How can it be "worse" than living in a culture where it's normal for two dudes to date and bone and live together? We already live there, dude! And the wheels haven't come off the wagon yet, have they?
I don't really care if gays want to get married, but at the same time I'm not that crazy about my future son growing up in a culture where it is normal for two dudes to get married.
And if we had put it to the people to vote whether the schools should be integrated, whether Black people should be allowed to ride on the bus with white folk, whether white and Black people should be allowed to marry - all those things would have LOST too. All those things required learned justices who understoood our Cons ution deeply to correct decades of injustice and inequality.
Don't forget the Reconstruction Amendments.
my son will know that gay people exist and that they are human beings just like he is.
I don't really care if gays want to get married, but at the same time I'm not that crazy about my future son growing up in a culture where it is normal for two dudes to get married. Who is anyone else to deny two people happiness from the love they share between one another, I get that. It's just kind of weird maaaaaaaaaan.
The religious/bigotry bull is old and tired. Those two sides will around with each other for all of eternity.
I think whoever said it is mainly about the gays feeling "accepted" is right.
Be that as it may....these current justices are NOT going to find the language in the Cons ution necessary to mandate the recognition of Same Sex Marriages; which makes this a political issue; which means I stand by my original post: Senators in New York are looking at polls, not the insurance lobby.
You haven't demonstrated why the two are mutually exclusive.
majority of schools did not need the federal govt. to tell them to desegregate. I also would appreciate that you use some facts when slandering the entire country. I am not saying that the average person then is as enlightened as you are, but I doubt the majority believed in segregation.
Also deciding to be gay, and not having the same opportunities because of your physical appearance and cultural background are similar in no way.
i can not see how one can categorically state that there is no language in the DOM that would preclude a supreme court ruling against it.
Only if you believe that sexuality is a choice. Most gay people don't (after all, who would choose to become part of a reproductively un-viable demonized minority for fun?).
one-does one decide to be gay? if so, prove this premise. i am not offering the opposite side as a definitive premise. i am asking you to state what makes you assume one side of the coin is so conclusive.
second-are you stating this in moral terms or in legal terms?
Being that I am not a Senator in New York, I cannot.
It is an opinion.
Fair enough, man.
BTW -- why do you say this? There's plenty in the 14th amendment to support an argument for equality of due process for all citizens, isn't there?
Equal Protection and Due Process are two different things. Both are in the 14th Amendment.
To answer your question, the applicable clause would be the Equal Protection Clause. Unfortunately for the gays, discrimination against them is subject to rational basis scrutiny.
of course there is. the 14th amendment as well as the full faith and credit clause.
Do you realize how flawed your question is?
How about these...
After all, who would choose to become a member of the White Nationalist Nazi movement in the USA year 2009, to become a hated and reviled human being?
After all, who would choose to be a part of child pornography rings, exposing themselves to prison and becoming a demonized disgusting human being, and then gets raped in prison?
After all, who would choose to murder 3,000 innocent civilians by crashing a plane into a building and become a hunted, world wide hated terrorist for the rest of your life?
After all, who would choose to become a genocidal maniac, plunging his country into war and killing 6 million innocent jewish people in concentration camps, to become one of histories worst evil men?
Use your brain. There are many reasons why a human would choose to be gay even though it's demonized. Especially nowadays, with the whole 'gay pride' and "I'm gay and I'm a victim" movement
"Majority of schools" in this country are STILL segregated in many ways. Easily 90% of the population of the Boston Public Schools are African-American and Latino. Same for most urban areas in this country.
But it's now uncons utional to prevent Black students from going to a school solely based on race. It's no uncons utional for white parents to spend the money to put their kids in a private school.
The parallel here is that it is perfectly cons utional for religious groups to discriminate against gay people, against Black people, against women, whatever. Many of them do. But it is NOT cons utional for the US government to provide legal rights (some 1200 of them, roughly) to one class of people and deny them to another class of people, solely because of their gender.
Did you know, that the federal government would recognize a male-to-female transsexual who has not had genital surgery in her marriage to a woman, but not a biologically-born woman married to another woman? It doesn't make any sense. It is blatantly, irrefutably uncons utional.
The question of polygamy is a different question entirely. Currently, the US government recognizes marriage as being a contract between two people, and the legal rights are set up to grant reciprocity between these two people. I am not sure how most of those rights would work in a contract between 3 or more people but if polygamists want to take this cause on and try to redefine marriage this way, I'll support it. That really is a redefinition of marriage.
Same-gender marriage doesn't redefine marriage at all, really. It simply grants rights to people who are being denied them. But marriage has been redefined in the past 20-30 years. BY STRAIGHT PEOPLE. Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage says more about how marriage has been redefined than any gay or lesbian couple.
So you are using a community destroyed by liberalism as an example? Thanks for the fact-checked statistic too. I really believe the 90%. It's funny how most urban areas are ran, for the past 60 years atleast, by liberals or social policy politicians.
What cons utional case held that religious groups can discriminate against anyone? How can it be ruled uncons uional then? sexuals are not a class of people. They do not have an origin. They are barely a subculture.The parallel here is that it is perfectly cons utional for religious groups to discriminate against gay people, against Black people, against women, whatever. Many of them do. But it is NOT cons utional for the US government to provide legal rights (some 1200 of them, roughly) to one class of people and deny them to another class of people, solely because of their gender.
How is it uncons utional? because you want it to be. A transexual was born like that, they did not decide. You keep trying to portray gays as victims. It seems the easier life is, the more problems with more victims.Did you know, that the federal government would recognize a male-to-female transsexual who has not had genital surgery in her marriage to a woman, but not a biologically-born woman married to another woman? It doesn't make any sense. It is blatantly, irrefutably uncons utional.
I wonder how many people would be against sexual marriage if there was no religion
1,138 rights, to be exact.
It's both frustrating and scary to me how misunderstood this particular debate is, for the record. And flat out re ed that an issue of equality and human rights should have anything to do with one's sexual partners/activities.
As long as marriage exists as currently defined/recognized and brings with it 1,138 legal rights, I will fight for every consenting adult to have access to those rights. Including the polygamists. It is my personal preference, however, that "marriage" be completely removed from every level of government. I'd prefer state/federally recognized civil unions for everyone with the same rights and requirements across the board. Want to be married through the church? Have at it. Let the churches decide who they do or do not want to marry, and have marriage be just a ceremony and a certificate to which zero legal rights are attached.
people would find something else to justify being opposed to sexuality.
I guess, but what makes it so so bad. I've worked with gays over the years and they are nice people.
I'm a straight teenage male and I can appreciate and understand equality. Why can't everyone else?
I am atheist, there goes your theory.
There are MANY logical reasons to think sexuality is stupid.
In fact, the ONLY reason to support it is the following :
"Because we should all be able to do whatever we want"
Peace and love, man!!
right?
Aw snap! Cicero is back to school me on the logics. Everybody hold on to your rhetorical asses
People choose to join extremist movements on ideological grounds or because they are brainwashed by people on ideological grounds. While you could argue that a person's cir stances could add up to an unavoidable predisposition or determination towards some type of behavior, there's nothing visceral or compulsive about it the way that a congenital condition is. A neo-nazi may choose to be a pariah and a suicide bomber may choose to blow himself up because they believe it to be the most reasonable solution to the problem of their experience, but at any point they may change their ideology and revise their behavior. Nothing -- short of a psychological condition -- physically prevents them from changing. Not so in questions of attraction, where you are no longer talking about a reasonable choice, but an irrational or instinctive motive. Why are you sexually attracted to some women over others? Is it a reasonable decision? Or is it just the way "the spirit moves you?"
Pedophilia/fetishism and sexuality differ in that there is no evidence that the former are genetic "conditions" (there is mounting evidence that sexuality is, more often than not, congenital). But assuming for a moment that all are caused by external factors like childhood trauma, if you look at the numbers, all these "behaviors" are practically incurable. People treated for pedophilia have an astonishingly high rate of recidivism, as do gay people who submit themselves to the Christian heterosexual reprogramming regimens. So functionally, even if sexuality and fetishism reprsent two sides of the nature/nurture coin, they aren't rational decisions because they can't be "rehabilitated," or altered, or even understood by the people who exhibit the behaviors.
In short, your political extremists could probably give you a reasonable answer for what motivates them, whereas gay people and pedophiles -- for different reasons -- could not.
You are not understanding the issues at hand.
This isn't about 'gay marriage'
This is about gays trying to CHANGE, REDEFINE marriage.
Believe it or not, MAJORITY of USA WOULD SUPPORT a gay union of their own. A new ins ution, with ALL OF THE SAME RIGHTS as marriage, but with a different name.
Majority would accept that.
Just don't try and redefine marriage.
I wonder how many people would be able to read and write if there was no religion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
