My conservative perspective on gay rights

[Disillusioned]

You claiming "tossed those out the window a while back". not sure of your point. text says fulfill, you for some reason interpret that to mean "add to" when clearly it does not.



What point was that. The only one you made was a fabricated contradiction that doesnt exist




Quite OBVIOUSLY in this context it would mean PRECISELY the opposite

The contradiction is there, find a passage where Jesus said that with his coming Jewish law prior to him can be ignored. If not, admit that the tossing out of Jewish law was an attempt by Christians to separate themselves, to appeal to more peoples, and to ignore a few laws that they didn't like.
AND seeing as how you ignore most of the rest of the old testament, probably a good idea as your god in there is pretty much a homicidal jerk who makes hitler look cuddly, then why do you hang your arguments around the abomination argument from the new testament.

 

[DamnYankee]

Why do atheists hate God so much?

 

[Onceler]

Why do atheists hate God so much?

Atheists don't believe in God, DY.

 

[DamnYankee]

Atheists don't believe in God, DY.

Then explain why someone would write "...your god in there is pretty much a homicidal jerk who makes hitler look cuddly...".

 

[zappasguitar]

I don't see your proof of lying here, just another unfounded accusation that you will also fail to prove. I see a pattern here. *shrug*

You lied when you claimed I said Bachmann's loss in the Georgia Straw Poll was a "big" loss.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You lied when you claimed I said Bachmann's loss in the Georgia Straw Poll was a "big" loss.

you lied when you claimed you changed a punctuation error.

 

[DamnYankee]

You lied when you claimed I said Bachmann's loss in the Georgia Straw Poll was a "big" loss.

Holy shit another thread you bring this up? Stop fucking whining about it you little baby.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Holy shit another thread you bring this up? Stop fucking whining about it you little baby.

lol

 

[dixon76710]

no you didn't. i actually cited the case language to show you the government had the burden in loving. you claimed loving said the petitioner had the burden. i also showed you lawschool outlines that state the government has the burden in all levels except rational basis.

you're a retard.

You do realize the forum records your posts, dont you? And I never claimed the petitoner had the burden.

again.....under strict scrutiny is you or the state that must provide the compelling interest. you keep trying to put the oneous on me, however, that is not how scrutiny works. the state must prove the compelling interest

Thats not some special rule for gays only. Applies equally in the case of the single mother and grandmother. I'll take your dodge as an admission that you have no such justification

what? again, i ask you to EXPLAIN what you mean. i didn't dodge it at all. i have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Those were all court cases applying scrutiny, directly in contradiction to your claims. Got anything other than your personal opinions to support your assertions?......yeah, I didnt think so.

You do realize the forum records your posts, dont you? And I never claimed the petitoner had the burden.

you do realize the forum records your posts, don't you? liar.

 

[dixon76710]

The contradiction is there, find a passage where Jesus said that with his coming Jewish law prior to him can be ignored.

Never claimed he did. Where is the contradiction? Missing verses arent contradictions.

 

[dixon76710]

you do realize the forum records your posts, don't you? liar.

???Where is the lie?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

???Where is the lie?

you're either extremely retarded or a liar:

directly in contradiction to your claims

that is the lie. you claimed you never said the burden is on the petitioner.....yet....when i told you the state or government bears the burden, you claimed the cases are directly in contradiction to my claims.

 

[dixon76710]

you're either extremely retarded or a liar:

that is the lie. you claimed you never said the burden is on the petitioner.....yet....when i told you the state or government bears the burden, you claimed the cases are directly in contradiction to my claims.

Youve done so much bob and weave, duck and jibe, that you dont even comprehend what I am disputing. It was stated pretty plainly, thus your weave to your burden tangent.

you are incorrect on the test that applies to marriage. marriage is a fundamental right according to scotus.....using the highest level of scrutiny,

Dont be silly. Marriage to someone of the opposite sex is a fundamental right.

Ive presented a dozen cases that all directly contradict your claims. AND, for sake of argument, EVEN if what you say is true, the government would also need to show a compelling interest that is served by excluding closely related couples or excluding platonic couples by dissolving marriages for a failure to consummate the relationship. Too which youve had no response

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

you make zero sense.

 

[dixon76710]

????Nope. LIKE I SAID, the idea is to get the children with THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS, not one of their parents and a gay lover. Gay couples with a child requires separating the child from one of those parents.

No, it requires one of them playing at being hetero for a while, trying to fit in. Later they "come out" leave, break up the family, take the kid and move in with their lover.

Notice how you proclaim "No", yet dont even have anything to contradict me?

What you are saying creates the very "problem" you want to avoid. Imagine if they were honest from the beginning, married a partner, had no kids...

???? Not sure what you are going on about now. Are you? I never said I wanted gays to marry someone of the opposite sex and have kids.

Again, if you can't just look at what happens and say, "This isn't working" and try something different, you may as well check into the psych ward now, because you are either criminally stupid and need to protect society from yourself, or you are insane and keep trying to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Really dont know what you are going on about now. Are you?

 

[dixon76710]

Tell me dixon, how do you reconcile married, childless heterosexual couples. They're married but don't want kids, but they're still married, but the idea of marriage was to end up with a kid,

Nooooo. The idea was that if they were to end up with a kid, the child would be born into a home with both their mother and father to provide and care for them. And half of all pregnancies, (??or is it births) are the result of unplanned pregnancies. Couples who "don't want kids" but become pregnant anyway. Government has just as much interest in the wellbeing of those children as they do the children that result from planned pregnancies. Millions of birds every year, join together and form heterosexual couplings and build a nest together, and yet their egg does not hatch. This doesnt negate the fact that heterosexual birds build nest for the wellbeing of their offspring.

And Ive provided these two exerpts from cases addressing the exact same argument you make here. I couldnt state it any more plainly than they have.

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

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.’”...


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