What rights are the gays missing?

[Sunni Man]

Discrimination is synonymous with ignorance.

Not according to the dictionary

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I can't imagine what makes people so vehement about this subject. Nobody can force being gay upon one. They must have some deep seated inner phobia or be nosy control freaks.

I don't think so. The conservative right is an odd bunch.

They insist they don't want to be told what to do by "big government" yet have leaders that tell them the most outrageous and nonsensical things, yet they eat it up like pablum.

They want government out of the bedroom, yet have this lurid fascination with gays and "what they must be doing".

So you feel that the public courthouse is something akin to the bed-room?

It never ceases to fascinate me how you twisted fucks can't come to grips with the meaning of privacy... it's your eternal standard you wave, even as you're standing on flat bed trailers in open-asses leather chaps, shouting your presents and your PUBLIC PRIDE IN BEING DEVIENTS, or on the steps to the Courthouse as you demand more PUBLIC policy to advance your EXCEEDINGLY PUBLIC SEXUALITY.

The truth is, there's absolutely NOTHING private about the homosexual advocacy. It's about nothing if it is not about the public normalization of the sexually abnormal and turning PUBLIC POLICY in so doing.

 

[rdean]

I can't imagine what makes people so vehement about this subject. Nobody can force being gay upon one. They must have some deep seated inner phobia or be nosy control freaks.

That may be true, however, there are many people who are not sostrong. The young, for whom sex is a pleasure, and can be accomplished in a variety of ways. The gay person can be enticed to pleasure. if they like it, and if society says it is a norman and appropriate behavior, then you have gay sex even hapening among straights. There are people who are enticing young males with money to have sex with guys, and even some of them will do it on video.
I was a Parole Officer, working with adults, and I had a sex offender caseload. I got to see a lot of information through the law enforcement agencies that some people don't get to see or hear about. Some of these guys who follow money end up entrapped in the sexual culture, no matter if it is straight or homosexual. If society begins to say that this is OK, and acceptable for anyone, they force may not be the word, but enticement.

I don't want that for my Grand Children. Keep it illegal, for it will remain immoral. In the schools gay sex is very common, even for straights. it is often about sex these days, not just about attractions all the time.

I don't hate gays. I just don't want my Grand kids and beyond being subjected to the sexual behavior as if it was a normal everyday behavior. That is what has happened to sex in general, thanks to the media. Sexual behavior and discussions about it, even among what used to be a respected group opf people, women and children. Dirty jokes in public meetings is common. When you are around the garbage for very long, you begin to not smell it any longer. America ia beginning to look and smell like a dump!

Then perhaps, instead of concentrating on the "gay aspect", and working to "stop" something, perhaps those "concerned" straights might better spend that money and time to help out those young people to so they don't resort to "making a few dollars" by selling their bodies. There are way, way more young girls doing that than young men. This has to be one of the most silly arguments yet. Sorry. I just had to laugh a little.

 

[rdean]

Gay couples want the same protections and rights given married couples. These include inheritance and property rights, medical coverage and decisions, child custody, insurance and divorce.

USATODAY.com - Gay-marriage foes try to stop 'activist courts'

Imagine this. A man is kicked out of his home at 15 for being gay. 45 years later, after he put himself though school and started a business with another man who he lived with for 30 years, he develops cancer. While he is in a coma, his "first cousin" who he never met, shows up and bans his boyfriend from visiting him in the hospital. He dies. The first cousin takes the boyfriend to court and is awarded half the house, half the money and half the business. The boyfriend is economically devastated and the 15 year old adopted son receives nothing because he was adopted by the "wrong gay".

Now, while I'm sure that Republicans would be cheering over bringing this much devastation to a gay household, many other Americans understand that it's evil. So, what rights do gays want? What a stupid, idiotic question.

While I am not a "republican" I am a conservative. I am not cheering on the behavior you have addressed above. Also, "SOME" republicans may be cheering this on, not all, or even most.

I believe families have very bad behavior arounf dunerals and family member deaths. They become greedy and selfish. Even liberals and Democrats are included as parts of this behavior.

I believe we have to have a more responsible response about relationships. The family had no business butting in at that point.

The truth is, for MOST Republicans, where gays are concerned, there is no "real" family. Many on the right feel that gays don't have the same "feelings". That gay feelings are less "real". Only "true" love can be between a man and a woman.

You will never change their tiny minds. All you can do is keep fighting and never give up.
Bestiality
Pedophilia
Incest
Robbery

The fact that those aren't reasonable arguments proves that those aren't reasonable people.

 

[Sunni Man]

Then perhaps, instead of concentrating on the "gay aspect", and working to "stop" something, perhaps those "concerned" straights might better spend that money and time to help out those young people to so they don't resort to "making a few dollars" by selling their bodies.

So you are saying if young people reject the homosexual lifestyle. They will most likely become prostitutes!!!

 

[rdean]

I can't imagine what makes people so vehement about this subject. Nobody can force being gay upon one. They must have some deep seated inner phobia or be nosy control freaks.

I don't think so. The conservative right is an odd bunch.

They insist they don't want to be told what to do by "big government" yet have leaders that tell them the most outrageous and nonsensical things, yet they eat it up like pablum.

They want government out of the bedroom, yet have this lurid fascination with gays and "what they must be doing".

So you feel that the public courthouse is something akin to the bed-room?

It never ceases to fascinate me how you twisted fucks can't come to grips with the meaning of privacy... it's your eternal standard you wave, even as you're standing on flat bed trailers in open-asses leather chaps, shouting your presents and your PUBLIC PRIDE IN BEING DEVIENTS, or on the steps to the Courthouse as you demand more PUBLIC policy to advance your EXCEEDINGLY PUBLIC SEXUALITY.

The truth is, there's absolutely NOTHING private about the homosexual advocacy. It's about nothing if it is not about the public normalization of the sexually abnormal and turning PUBLIC POLICY in so doing.

It's precisely the fact that they don't have equal rights that brings it out into the public moron. Are there more at home like you? It must cost the government lots of money in keepers and housing.

 

[rdean]

Then perhaps, instead of concentrating on the "gay aspect", and working to "stop" something, perhaps those "concerned" straights might better spend that money and time to help out those young people to so they don't resort to "making a few dollars" by selling their bodies.

So you are saying if young people reject the homosexual lifestyle. They will most likely become prostitutes!!!

No, you're saying that because you don't know any better. Pity.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

You've got those taking points down pat, although they're a little old now.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, MM...I guess you at least care enough to spend your Saturday thinking about it.



What other rights are you willing to give up because someone thinks it's icky?

Loaded question.
I expect everybody to stand up for their rights. I grow weary of people claiming their rights are violated or missing when they just happen to have the exact same rights everybody else has.

You either believe the government grants us rights or you believe we have a right to do whatever we want unless there is a compelling reason against our actions.

You fall into the former camp, I fall into the latter.

As long as you believe the government grants us rights you will always believe the government can regulate marriage, and therefore you will be able to justify refusing gays the ability to marry.

But you don't really care, of course, you just think big government is okay in this case.

ROFLMNAO...

Now this is some seriously convoluted reasoning...

So Homosexuality is a natural right? Well my goodness... that is just adorable!

Well that's quite a theory... so let's get right to work testing it.

For Homosexuality to be a Right, what would be the responsibility which would sustain that right?

I mean the right to life is sustained by the responsibility to not exercise one's life to the detriment of another's right to their life... The Right own and use a firearm is sustained by the same responsibility... The right to speak freely... the very same.

So I wonder Ravi, what responsibility does the right to succumb to the devient cravings for abnormal sexual behavior bear?

And FTR: a right cannot exist absent a sustaining responsibility; and failure to recognize such does not excuse one from their failure to adequately bear those responsibilities...

Now one could argue that the right to such is sustained by the responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another's right... maybe bearing that responsibility would be KEEPING IT TO YOURSELF! Not forcing you decadence upon others... I mean that would follow the whole "its a private matter!" reasoning... Keeping it private, would go a long way towards sustaining the right.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You are such a "wipe", a "stain".

It's kinda cool how the advocates of homosexuality are so consistantly fixated on the anus? Even in their abject failures; where they are unable to advance an intellectually sound retort, they can't resist framing it in terms which expose their own perverse obsessions.

There is nothing intellectual based on discrimination. Discrimination is synonymous with ignorance.

Well as dissemblence goes... that was fairly lame...

But it's out there, so what the hell?

Actually discrimination is based in the biological imperative to survive... Where one chooses to avoid exposure to that which represent harm, discomfort, or to that which is to be avoided.

Can discrimination be based upon ignorance? Sure... But as a general rule, those who fail to discriminate, suffer severe and often catastrophic results from such follishness.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Interesting question.

Hmmmm, blacks (and others) in America had their rights violated even though there were laws protecting them....and...just that a document grants or acknowledges rights means diddly squat if those rights are not somehow protected.

I guess some people think what the bible says trumps what the Bill of Rights says.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's kinda cool how the advocates of homosexuality are so consistantly fixated on the anus? Even in their abject failures; where they are unable to advance an intellectually sound retort, they can't resist framing it in terms which expose their own perverse obsessions.

There is nothing intellectual based on discrimination. Discrimination is synonymous with ignorance.

Well as dissemblence goes... that was fairly lame...

But it's out there, so what the hell?

Actually discrimination is based in the biological imperative to survive... Where one chooses to avoid exposure to that which represent harm, discomfort, or to that which is to be avoided.

Can discrimination be based upon ignorance? Sure... But as a general rule, those who fail to discriminate, suffer severe and often catastrophic results from such follishness.

Biological imperative to survive?

Prejudices are not biological imperatives. Prejudices are neither inherently good nor bad.

Those who fail to adapt to change are doomed to extinction.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Gay couples want the same protections and rights given married couples. These include inheritance and property rights, medical coverage and decisions, child custody, insurance and divorce.

USATODAY.com - Gay-marriage foes try to stop 'activist courts'

Imagine this. A man is kicked out of his home at 15 for being gay. 45 years later, after he put himself though school and started a business with another man who he lived with for 30 years, he develops cancer. While he is in a coma, his "first cousin" who he never met, shows up and bans his boyfriend from visiting him in the hospital. He dies. The first cousin takes the boyfriend to court and is awarded half the house, half the money and half the business. The boyfriend is economically devastated and the 15 year old adopted son receives nothing because he was adopted by the "wrong gay".

Now, while I'm sure that Republicans would be cheering over bringing this much devastation to a gay household, many other Americans understand that it's evil. So, what rights do gays want? What a stupid, idiotic question.

While I am not a "republican" I am a conservative. I am not cheering on the behavior you have addressed above. Also, "SOME" republicans may be cheering this on, not all, or even most.

I believe families have very bad behavior arounf dunerals and family member deaths. They become greedy and selfish. Even liberals and Democrats are included as parts of this behavior.

I believe we have to have a more responsible response about relationships. The family had no business butting in at that point.

The truth is, for MOST Republicans, where gays are concerned, there is no "real" family. Many on the right feel that gays don't have the same "feelings". That gay feelings are less "real". Only "true" love can be between a man and a woman.

You will never change their tiny minds. All you can do is keep fighting and never give up.
Bestiality
Pedophilia
Incest
Robbery

The fact that those aren't reasonable arguments proves that those aren't reasonable people.

What's not reasonable about those arguments... as you've projected them, of course.

And please, be specific; at least to the extent that your intellectual limitations allow.

Now set back and enjoy the response friends...

Highest probability is the challenge goes ignored... if she works up the courage to respond, we'll find that she will be unable to show how ANY of whatever 'argument' she finds in her isolated examples of other sexual abnomralities and behavior's relevant to low moral character... are unreasonable arguments; as there is virtually no distinction from any of the sexual abnormalities listed and the abnormlaity of homosexuality.

But it should be interesting to watch the sub-intellect stretch for something of which they're incapable.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

You are such a "wipe", a "stain".

It's kinda cool how the advocates of homosexuality are so consistantly fixated on the anus? Even in their abject failures; where they are unable to advance an intellectually sound retort, they can't resist framing it in terms which expose their own perverse obsessions.

I've yet to see an advocate of gay rights speak publicly about his anus. If you have, by all means give us an example.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

While I am not a "republican" I am a conservative. I am not cheering on the behavior you have addressed above. Also, "SOME" republicans may be cheering this on, not all, or even most.

I believe families have very bad behavior arounf dunerals and family member deaths. They become greedy and selfish. Even liberals and Democrats are included as parts of this behavior.

I believe we have to have a more responsible response about relationships. The family had no business butting in at that point.

The truth is, for MOST Republicans, where gays are concerned, there is no "real" family. Many on the right feel that gays don't have the same "feelings". That gay feelings are less "real". Only "true" love can be between a man and a woman.

You will never change their tiny minds. All you can do is keep fighting and never give up.
Bestiality
Pedophilia
Incest
Robbery

The fact that those aren't reasonable arguments proves that those aren't reasonable people.

What's not reasonable about those arguments... as you've projected them, of course.

And please, be specific; at least to the extent that your intellectual limitations allow.

Now set back and enjoy the response friends...

Highest probability is the challenge goes ignored... if she works up the courage to respond, we'll find that she will be unable to show how ANY of whatever 'argument' she finds in her isolated examples of other sexual abnomralities and behavior's relevant to low moral character... are unreasonable arguments; as there is virtually no distinction from any of the sexual abnormalities listed and the abnormlaity of homosexuality.

But it should be interesting to watch the sub-intellect stretch for something of which they're incapable.

you really must have few friends if you speak like this in the outside world.


suicide is an option since it is obvious abortion was missed.

 

[rdean]

It's kinda cool how the advocates of homosexuality are so consistantly fixated on the anus? Even in their abject failures; where they are unable to advance an intellectually sound retort, they can't resist framing it in terms which expose their own perverse obsessions.

There is nothing intellectual based on discrimination. Discrimination is synonymous with ignorance.

Well as dissemblence goes... that was fairly lame...

But it's out there, so what the hell?

Actually discrimination is based in the biological imperative to survive... Where one chooses to avoid exposure to that which represent harm, discomfort, or to that which is to be avoided.

Can discrimination be based upon ignorance? Sure... But as a general rule, those who fail to discriminate, suffer severe and often catastrophic results from such follishness.

I love it when the right tries to bring up some "biological" reason, yet they don't believe in "evolution.

Actually, since gays seem to pop up in just about every species of mammal, then they may very well be an "evolutionary" or "biological" reason for such behavior. Most of the time, the right simply looks at what they consider the "obvious" without going any deeper. Simple thoughts for simple people. What can you expect? I never met someone on the right who didn't have "mystical" beliefs. Beliefs without a shred of evidence. Why do they demand evidence about real things that they can "see" and "touch", yet have total conviction in things invisible and "unknown"? Guess we leave that for another time.

It's highly possible that gays are born to help raise young without the competition that comes from every male attempting to pass on their genes. For creatures that live in groups, extra adult hands gathering food, hunting, and raising young without engaging in this competition, would certainly benefit the well being of the group and ensure the survival of the young.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is nothing intellectual based on discrimination. Discrimination is synonymous with ignorance.

Well as dissemblence goes... that was fairly lame...

But it's out there, so what the hell?

Actually discrimination is based in the biological imperative to survive... Where one chooses to avoid exposure to that which represent harm, discomfort, or to that which is to be avoided.

Can discrimination be based upon ignorance? Sure... But as a general rule, those who fail to discriminate, suffer severe and often catastrophic results from such follishness.

Biological imperative to survive?

Prejudices are not biological imperatives. Prejudices are neither inherently good nor bad.

Those who fail to adapt to change are doomed to extinction.

So you felt it wise to respond to comments regarding discrimination by speaking to prejudice.

Prejudice is a preformed opinion which is founded in ignorance... thus it does not serve the biological imperative. Discrimination however is the overt avoidance of that which is undesirable; a sense of that which is desirable and that which is not... and as such is intrisic to survival; thus a direct function of the biological imperative.

Irrational PC contexts regarding discrimination are irrelevant ... as they're absurd and serve no cultural good.

 

[rdean]

While I am not a "republican" I am a conservative. I am not cheering on the behavior you have addressed above. Also, "SOME" republicans may be cheering this on, not all, or even most.

I believe families have very bad behavior arounf dunerals and family member deaths. They become greedy and selfish. Even liberals and Democrats are included as parts of this behavior.

I believe we have to have a more responsible response about relationships. The family had no business butting in at that point.

The truth is, for MOST Republicans, where gays are concerned, there is no "real" family. Many on the right feel that gays don't have the same "feelings". That gay feelings are less "real". Only "true" love can be between a man and a woman.

You will never change their tiny minds. All you can do is keep fighting and never give up.
Bestiality
Pedophilia
Incest
Robbery

The fact that those aren't reasonable arguments proves that those aren't reasonable people.

What's not reasonable about those arguments... as you've projected them, of course.

And please, be specific; at least to the extent that your intellectual limitations allow.

Now set back and enjoy the response friends...

Highest probability is the challenge goes ignored... if she works up the courage to respond, we'll find that she will be unable to show how ANY of whatever 'argument' she finds in her isolated examples of other sexual abnomralities and behavior's relevant to low moral character... are unreasonable arguments; as there is virtually no distinction from any of the sexual abnormalities listed and the abnormlaity of homosexuality.

But it should be interesting to watch the sub-intellect stretch for something of which they're incapable.

It's fun to argue for gay rights against the right. The reaon is that it's an argument you will always win against the stupid.

Bestiality
Pedophilia
Robbery

The reason here is because those three involve the unwilling.

Incest

Leads to birth defects.

See? Remarkably easy against the determined "stupid".

The ONLY reason discrimination exists is because of those that believe in astrology. Oh wait, uh, I mean religion. Is there a difference between believing in astrology and believing in mysticism? They have the same evidence. None.

 

[Setarcos]

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?

Still no answer. (aside from RightWinger's post about military service)
I find it funny that certain people want to harp on the fact that 2 gay people of the same sex can't get married, but completely ignore the fact that 2 heterosexuals of the same sex can't get married either. They are treated exactly the same.

So blacks should have kept their yaps shut?

 

[Setarcos]

Homosexuals have the right to marry, they just can't marry somebody of the same sex.
Heterosexuals have the right to marry, they just can't marry somebody of the same sex.
Seems to me the rights are the same and not based upon sexual orientation.

Blacks could marry, they just couldn't marry someone a different color

Whites could marry, they just couldn't marry someone a different color

Seems like the law wasn't based on race or skin color


same with sitting at a table, riding a bus, drinking from a water fountain..

I used to think jim crow laws were racist; thanks for showing me the light

Those laws were based upon skin color and racism. They no longer exist.
Restricting marriage against same sex couples applies to all sexual orientations, all races and all sexes. Try again.

JC applied to all sexes, races, and sexual preferences

try again, but be more honest if you can