Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eh wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch.I posted in another thread what the homosexuals are pushing on children in schools.That's why I am so against them.
I do believe paranoid delusions are part of several mental illnesses. You should probably seek professional help.
No, it's based on nothing more then arbitrary personal opinions and ideology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
I will say to you what I say to others: It's not getting any better for you from hereon. Hopefully the Supreme Court will relegate you and your ideas to the dustbin of history, and a couple decades from now people will look back in shame at people like you.
You clearly have not thought thru this subject at all.
Do you and your ilk think you know best what the definition of marriage shall be for the entire country? You are in favor of the few judges or political elites, deciding these issues for the rest of us? Whatever happened to representative form of government, where the people decide what is the best interest for society?
Whatever marriage law any judge comes up with, it will be arbitrary. What age limits will the judge decide are legal for gay marriage? Some states currently have different age limits for men and woman. Other states have a different minimum age requirement.
Will bisexual men be allowed to have a man and a woman, or will you force them to choose just one or the other, but not both?
Will it be legal for Sally to marry Tom, but nor for Susan to marry him also?
I could go on, but why? What is your arbitrary reasoning for your decision on these?
I'm not a troll. I'm just a guy who feels the need to relay my experience. I was sexually abused by a relative. For a long time I carried around lots of guilt because I felt like I should have reported him and stopped him from abusing me but I trusted him and didn't want others to know because I felt like I would be in as much trouble as him.
I drank and did drugs to cover up how low I felt and I hung around losers. I convinced myself that I was like them and born that way. I felt like if I wasn't gay, he would have never abused me.
I know you know what you are doing is wrong. You just don't want to admit it. It's easier to claim you were born that way.
I'm sorry that you were abused (if that's even true), but whatever confusion, anger and feelings you felt because of that have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation or where it comes from. This has been debunked thoroughly. You were likely never gay at all. In fact, your posts in this thread just show how messed up you still are about many things.
Honestly, it's getting harder to even bother with these threads, or to be angry with all the ignorance that so many people have against gays. First, they're dying out, or at the very least, being marginalized. It's almost hard not to feel sorry for them. Their narrow view of the world is changing so rapidly, and they neither have the intelligence nor the honesty to change with it. They're frightened, they're desperate and their scare-tactics and awful treatment of others is becoming increasingly unacceptable by a society that's leaving them behind. I sure wouldn't want to be in their shoes, but then again, I'm in no danger of that.
No, it's based on nothing more then arbitrary personal opinions and ideology.
Um, actually it's based in legal theory. You may not AGREE with the legal theory (or rather, you actually don't understand), but that doesn't make it ARBITRARY.
In fact, one could easily argue that those who would reject the legal theory that equal protection applies to same sex marriage are using their own arbitrary belief system to rule in accordance with their beliefs or religion.
But even such a judge would root their theory in the law. It wouldn't be accepted otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
You clearly have not thought thru this subject at all.
Do you and your ilk think you know best what the definition of marriage shall be for the entire country? You are in favor of the few judges or political elites, deciding these issues for the rest of us? Whatever happened to representative form of government, where the people decide what is the best interest for society?
Whatever marriage law any judge comes up with, it will be arbitrary. What age limits will the judge decide are legal for gay marriage? Some states currently have different age limits for men and woman. Other states have a different minimum age requirement.
There is zero rational basis for government marriage contracts to be limited by sex of the contractors.
Would you believe it rational if a state had a law that said real estate contracts could only be entered into between members of the opposite sex? That same sex contracts for sale of a house were invalid, against morality and the Bible? Of course not, but that's essentially what YOUR ILK is doing vis-à-vis the argument concerning the marriage contract.
Just as allowing interracial marriage doesn't mean YOU HAVE TO get an interracial marriage, or that you have to APPROVE of interracial marriage. It means the government has no basis upon which to say, "the marriage contract should only be limited to people of the same race."
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Will bisexual men be allowed to have a man and a woman, or will you force them to choose just one or the other, but not both?
Will it be legal for Sally to marry Tom, but nor for Susan to marry him also?
I could go on, but why? What is your arbitrary reasoning for your decision on these?
It is clear that you do not have a grasp of constitutional review, or the various stages of analysis. The government CAN and does discriminate. But to do so, it must have various levels of rationale and reasoning to do so.
RATIONAL basis is the least rigorous to excuse discriminatory behavior. Under even that concept, the reasons for restricting the marriage contract based on NUMBER far outweigh the reasons for restricting based on sex. And they are NOT arbitrary. They are rational, sound reasons:
The benefits, rights, privileges and immunities of the marriage contract do not lend themselves to multiple parties. Immigration, spousal court immunity, benefits splitting, taxes, child custody problems... all of these are complicated when marriage is expanded beyond two people.
There is no moralizing involved. No appeal to books of fairy tales, or sweeping pronouncements about the health of society. Instead, they are practical, RATIONAL reasons based in logic.
Now, if polygamists want to sit down, and work it out for the court and prove that these multitude of issues associated with multiple marriage can be worked out so that it does not create a burden on anyone else, the government, etc., and CAN be worked out, than let them do that and bring their reasons to the courts.
... at which time the courts will have a sound rationale to conclude that plural marriage is protected by the constitution.
I don't think the challenges can be satisfactorily addressed, but I will not fight the polygamists if they can figure it out. Why? Because at that point it wouldn't affect me in the least!!
60 years of studies brought forth what? The Diana Screen?
60 years of studies furnished a test that can be foiled. Great work.
So how do you discern a heterosexual pedophile and a homosexual one? How do you know a "true pedophile" from a "pseudo-pedophile"?
Let me ask you something: Is a man abusing a boy worse than a man abusing a girl? You seem to be implying that sexual abuse from a homosexual is worse than heterosexual abuse. I'm curious why, and more importantly, what's wrong with you to even think it? I'm under the impression that any abuse by anyone is a serious tragedy that should never be taken lightly. To any reasonable person, which you don't seem to be whatsoever, the vast majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, do not engage in such abuse. To attempt to create distinctions and levels of severity is just awful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Let me ask you something: Is a man abusing a boy worse than a man abusing a girl? You seem to be implying that sexual abuse from a homosexual is worse than heterosexual abuse. I'm curious why, and more importantly, what's wrong with you to even think it? I'm under the impression that any abuse by anyone is a serious tragedy that should never be taken lightly. To any reasonable person, which you don't seem to be whatsoever, the vast majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, do not engage in such abuse. To attempt to create distinctions and levels of severity is just awful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Quite a reasonable point, although I would caution that I have known plenty of gay men who spoke of early (i.e. pre-age of consent) sexual interactions with older people with nostalgia and fond memories, but I can't say the same of females. If one had to draw a distinction based on that, therefore, the former case would be more innocent and excusable, not less.
Quite a reasonable point, although I would caution that I have known plenty of gay men who spoke of early (i.e. pre-age of consent) sexual interactions with older people with nostalgia and fond memories, but I can't say the same of females. If one had to draw a distinction based on that, therefore, the former case would be more innocent and excusable, not less.
Reasonable people don't draw distinctions on a handful of anecdotes, regardless of the topic at hand.
Reasonable people don't draw distinctions on a handful of anecdotes, regardless of the topic at hand.
Reasonable people don't consider only anecdotes and leave it at that, but in this case there is some documented basis in the distinction.
In practice though, most people are only going to accept science that confirms their anecdotes and prejudices anyway; look at the reaction to the Rind study for instance.
Um, actually it's based in legal theory. You may not AGREE with the legal theory (or rather, you actually don't understand), but that doesn't make it ARBITRARY.
In fact, one could easily argue that those who would reject the legal theory that equal protection applies to same sex marriage are using their own arbitrary belief system to rule in accordance with their beliefs or religion.
But even such a judge would root their theory in the law. It wouldn't be accepted otherwise.
Marriage laws are arbitrary. The people in the state decide who can marry, and who cannot. You just arrogantly think what is going on is legal, because the judicial outcomes on gay marriage agree with your own arbitrary views.
Every state has their own marriage laws, which deviate as to who may marry whom, they vary in ages, consent, and family relationship. they are all arbitrarily arrived upon by the voters in their states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
There is zero rational basis for government marriage contracts to be limited by sex of the contractors.
That depends on why the state is endorsing marriage in the first place. It depends on what definition, purpose and function of marriage is, according to the state.
If a state wants to rewrite marriage laws to say only couples with children will have their marriages endorsed by the state. It all depends on how the people in a state view the importance or purpose of marriage, not some simple majority on the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Would you believe it rational if a state had a law that said real estate contracts could only be entered into between members of the opposite sex? That same sex contracts for sale of a house were invalid, against morality and the Bible? Of course not, but that's essentially what YOUR ILK is doing vis-à-vis the argument concerning the marriage contract.
That would imply that the purpose and function of real estate has something to do with gender.
I'm not a religious person, the bible means nothing to me, so I'm not of that ilk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Just as allowing interracial marriage doesn't mean YOU HAVE TO get an interracial marriage, or that you have to APPROVE of interracial marriage. It means the government has no basis upon which to say, "the marriage contract should only be limited to people of the same race."
The traditional marriage definition is about men and women making babies, and raising them in a family, so they grow up to be well adjusted and functioning contributions to society. This definition has nothing to do with eye, hair, or skin color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
It is clear that you do not have a grasp of constitutional review, or the various stages of analysis. The government CAN and does discriminate. But to do so, it must have various levels of rationale and reasoning to do so.
And so does the state government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
RATIONAL basis is the least rigorous to excuse discriminatory behavior. Under even that concept, the reasons for restricting the marriage contract based on NUMBER far outweigh the reasons for restricting based on sex. And they are NOT arbitrary. They are rational, sound reasons:
The benefits, rights, privileges and immunities of the marriage contract do not lend themselves to multiple parties. Immigration, spousal court immunity, benefits splitting, taxes, child custody problems... all of these are complicated when marriage is expanded beyond two people.
That is not a good position to take.
How does having a gay couple with surrogate mothers not complicate matters? Every gay or lesbian couple that wants children must involve an outside party, and unless both gay men want the same surrogate mother, they may end up involving four people or more. Adding to the complexity, the children are always only related to one parent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
There is no moralizing involved. No appeal to books of fairy tales, or sweeping pronouncements about the health of society. Instead, they are practical, RATIONAL reasons based in logic.
Now, if polygamists want to sit down, and work it out for the court and prove that these multitude of issues associated with multiple marriage can be worked out so that it does not create a burden on anyone else, the government, etc., and CAN be worked out, than let them do that and bring their reasons to the courts.
Or, all it takes is for some activist judge to decide a bisexual man can have two spouses, a man and a woman. Why can one person marry Tom, but another person cannot?
What is the difference if Tom and Scott are married to Susan, and she has their children, or they are in a gay marriage, and Susan still has all their children? In fact, wouldn't it be better for the children to be raised by their mother and fathers???
does it cause you pain and anguish if Scott, tom and Susan live together with their children??? Oh I forgot, you were busy waxing on about your arbitrary legal rational.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
