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.
If a man's penis is designed to fit into a vagina, why do you like oral sex? It's an aberration. It isn't meant to go there, right? Aberrations are fine for me but not for thee.
Male dolphins have inserted their penis into the blowhole of another male dolphin. Well documented.
(Dolphins as in the animals...not the NFL team from Miami )
So there really is no real premise of whether this issue is right or wrong, it's just your own personal views. So I can respect your opinion just as I hope you respect mine, but we can agree to disagree.
Then they would be married. That's the point. What constitutes marriage. This is not discrimination
Of course not letting gay couples access civil marriage LAW and the legal rights it confers is discrimination. That's discrimination 101. Let's say instead of banning gay people from marrying, a state decided to write it's marriage law banning Christian couples from marrying and accessing the 1000+ legal rights of civil marriage. Would you not consider that discrimination?
Quote:
What's the standard?
Our nation is governed by the principle that all people should be treated equally under, and have equal access to, the law (see the 14th Amendment of our Constitution). As such, laws cannot irrationally discriminate. Notice I said irrationally - like any Constitutional protection of rights, there are limits. Laws can discriminate if they serve a legitimate government interest - in other words, if they prevent some harm from being done to The People.
For instance, it would be unconstitutional to ban gay people or Christian people from driving on the public roadways, but it would be okay to ban children or blind people from driving.
Quote:
that would like saying we can block the man who wants to marry his laptop from having certain rights. Well at some point you have to draw the line. Everyone can't marry the way they want to. Should people be able to marry kids? Their own kids? How do you define what marriage is if you are trying to determine that what it was defined as before was wrong?
Inanimate objects and non-human living things cannot consent to contracts nor can they exercise legal rights, so your laptop analogy is just plain ridiculous.
Now, let's apply the relevant Constitutional principle to civil marriage law and gay people. Does allowing gay people to marry - in other words, does letting gay people exercise the 1000+ legal rights conferred by marriage law - harm The People of the US?
If yes, it's okay to ban gay couples from accessing civil marriage law. If no, then it's Constitutionally impermissible to ban gay couples from accessing civil marriage law.
Give it a try. Argue to me how gay couples having and exercising the 1000+ legal rights of civil marriage is harmful. Lawyers for the states of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, Arkansas, Kentucky, Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia and Michigan have all tried and failed.
Last edited by hammertime33; 05-12-2014 at 01:07 PM..
The context is penis in vagina and male to male contact is an aberration. No other subject was referenced. Deal with that comment which is irrefutable. Stay away from tangents and deal with the main issue.
Ask your husband.
Sorry, if a penis is designed to fit into a vagina, as you say, then oral sex is an aberration, regardless of the sex of the people involved.
To claim anything else is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Semantics. You are saying redefinition, I am talking about removing a provision. A state saying you can't marry your cousin, is not redefining marriage, it is stating a provision.
Civil marriage is law - it is a legal institution. As such, civil marriage is created and defined entirely by what the law says. Anytime you change civil marriage law, you have redefined civil marriage.
Sorry, if a penis is designed to fit into a vagina, as you say, then oral sex is an aberration, regardless of the sex of the people involved.
To claim anything else is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Well you are making your own hypothesis and that is fine. I am tolerant.
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.
)
