What rights are the gays missing?

[Oscar Wao]

Your position is nothing less than a demand that schools must teach only what you feel is relevant to education... and that sis is YOU FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS. That you don't get that, is YOU demonstrating that YOU are a DUMBASS!

Science... Homosexuality is an incontrovertible ABNORMAL SEXUALITY...
Common Sense... Normalizing sexuality can only encourage others to succumb to the obsession of abnormal cravings...

Define: Normal

LOL, yeah, what is "normal" nowadays?

 

[Setarcos]

The only reason I can think of that PI would be so adamant that homosexuality is a choice (and that it matters) is that he has homosexual urges and feels that if he can resist them, everyone should be as self-loathing and unhappy as he is.

 

[Qball]

But a straight single male can get married if they want.

So can a gay single male.

Not to another gay male, the person he would chose to marry.
Not in 45 states at least.

Yeah, but then, neither could a straight male to another straight male, whom he might choose to marry if he could. Who knows?

Hmm. Guess that means things are equal under the law. Who woulda thunk?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

How would you consummate your marriage? No details please.

Consummation of marriage is a religious thing. I'm not religious.
F
A
I
L
Spells rdean


Care to address the point I made? Or do you just want to try and pretend your opinion is a fact?

A "marriage" with no sex? How is that a marriage? Why not just make him a "dependent"?

It's not a marriage... As marriage is the joining of a man and a woman... sanctifying their sexuality as one entity.

 

[Setarcos]

Let's try this again: there is no "right" to be in a government-subsidized romantic relationship. The government doesn't "owe" you its blessing, and no, saying that it does doesn't make it so.

The right to enter freely into legally binding contracts with another person.

...with the intent on getting a government hand-out for your relationship with that other person. Carefully parsing the issue doesn't change anything.

HOLY CRAP, YOU JUST DESCRIBED EVERY SINGLE MARRIAGE FILED WITH THE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES!!!


Can we trust on your vote for doing away with legal marriage altogether, then?

 

[Setarcos]

You would get things mixed up, wouldn't you? When people ask that question, they're referring to "rights" in the civil and individual sense, since many gay rights advocates will quickly tell you the gay political agenda is something of a civil rights movement. Listing benefits gay couples don't receive actually doesn't answer their question. If they really meant, "name regulated benefits gay couples don't get", then shoot, I'd be in the same boat as a straight, single male, and not only that, but there are plenty of benefits I don't get that I might want.

Let's try this again: there is no "right" to be in a government-subsidized romantic relationship. The government doesn't "owe" you its blessing, and no, saying that it does doesn't make it so.

But a straight single male can get married if they want.

So can a gay single male.

The former can marry his love, who is a consenting adult.

the latter cannot.

nice hole ya dug there

 

[Oscar Wao]

The only reason I can think of that PI would be so adamant that homosexuality is a choice (and that it matters) is that he has homosexual urges and feels that if he can resist them, everyone should be as self-loathing and unhappy as he is.

Now, come on, not EVERY person that's so adamant on the issue is necessarily gay.

Now, there are *cough* certain people on this board *cough* that I feel are resisting homo urges.

But Pubilus ain't one of 'em. He's arguing more from sociology/culture issues it seems. I disagree on some points, but labeling him a homophobe, nah.

 

[Oscar Wao]

The right to enter freely into legally binding contracts with another person.

...with the intent on getting a government hand-out for your relationship with that other person. Carefully parsing the issue doesn't change anything.

HOLY CRAP, YOU JUST DESCRIBED EVERY SINGLE MARRIAGE FILED WITH THE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES!!!


Can we trust on your vote for doing away with legal marriage altogether, then?

I'd be down for that

 

[manu1959]

No but it's a good start.

so all scientist have high intellect and all others don't....people such as doctors....philosophers...architects.....writers....are all of low intellect.....

btw ..are you a scientist....

Doctors ARE scientists. Probably the greatest architect of the last century was Philip Johnson, a gay man who also designed many famous Christian buildings, including, the Chrystal Cathedral.

Philip Johnson Alan Ritchie Architects - Home Page

Some of the most famous writers in American history were gay:
Walt Whitman, Henry James, Henry David Thoreau, H.D., Herman Melville, Elizabeth Bishop, James Baldwin, Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes, Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee, Hart Crane, Allen Ginsberg, Gertrude Stein, Audre Lorde, and Adrienne Rich.

oops.

you should really try to follow along......do you believe your post in support of my position or against it

 

[Qball]

The right to enter freely into legally binding contracts with another person.

...with the intent on getting a government hand-out for your relationship with that other person. Carefully parsing the issue doesn't change anything.

HOLY CRAP, YOU JUST DESCRIBED EVERY SINGLE MARRIAGE FILED WITH THE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES!!!


Can we trust on your vote for doing away with legal marriage altogether, then?

Nice try with the sleight of hand bit, but it's not working. There's no "right", or entitlement, to that. The government can decide how it regulates those subsidies, and it does, even in ways that deny heterosexual unions.

 

[Setarcos]

...with the intent on getting a government hand-out for your relationship with that other person. Carefully parsing the issue doesn't change anything.

HOLY CRAP, YOU JUST DESCRIBED EVERY SINGLE MARRIAGE FILED WITH THE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES!!!


Can we trust on your vote for doing away with legal marriage altogether, then?

I'd be down for that

Well at least we're getting somewhere.

What system would you then use to guide the inheritance property etc? Quite a bit of new law would need be drafted . What is your proposal?

 

[Qball]

But a straight single male can get married if they want.

So can a gay single male.

The former can marry his love, who is a consenting adult.

the latter cannot.

nice hole ya dug there

LOL, there is no right to marry your love, my friend. More importantly, we're discussing the law; well, we were up until you saw that you weren't making any sense so you decided to turn the argument into an issue of emotions. Supporters of gay marriage do it all the time.

 

[Setarcos]

The gov't can either recognize or deny a marriage. Loving V. Virginia established that they can't pick and choose whose they recognize w/out violation the 9th and 14th amendments.

 

[Setarcos]

So can a gay single male.

The former can marry his love, who is a consenting adult.

the latter cannot.

nice hole ya dug there

LOL, there is no right to marry your love, my friend. More importantly, we're discussing the law; well, we were up until you saw that you weren't making any sense so you decided to turn the argument into an issue of emotions. Supporters of gay marriage do it all the time.

right....


Seeing as I'm the only one in this thread to cite a decision by SCOTUS, it's evident that you're merely trying to to attack me instead of addressing the points made.

 

[Qball]

The gov't can either recognize or deny a marriage. Loving V. Virginia established that they can't pick and choose whose they recognize w/out violation the 9th and 14th amendments.

No, sorry. Loving only established that laws that criminalized marriage between Whites and other races (since interracial marriage wasn't so much illegal in the case of couples in which neither person was white) were unconstitutional. Neither the 9th nor the 14th Amendment have anything to do with it.

Try again.

 

[manu1959]

i would still like to know.....

what rights do gays not currently have that they would suddenly get if they gat to call their union a marriage.....

and

why do all the straights get the definition of their union taken from them.....

 

[Setarcos]

The gov't can either recognize or deny a marriage. Loving V. Virginia established that they can't pick and choose whose they recognize w/out violation the 9th and 14th amendments.

No, sorry. Loving only established that laws that criminalized marriage between Whites and other races (since interracial marriage wasn't so much illegal in the case of couples in which neither person was white) were unconstitutional. Neither the 9th nor the 14th Amendment have anything to do with it.

Try again.

Actually, in LvV, SCOTUS cited the 14th amendment

Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State

You fail. Care to try again?

The exact same arguments that were cited by the anti-miscegenation crowd are used by the anti-gay marriage crowd, and the same refutations apply.

 

[Qball]

The former can marry his love, who is a consenting adult.

the latter cannot.

nice hole ya dug there

LOL, there is no right to marry your love, my friend. More importantly, we're discussing the law; well, we were up until you saw that you weren't making any sense so you decided to turn the argument into an issue of emotions. Supporters of gay marriage do it all the time.

right....


Seeing as I'm the only one in this thread to cite a decision by SCOTUS, it's evident that you're merely trying to to attack me instead of addressing the points made.

What difference does it make if you cite a SCOTUS case if you know nothing about it?

 

[Setarcos]

i would still like to know.....

what rights do gays not currently have that they would suddenly get if they gat to call their union a marriage.....

and

why do all the straights get the definition of their union taken from them.....

They get equal legal rights and the benefits of marriage at the federal level


and if your union is defined by whether your neighbor gets fucked in the ass by her husband, what does that say about your relationship?

 

[alan1]

They also applied to any black person who married someone of their own race. SCOTUS already ruled such laws unconstitutional in Loving V. Virginia

You don't get it, do you?
The argument you are trying to use specifically identified people based upon an identifiable and obvious characteristic (black skin). Those outdated (and now non-existent) laws specifically said "black". Where is a law that specifically says "homosexual"?

Let me google that for you

Any more stupid questions?

And where does any of that specifically state "homosexuals" as the reason for law?

Any more stupid answers?