What rights are the gays missing?

[alan1]

Frank says D.C. gay rights march misses mark - Yahoo! News

snip,

Many gay rights advocates have criticized President Barack Obama for not moving faster to keep his campaign promises to extend gay rights, and Congress has also drawn flak for not doing more.

I just re-read The Bill of Rights, I'm curious, which rights outlined in that document do not apply to gays?

 

[Qball]

The right to make the government make people like them.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Homo Agenda seeks to have a Constitutional Amendment that makes fudge packing mandatory for all male citizens over the age of 8 years old.

 

[alan1]

The Homo Agenda seeks to have a Constitutional Amendment that makes fudge packing mandatory for all male citizens over the age of 8 years old.

Like this?

 

[Sunni Man]

The Homo Agenda seeks to have a Constitutional Amendment that makes fudge packing mandatory for all male citizens over the age of 8 years old.

Like this?

Not exactly

 

[RodISHI]

The right to make the government make people like them.

From a lot of what I've read on these message boards I'd say that nailed it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Frank says D.C. gay rights march misses mark - Yahoo! News

snip,

Many gay rights advocates have criticized President Barack Obama for not moving faster to keep his campaign promises to extend gay rights, and Congress has also drawn flak for not doing more.

I just re-read The Bill of Rights, I'm curious, which rights outlined in that document do not apply to gays?

There are no rights which the sexually abnormal do not possess... what they are seeking are special rights... rights to make things "FAIR" as THEY SEE FAIR...

What the homosexuals are demanding is tantamount to a RIGHT for any football fan to be placed in the NFL roster as a starting player for the position of their 'choice.' Ya see, it isn't FAIR... that to be a starting player, you have to meet certain high physical standards.

Just as it is not FAIR that to have one's license for marriage accepted... by virtue of one having to meet the exceedingly LOW standard that the applicants be limited to two individuals and that each represent the respective and distinct physical GENDERS.

Thus what's the problem? The problem, as Homosexual's see it, is that it is NOT FAIR that a standard would preclude their participation in a cultural activity, institution or other such circumstance.

That NO ONE is forbidding ANY homosexual from participating in the institution... is irrelevant to their argument. That they have through their OWN CHOICE, opted to engage in homosexual relations... and that where they were to CHOOSE to simply follow the standards which the insitutuion requires... their license would be accepted in each and every case; is also irrelevant. They demand that THEIR CHOICE be accepted... that their abnomality be normalized... they're demanding the right to reject the responsibilities on which their rights REST... they want you to believe that homosexuality is biological, genetic and that they represent a third gender: Shim... And this despite there being absolutely no evidence of any kind that there is 'shim' gene... proving that despite all of the crying to the contrary, that homosexuality is a CHOICE. Now you may be stuck with a sexual craving for someone of your gender... but you damn sure are not incapable of acting upon that craving.

Understand what these idiots are saying... that because they're sexual appetite orbits around one particular fetish, or focus... that they can't help acting upon that craving... they're helpless! And it ain't FAIR that they can't act on that craving without the world applauding their perversion and re-adjusting sound cultural standards so that they can play house.

And this without regard for the kids who will inevitably be effected by the normalization of this behavior... who will engage in homosexual acts... who would otherwise have been lead away from such. The homosexuals will deny this... but they do so in the face of the absolute reality of such.

Now understand what that means... THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PLACE IN THE US WHICH PROHIBITS A PERSON WHO CLAIMS 'HOMOSEXUAL' STATUS... FROM BEING ACCEPTED IN MARRIAGE. NOT ONE! NO WHERE...

The standard simply requires that any application for marriage be presented with TWO individual applicants EACH REPRESENTING THE DISTINCT GENDERS... and THAT is too high a standard to accomodate their twisted sense of 'FAIRNESS'...

 

[rightwinger]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

 

[Sunni Man]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

The next group to try to use the 14 Amendment to protect their sick lifestyles after homosexuals. Will be people into beastuality, pedophelia, and other perverse lifestyles.

 

[rightwinger]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

The next group to try to use the 14 Amendment to protect their sick lifestyles after homosexuals. Will be people into beastuality, pedophelia, and other perverse lifestyles.

Your side has tried to use that same tired argument since homosexuals started to fight for their rights. Your problem is that homosexuals are not violating any laws and they are consenting adults.
Our Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment has been used to protect those rights.

 

[alan1]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

Good one.
I will give you the laws about serving as members of the armed forces.
I won't give you the one about marrying the person of their choice, because a non-homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex either if they choose to do so. That law applies equally to all sexual orientations.

 

[Qball]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

We also have laws prohibiting heterosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. What if the person I want to marry is already married? A minor child? Dead? The right to marriage has never been for "whomever you choose". It also has never been reserved solely for heterosexuals, as evidenced by the fact that even a gay man could legally marry a woman, but a straight man couldn't legally marry another man.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell prohibits them from serving openly, even though there are plenty of stories of gay soldiers who have come out to their comrades and said nobody had a problem with it. However, there's no "right" to serve in the military. They can deny you entry for a host of reasons, and can kick you out for any host of reasons, too.

 

[alan1]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [B]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [/B]

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

You put it in bold, I put it in red, tell me, what states are doing that? Please be specific and provide proof that equal protection of a law is violated based upon sexual orientation.

 

[bodecea]

Frank says D.C. gay rights march misses mark - Yahoo! News

snip,

Many gay rights advocates have criticized President Barack Obama for not moving faster to keep his campaign promises to extend gay rights, and Congress has also drawn flak for not doing more.

I just re-read The Bill of Rights, I'm curious, which rights outlined in that document do not apply to gays?

Are you saying that the Bill of Rights lists all rights afforded American citizens?

 

[bodecea]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

But...but...but the 14th amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it apparently doesn't count.

 

[Sunni Man]

Fifty years ago, no American would have ever dreamed that there would be legal sodomite marriage, homos in the military, or faggot couples allowed to adopt children.

So it's not hard to imagine 50 years from now; legal pedophilia and legal beastuality.

 

[alan1]

Frank says D.C. gay rights march misses mark - Yahoo! News

snip,

Many gay rights advocates have criticized President Barack Obama for not moving faster to keep his campaign promises to extend gay rights, and Congress has also drawn flak for not doing more.

I just re-read The Bill of Rights, I'm curious, which rights outlined in that document do not apply to gays?

Are you saying that the Bill of Rights lists all rights afforded American citizens?

Are you saying you can't find a right restricted to only non-homosexuals?
Right-winger found one, and I acknowledged it.
Wanna dance? Turn the music on.

 

[rightwinger]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

Good one.
I will give you the laws about serving as members of the armed forces.
I won't give you the one about marrying the person of their choice, because a non-homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex either if they choose to do so. That law applies equally to all sexual orientations.

So you are saying that a non-homosexual would be prohibited from marrying someone of their same sex?

Is that kind of like where a homosexual is currently prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

ROFLMNAO...

Well then, using this species of reasoning... which is "fairness"... it's not FAIR that homosexuality is abnormal, so to make it fair, we have to contrive that the abnormal is normal...

Thus pedophiles are normal, beastiality is normal... bank robbery is normal... autotheft is normal... public masterbation is normal... anything that some dumbass conjures which suits their cravings, thus fills their needs... thus compels them to engage in such; must be considered normal.

That it violates the rights of another... too fucking bad for them.

"What Rights do consensual Homosexuals violate?" The right to establish sound, sustainable cultural standards... which defend the culture from the calamitous effects which such behavior must inevitably manifest. The Right to hold to sound standards of behavior, which is rooted in the RESPONSIBILITY TO BEHAVE WITHIN THOSE SOUND STANDARDS.

Now where you claim that there is no such right... well ya just screwed yourself out of an argument. Because THAT is what you're claiming... the right to establish sound standards... sadly, you making the claim based upon a standard which is unsustaianble.

Which as it always does... brings the points of the debate home and closes any means fot he opposition to prevail... rendering their game checked and mated.

 

[rightwinger]

Fifty years ago, no American would have ever dreamed that there would be legal sodomite marriage, homos in the military, or faggot couples allowed to adopt children.

So it's not hard to imagine 50 years from now; legal pedophilia and legal beastuality.

50 years ago a black person could not marry a white person in many parts of the United States