Advocates seek to expand gay rights

When all you do is watch MSNBC and hang out with other hardcore lefties, you never will get the right side of the story, so no surprise there.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you a racist? You've constantly brought up blacks all throughout this thread about gays.

 

Such is 'evolution', isn't it grand!?(Sarcasm). They don't have to make logical sense, or connect the dots. Their feelings will change the world! We will essentially make it an pansexual society.(Pansexuals neither identify with male or female and is therefore the correct word to use here). However, even with the "training education sessions"(and these are already a fact) people are going to resist this new interpretation of human life.

Our genetic disposition is not something we can just throw away because our feelings dictate it. There's biological differences between males and females that identify them as such. What Democrats are doing is lying to themselves, lying to future generations and having government(or the Courts) sanction this pathetic deceit.

But the thing is: Even if this deceit is sanctioned, that doesn't make it true. Even if forced by authoritanism as some Leftists wish, humanity will still strujggle in its various forms. Complete victory cannot be had by Liberals, because complete victory would accomplish the classless society that Karl Marx wished. A humanity of nothingness.

 

Right, and the Constitution is not a dictionary. I've never see a dictionary that defined freedom as only applying to white people. I have seen lots of dictionaries that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

The Supreme court justices are unelected. Who knew they would turn into selfish greedy politicians?

Because it wasn't an issue 30 years ago.

Well apparently even that bigot President Barack Hussein Obama didn't see it coming 3 years ago. He should have done more before he became fully evolved into a human being.

You would have to ask the democrats that because they were the people against interracial marriages.

The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to write laws.

We are well on the way to a Constitutional Convention of the States.

I agree.

It was evangelical Christians that lead the abolitionist movement and the republican party. You'd have to consult the democrats for their legal justifications for slavery.

They will be stopping people from worshipping. That is next on the agenda.

Or if you believe homosexuality is a sin.

Exactly and that is how the evil statists will go after every other religious organization in the country.

And twice you had to compare blacks to gays in just this one post. Blacks don't like the fact that gays are trying to hijack their civil rights accomplishments.

 

One man, one woman. The good thing about Conservatives and Christians is that we're consistent. Just as long as it isn't family, two men, two women, or a religious person and an atheist. That's what the Bible reads as a no-no.

 

Polygamy is rampant in the Christian bible

 

I didn't say it did, so what's your point?

 

Absolutely. I'm ready to either secede or do away with it altogether. Just so they'll stop crying about it. I'm also tired of gays being compared to blacks. It's freakin retarded.

 

No, it is not that race is involved.

It is that this last decision had many of the same legal elements as the Loving case.

 

Hahaha, 3 books out of the Old Testament that mention polygamy is hardly considered "rampant."

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, well I'm telling you, like I told Sarcastic-Starfish, that marriage to me is between one man and one woman. I don't care about their race.

 

Interracial marriage was opposed by people for the same reasons...because it went against tradition. Because it did not fit the conventional (popular) definition of marriage at that time.

If you don't see the parallels to gay marriage, well, I can't help you. I don't know of a simpler way of explaining it. I guess you will just have to keep feeling put-upon and oppressed.

Not now it isn't. In 30 years sexual orientation won't be either.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would that make me a racist?

The word "racist" does not mean what you think it means.

 

You make a very good point that I don't want to be overlooked. Liberals cannot win. It's biologically and physiologically impossible. All their 'feelings' aren't going to change thousands of years of human nature. So whether it's redefining gender, thinking removing guns will eliminate violent crimes, believing that people will learn to love giving away their possessions to others, etc, etc, it is ultimately destined to fail. People are different, and the majority of people still have basic ideals and values. It's impossible for liberals to change that.

 

What is your point? Trying to say that Christians are intolerant? I'd call it an epic fail.

 

Ok, listen, I don't care about interracial marriage. You tried to tell me that I would oppose it under the same reason I oppose gay marriage. I don't oppose interracial marriage, get it?

If I can be a racist for disagreeing with the most craptastic president in American history, you can be a racist for constantly bringing up race to compare gays to. It only makes you look desperate.

Civil Rights and homosexuals have no business being in the same sentence. You act like you're doing black people a favor by the comparison but you're only pissing them off.

 

`
....as was incest.
`
`
`
`

 

The 14th amendment affected the marriage rights of both gays and blacks. That's the reason for the comparison.

 

But no laws that have done so.

Lots of people think interracial and interfaith marriages are not real marriages too. The law doesn't care what they think either.

By definition they are not politicians. If you did not have a problem with them being unelected 30 years ago, why do you have a problem with it now? The Supreme Court has been around for a very long time.

Well, then I guess you are SoL since you waited too long. Sorry. It must not have been that important to you.

I didn't vote for him and still don't really care what his stance is on this issue even now. He's a non-sequitur. Presidents can't reliably appoint justices based on single issues. Just on general ideology. Do you think Reagan would have approved of Kennedy's decision on gay issues?

They were using the same arguments then as you are now. I hope the irony is not lost on you.

The Supreme Court has technically never written any laws. You are trying to refute a claim nobody has made.

Great, when do you expect to see results? Within a year? 2 years?

According to who? Who exactly has said they want to stop people from worshipping something?

Speculation is not evidence.

No one is stopping you from believing homosexuality is a sin. You can believe anything you want. There is no law against it.

You're trying to fight against an oppression that does not exist. No one had made the argument that you should be legally prevented from believing in anything.

You did not seem to have a huge problem with the evil statists when they agreed with you.

This seems to really irritate you people. Am I touching a nerve?

I could not possibly care less about what they do or do not like. It has nothing to do with anything. I'm a neocon. I'm not a liberal. I don't care what liberals or liberal groups think about me.

I used interracial marriage because it is an example of unconventional marriage. It is an example of a type of legal marriage that offended people when it was first legalized.

 

They have to make that comparison in order to label the opposition as bigots and racists. We know that it is racist to make that comparison but they don't see it that way. They will never understand that it is offensive or why.

 

Yes, we have removed references to "husband" and "wife".

And, you are monumentally confused about why.

My state uses "spouse". That was done years ago, before we voted to allow gays to marry.

Why? Because you can not write laws about husbands and then think wives will be treated equally. And, the same goes when you write laws about wives and then get surprised when husbands have less protection in divorce, etc.

And, do not worry about forms of address. I never even considered that you would show respect for the presidency.

 

Then threads like this are really going to suck for you, since it will come up a lot. Because it is a great example of a type of marriage that was not accepted by most people at the time it was legalized.

You are attempting to make an appeal-to-tradition argument in opposition to gay marriage. That would have applied to interracial marriage as well.

The word "racist" does not mean what you think it means.

You have not been on here long, so you might not know this about me. I am completely indifferent to pissing people off. I could not care less if my statements (*)(*)(*)(*) off black people. That has nothing to do with anything. I am not posting stuff with the purpose of hoping the left will like me.

 

I thought you might be interested in why it was a forgone conclusion that you would lose this SCOTUS case.

 

How did it affect gays? Gay marriage wasn't even a figment of the imagination when the 14th Amendment was passed.

- - - Updated - - -

I often wonder if they're just that obtuse on purpose.

 

Neither was interracial marriage being forced on the southern states.

 

It addresses equal protection, and gay marriage falls within that category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

Legally, it is not any different from how straight marriages have already been handled. If some 14 year old gets married in Alabama (or wherever), we in Colorado have to recognize that marriage. Even though it is illegal here to get married that young. The 14th amendment, even though it does not discuss marriage age limits specifically, still applies to that marriage. Colorado is forced to recognize what we consider to be under-aged marriages in other states.

 

This kind of claim makes me wonder if they are even teaching basic civics in high school anymore. Almost nothing the laws might apply to in the future, was a figment of the imagination at the time. The implication that those who wrote these words SHOULD have anticipated all future laws, and listed them all out in detail, is simply nuts. THEY knew better. So rather than try to specify what future laws might be, they set down a principle - that whatever those laws might turn out to be, under whatever circumstances might someday arise, that the laws should apply equally to everyone. No separate set of laws that apply to the majority, but do not protect the minority.

 

Yeah, questions like that are weird. They don't seem to have even a basic understanding of how our laws actually work. It's only young people I ever see that from.