my body. Basic anatomy.

But the point you can't get through your very thick skull is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.

Nor can you answer what definition the states should have regarding bloodlines since it doesn't matter with like gendered couples.

You're going to find out you can't treat gender differently either. Marriage does not changing by ending gender discrimination.

States already do have different definitions regarding bloodlines and marriage. Some allow first cousins to marry, some don't. The marriages, however, are valid in all 50.[/QUOTE]

Liar. Genders are treated differently, we still have male and female restrooms. States have bloodline laws for a reason, that reason goes out the window with like gender. Just because some people cannot see gender as important doesn't mean society needs to bow to their ignorance.

Are separate bathrooms decreed by law? Is there a prohibition on gender neutral bathrooms? Are bathroom restrictions being challenged? How are they going?

Who's paying you to troll these boards anyway?

You are...

 

[PredFan]

It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.

An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.

No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.
t.

Glad to keep posting the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage- you can disagree with the Supreme Court, but unless you have a reading comprehension issue- you can't deny that they have indeed said that marriage is 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."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Loving is about race, it says nothing about same sex marriage.

If you want SSM legalized, then you need a constitutional amendment. otherwise this will continue for years.

when the constitution is silent on something we need amendments, thats why we have the ones we already have.
.

Sorry- we don't live in the world of your pretend Constitution and laws.

The Supreme Court has ruled on constitutionality of State marriage laws three times already- and is preparing to do so again this year.

No constitutional amendment required- any more than there was a need for a Constitutional Amendment in the Loving case.

FINALLY you said something that was true. The SCOTUS rulings never actually claimed that marriage was a right. Do you have it straight now? Because I'm tired of trying to educate you.