How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

poet said:
Poet seems to think that you can't? Do I control you? Do you not possess the free will to ignore whatever you choose to ignore? You can ignore the sun in the sky, still, it will be shining brightly. Ignore all you want. It doesn't change the reality.
Click to expand...

if I can ignore it, why do I need to "brace myself"?.......
 
Southern Chicken said:
from your link--
The sections of Kentucky statutes relating to marriage do not include a definition of that term. It must therefore be defined according to common usage.
Click to expand...

Thus my inclusion of all the definitions of its common usage, Did ya have a point or just a fondness for the obvious

Southern Chicken said:
I believe that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable, familial environment in which a child can be raised.

I believe in the economy and society benefit from such unions. I believe that the government should encourage individuals to enter these types of contracts to gain that economic and social benefit.
Click to expand...

Any two consenting adults can provide a stable, familial environment. Got ANYTHING relevant to homosexuals?
 
poet said:
You'll need to brace yourself, because it will be impossible to ignore...you know, like the first "thrust", without the benefit of lube. You're gonna "smart".
Click to expand...

lol, you can't keep your arguments consistent from one post to the next......
"you can ignore what you choose to ignore"....."it will be impossible to ignore"......does anyone wonder why I think liberals are such idiots?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol, you can't keep your arguments consistent from one post to the next......
"you can ignore what you choose to ignore"....."it will be impossible to ignore"......does anyone wonder why I think liberals are such idiots?.....
Click to expand...

He's also insinuating homosexual rape, which he's been doing with increasing frequency. He's one deviant sicko, for sure.
 
dixon76710 said:
Thus my inclusion of all the definitions of its common usage, Did ya have a point or just a fondness for the obvious



Any two consenting adults can provide a stable, familial environment. Got ANYTHING relevant to homosexuals?
Click to expand...

Thus your inclusion of all the definitions of its OLD common usage not the current common usage. It was only in the absence of an implicit ban (through sodomy laws) that heterosexuals suddenly decided to explicitly exclude same-sex couples. (The times and current usage change)This is why the government must prove that the exclusion is necessary. If it is not necessary to exclude them, it can't deny them the right.we are not talking about an extension of a right. We are talking about the denial of a fundamental right. The right to marry exists... valid denials of that right must pass that strict standard of review in order to be constitutional. If, in those states that had a legal definition of marriage, that definition of marriage simply remained unchanged, same-sex marriage would be legal. Those states chose to change the legal definition in order to explicitly deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

"Any two consenting adults can provide a stable, familial environment"

You have yet to state any of the negatives associated with homosexual unions that don't exist in heterosexual unions. Anything? Oh, they don't produce children that's right.

The issue is does society have the right to restrict the behavior of a group simply because the it disturbs the sensibilities of the majority. What are the detrimental effects of homosexual unions?

Sexually transmitted disease? Occurs quite a bit in heterosexual unions.
Promiscuity? Hmmm... same here... many heterosexuals are promiscuous (quite a few even cheat on their marriage partners)
Unstable homes? I came from one... they were heterosexual. What exactly is the divorce rate?
They wouldn't make good parents? I know quite a few heterosexuals who wouldn't make good parents or spouses for that matter. What are the statistics on child abuse in heterosexual marriages. What about spousal abuse?

So what's left? It's not natural? That seems to be a personal opinion -- swirly straws are unnatural, but you don't see anyone seeking a constitutional ban on them?


So why not allow homosexuals to have the fundamental right to marriage? Constitutional law is clear. When a government makes an explicit exclusion involving a fundamental right, the State must prove that the exclusion is related to a valid State interest and the exclusion must be necessary in order to further that interest.If the government allows couples that it knows can't procreate to marry or if it requires a couple to be unable to procreate before allowing them to marry, it can not claim that an exclusion based on the inability to procreate is necessary. Given the circumstances, it obviously isn't.

That's the way it works. That is Constitutional law.
 
Last edited:
MArriage has been redefined many many times. Henry the 8th did it, the Mormons did it, the sexual revolution did it... Its not what it was 25 tears ago, and it wont be what it is 25 years from now.

Things change, conservatives are always trying to prevent it, its always happening.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
MArriage has been redefined many many times. Henry the 8th did it, the Mormons did it, the sexual revolution did it... Its not what it was 25 tears ago, and it wone be what it is 25 years from not.

Things change, conservatives are always trying to prevent it, its always happening.
Click to expand...
The definition has never included two men, or two women.
 
DamnYankee said:
The definition has never included two men, or two women.
Click to expand...

True,and untill the 60's it never included two equal parties.
In the past it never included divorce.
In the past it never limited the number of wives you could have.
In the past it did not require fidelity from the man.
 
Jarod said:
True,and untill the 60's it never included two equal parties.
In the past it never included divorce.
In the past it never limited the number of wives you could have.
In the past it did not require fidelity from the man.
Click to expand...

Yet in the past it has always included one man and one woman, and has never included two men, two women, or a man and a tree.
 
DamnYankee said:
Yet in the past it has always included one man and one woman, and has never included two men, two women, or a man and a tree.
Click to expand...

Really, you are lacking in an understanding of history...it has not always included one man and one woman.

You are likley correct about it not having included two men or two women, but why should that prevent it from including it now? The defination has always been changing, evolving.
 
Onceler said:
Well, there have been same sex marriages in places like Massachusetts & California, and also elsewhere around the world.

Did you really miss that? They were big, big stories in the media.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the context of Jarod's post? It was historical, going back 25 years and older. Perhaps you should go back to ancient Greece or similar failed experiment, but I don't think you'll find anything there either.

Besides, Massachusetts was an activist court move, not legislative, and California was a major in a gay city breaking the law. Whenever the people speak, gay marriage loses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top