So let's vote on same sex marriage

[Antitrust32]

but my parents like to tell me that if i want to have a kid to do it as a single parent because its not fair to raise a child in a same sex partnership.

to that, i tell them to go fucl< themselves.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

but my parents like to tell me that if i want to have a kid to do it as a single parent because its not fair to raise a child in a same sex partnership.

to that, i tell them to go fucl< themselves.

not fair? to whom?
besides, who the hell ever suggested life is fair? i think kids are better off finding out it's not, instead of having some of the parents these days who never say 'no', and shield their kids from any and every negative thing under the sun.
fat lot of good it's doing their kids. i remember at least three different times when we let someone go, that either mommy/daddy, and in one case, grandmommy called to demand we repent our error. how dare we let their precious angel darling go!
one of the parents was the step-dad, said he was 'going to sue'. yeah, cause the 5k to the lawyers retainer would go a lot further than putting that money into votech or something for the kid, so he wouldn't have to work in a warehouse making a pittance. or maybe he could learn to actually do his job, instead of doing half and going home?

and kids do best in a loving home without upheaval and concern about whether their family will remain as one. doesn't matter who the family is made up of.

[Antitrust32]

I think they believe it wouldnt be fair to them. Since they really dont want me to be gay and all.

[Danzig]

saletan, lithwick and others on slate had a brief debate regarding marriage laws and states rights. in that article, i found this link:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/singleton/


it all brings up some good points. but i thought the best question was 'we vote on civil rights?'

[Antitrust32]

here's a study that pretty much answers Math's question:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-07/h...s?_s=PM:HEALTH

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think they believe it wouldnt be fair to them. Since they really dont want me to be gay and all.

i would think that's a safe bet.

[AlreadyHome]

this gay issue is fk-up/shame on them, wow as humans/people they should know better not 2b brainwash just because is 2012 that don't mean shitttt


America has laws/constitution that apply to every1 as human beings male or female but when 1 is brainwash and becomes gay those laws shouldn't apply because now your a gay human being.
gender= Male or female, not gay

somehow that loophole needs to be close

gay people should repent and seek god that's my message to them.

the constitution was written for humans beings male & female
gay is a loophole use by the genders to change stuff, and is working
in some states

i see the future and to live eternal life you can't be gay.

is you're gay and you don't care what do you think god is going to say.
enuff said here.

very touch subject.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

but my parents like to tell me that if i want to have a kid to do it as a single parent because its not fair to raise a child in a same sex partnership.

to that, i tell them to go fucl< themselves.

That's sad. I'm sorry. Like having another loving parent is a bad thing? Yikes.

If I were gay, I'd move to a same-sex marriage legal state - a more tolerant social environment - immediately. I've seen what happens to gay people here in conservative Kentucky. It makes their lives miserable professionally and personally, there is so much backwards jagoff around here.

[bigrun]

[Danzig]

^^

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

many of us can multi-task. altho some items on the agenda may have more importance to the general population than others, they are still important. they still matter.

equal rights for all in this country is one of it's most basic tenets, and what the country was created for to begin with. when people don't have rights that are conferred on others, that's a huge problem, and should never happen here.

I have a question for you. It's not a trick question. There is no right or wrong answer. You say that if gay marriage is illegal, that is a civil rights issue and gay people are not being allowed the same rights as others.

I think that being gay is genetic in most cases. I don't know what percentage of the time. I'm sure there is a very small percent of the population that are gay simply by choice. But I would guess that in 95% of cases, it is genetic.

Here is my question for you. Let's just pretend that being gay was a choice and was not genetic. Then would you still have the same opinion? In other words, if there was no such thing as gay people, but some people simply had an attraction to both sexes, would it be unconstitutional (in your opinion) if marriage was only legal between a man and a woman?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have a question for you. It's not a trick question. There is no right or wrong answer. You say that if gay marriage is illegal, that is a civil rights issue and gay people are not being allowed the same rights as others.

I think that being gay is genetic in most cases. I don't know what percentage of the time. I'm sure there is a very small percent of the population that are gay simply by choice. But I would guess that in 95% of cases, it is genetic.

Here is my question for you. Let's just pretend that being gay was a choice and was not genetic. Then would you still have the same opinion? In other words, if there was no such thing as gay people, but some people simply had an attraction to both sexes, would it be unconstitutional (in your opinion) if marriage was only legal between a man and a woman?

i don't give a rats behind why someone wants to marry someone else. whether it be biological or not, it's their business. i certainly didn't have to explain to anyone why i chose to marry my husband.
it's unconstitutional to grant rights to some citizens and not others, which is what currently happens in most states. and i'm ashamed that some countries are ahead of us in this regard.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't give a rats behind why someone wants to marry someone else. whether it be biological or not, it's their business. i certainly didn't have to explain to anyone why i chose to marry my husband.
it's unconstitutional to grant rights to some citizens and not others, which is what currently happens in most states. and i'm ashamed that some countries are ahead of us in this regard.

I don't understand your argument then. If there were no such thing as gay people and I decided out of the blue that I wanted to marry a man, it would be unconstitutional if I wasn't allowed to? I don't see how that could possibly be considered unconstitutional by any measure.

By the way, I didn't say anything about anyone having to explain why they want to marry a certain person.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so what you are saying is that if the majority of a state wants to make a law banning interracial marriage, that is okay because of the 10th amendment?

what happened to the part of the constitution which seperates church and state?

what happened to Majority rule cannot oppress minority rights?


these laws that have been passed by states are unconstitutional. they go against the definition of america.

Take it to the Supreme Court then. Like the poor old black man did when Chicago banned the right for him to have a gun, even in his own home!

BTW Protesting against taking away 2nd amendment rights by the lesbian and gay community in Chicago was strangely non-existent. In fact a alderman known for being gay supported the city taking away 2nd amendment rights as did the majority of the city's religious leaders, including the bastard producing Rev. Jackson.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't understand your argument then. If there were no such thing as gay people and I decided out of the blue that I wanted to marry a man, it would be unconstitutional if I wasn't allowed to? I don't see how that could possibly be considered unconstitutional by any measure.

By the way, I didn't say anything about anyone having to explain why they want to marry a certain person.

well, i don't understand why your posing a question that has nothing to do with anything.
are there gay people? yes. are they citizens of this country? yes. are they given the same rights as heterosexuals insofar as marriage? no. not sure why you want to get into what if's that have nothing to do with any of it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Take it to the Supreme Court then. Like the poor old black man did when Chicago banned the right for him to have a gun, even in his own home!

BTW Protesting against taking away 2nd amendment rights by the lesbian and gay community in Chicago was strangely non-existent. In fact a alderman known for being gay supported the city taking away 2nd amendment rights as did the majority of the city's religious leaders, including the bastard producing Rev. Jackson.

majority does not rule, state law doesn't supersede the constitution. not sure why anyone wishes to make the attempt.
granting of rights already given to some doesn't equate removing of rights from those already enjoying them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

majority does not rule, state law doesn't supersede the constitution. not sure why anyone wishes to make the attempt.
granting of rights already given to some doesn't equate removing of rights from those already enjoying them.

These are the same folks who were against the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's. Who stood on the steps with guns rather than have an American with different skin pigment get a public education and the rest of their Constitutional rights as Americans.

"America for me - but not for thee".

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, i don't understand why your posing a question that has nothing to do with anything.
are there gay people? yes. are they citizens of this country? yes. are they given the same rights as heterosexuals insofar as marriage? no. not sure why you want to get into what if's that have nothing to do with any of it.

I'm just trying to understand your legal argument. Have you ever read transcripts from or listened to Supreme Court arguments? The judges always ask hypothetical questions because they are trying to understand the arguments that the lawyers are making. For example, if a lawyer is making his case for Obamacare before the Supreme Court, a Judge may ask a question like "If the government can mandate health insurance, would it be ok for them to mandate a yearly physical examination?"

The Judge is simply trying to understand what the lawyer is arguing.

That is all I'm trying to do here with you. I'm just trying to understand your legal arguments. There is a chance that states banning gay marriage could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

I was just trying to understand whether your argument was that gay people are a distinct group whose rights are being taken away and/or gay people are born gay just like a black person is born black.

If that is your argument, I think that argument at least makes sense. I don't know if that argument would win in the Supreme Court but at least the argument makes some sense.

If the argument is that being gay is just a description of a behavior, then I think the argument wouldn't be nearly as good. If the argument is simply that a person simply chooses to engage in a certain behavior and by engaging in that behavior, that makes this person part of a distinct group, and therefore we should have new laws to accommodate this group, I think that is a very weak argument that would have little or no legal merit. If this were the case, then any group of people that engages in a certain behavior could claim that engaging in this behavior makes them part of a special group and therefore entitles them to special laws to accommodate their group.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't give a rats behind why someone wants to marry someone else. whether it be biological or not, it's their business. i certainly didn't have to explain to anyone why i chose to marry my husband.
it's unconstitutional to grant rights to some citizens and not others, which is what currently happens in most states. and i'm ashamed that some countries are ahead of us in this regard.

What are your thoughts on polygamy? Do you think it is unfair that polygamists have had their constitutional rights taken away? Why are polygamists not allowed to marry more than one person? Why is it the governments' business if a guy wants to have 3 wives. If the 3 wives are comfortable with the situation, how does the government have any right to interfere?

As you said, it's unconstitutional to grant rights to some citizens and not others (polygamists). I'm ashamed that some countries are ahead of us in this regard.

[Riot]

The best argument against gay marriage was made by the comic Steven Colbert the other night:

"Marriage was originated so men could pass on their chattel to other men (possessions and daughters). As gays can't reproduce, no need to be married"