How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

poet said:
Correction. As used by non-gays, it is considered "a slur". And you would be beyond stupid to put it in the same category as "black". What planet are you from?
Click to expand...

Here we go again. Lefties complaining that conservatives are trying to run their lives and in the next breath complaining about free speech.
 
WinterBorn said:
I haven't seen anyone else on here call for all gay teachers to be gone. Have you? You have no problem wanting other people to be limited in who they marry because of your beliefs.
Click to expand...

I amended my statement. If they can keep their personal lives and personal agenda out of the classrom, then they can teach. Otherwise, no, they should not be allowed to indoctrinate children in our schools.
 
Eye said:
yes it is. their relationship is not illegal, nor any sexual acts they may engage in. denying the the SAME RIGHT as others is in fact denying them their equal protection and rights under the 14th amendment.

don't like it, amend the federal constitution. but stop spreading meadowmuffins as if your opinion is fact.
Click to expand...

What silliness

heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
Click to expand...


We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535
Click to expand...


The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
Click to expand...


i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=434&invol=374
Click to expand...



In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
Click to expand...


Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
Click to expand...


In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\SAC\KY\1973\19731109_0040029.KY.htm/qx
Click to expand...


"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Click to expand...
 
Alias said:
I amended my statement. If they can keep their personal lives and personal agenda out of the classrom, then they can teach. Otherwise, no, they should not be allowed to indoctrinate children in our schools.
Click to expand...

but you want the schools to teach that homosexuality is bad

funny how that works
 
Onceler said:
And you understand what it is, where it came from and why it was created? Even when experts in the field don't?

You're taking "sanctity of marriage" way too far. The people who use it aren't talking about the earliest civilizations. They're talking about what they see as American tradition & family values.

The origins of marriage are utterly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Then we are finished sonny....you will remain as stupid at the end of our debate ...... as you were when it started.....only now.....

Everyone can see, you are stupid.....
=====================

The phrase "sanctity of marriage" has a purpose...its not just a kool phase......marriage was created for a purpose....it wasn't just created on a whim......
It was created to safeguard the children and mothers as victims of mens lust and power and sex.....to safeguard them.....to protect them......to a degree.

Eventually established as a formal rite, a formal ceremony, presided over by the elders/leaders/ etc. of a society and sometimes by the religious leaders of the society which gave the ceremony standing in the society....marriage became important.....marriage became a serious matter.....

To you, marriage is just a word.......like father and mother and son or daughter, or sister and brother......words that mean nothing else to you......
words that don't signify any responsibility for one another.....just words that denote relatives......

Well, marriage does have a certain 'sanctity'.......it means something besides a joint tax return and acceptance of deviant sex between men.....marriage means something ........
 
bravo said:
Then we are finished sonny....you will remain as stupid at the end of our debate ...... as you were when it started.....only now.....

Everyone can see, you are stupid.....
=====================

The phrase "sanctity of marriage" has a purpose...its not just a kool phase......marriage was created for a purpose....it wasn't just created on a whim......
It was created to safeguard the children and mothers as victims of mens lust and power and sex.....to safeguard them.....to protect them......to a degree.

Eventually established as a formal rite, a formal ceremony, presided over by the elders/leaders/ etc. of a society and sometimes by the religious leaders of the society which gave the ceremony standing in the society....marriage became important.....marriage became a serious matter.....

To you, marriage is just a word.......like father and mother and son or daughter, or sister and brother......words that mean nothing else to you......
words that don't signify any responsibility for one another.....just words that denote relatives......

Well, marriage does have a certain 'sanctity'.......it means something besides a joint tax return and acceptance of deviant sex between men.....marriage means something ........
Click to expand...

marriage in this country is JUST a word. it is nothing more than a legal contract. either the government gets out of marriage or marriage is open to all who practice legal relationships.

period.
 
Alias said:
Lots of people commit suicide for other reasons than being gay. There are lots of confused mentally unstable people in the world. Homosexuals are just one manifestation,.
Click to expand...

He committed suicide because of narrow minded people like you, I doubt if many would mourn your passing.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Alan Turing committed suicide because he was gay, what a disastrous loss to the world. Just imagine what he could have achieved, above and beyond his contribution to WW2, if he had lived.
Click to expand...

God works in mysterious ways......huh ?



Eye said:
but you want the schools to teach that homosexuality is bad

funny how that works
Click to expand...

Schools should not teach homosexuality at all......unless you're teaching a class in abnormal psychology....
 
Eye said:
this is perhaps the 2nd dumbest post of the year.

following your logic to its sad conclusion, women or men how cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry.

:palm:
Click to expand...

Silly fool logic.

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
Click to expand...



In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...
And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Eye said:
marriage in this country is JUST a word. it is nothing more than a legal contract. either the government gets out of marriage or marriage is open to all who practice legal relationships.

period.
Click to expand...


Well, that a different debate isn't it.......

Government (the citizens) have EVERY RIGHT to use laws and regulation for the good of their citizens and society as they see fit....

Marriage.....to protect children, women, etc. is for the good of the those that enter into marriage......

otherwise.....don't fuckin' get married......no one forces marriage on anyone else......

the rules are the same for EVERYONE and for the same reasons now as in the past.......and sexual preference, sexual practice, love or hate, has no relevance in the matter
 
bravo said:

God works in mysterious ways......huh ?




Schools should not teach homosexuality at all......unless you're teaching a class in abnormal psychology....
Click to expand...

Without him the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost, D-Day wouldn't have happened, the Japanese naval cyphers wouldn't have been cracked...need I go on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top