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.
All sexual acts including heterosexual acts are behavior, yes. A state could, and has the right to regulate heterosexual acts as well, including marriage. No federal right to marriage of any kind exists. For the record I did not equate homosexuality with beastiality, I only pointed out the fact that people who engage in such things could claim they are being discriminated against as well, and courts in the future could grant them "rights". The same is true of polygamy. Society has the right to set rules on which behavior is tolerated and which is not. Polygamy is not tolerated, nor is beastiality. Homosexuality is tolerated, but in some states it is not officially recognized thorough their marriage laws. This is the right of these states to do this. I stand behind my founding fathers and the constitution, modern liberal thoughts on this are irrelevant. Convince your state to pass gay marriage laws, that is the appropriate way to get gay marriage in the United States of America. Courts should NEVER make law, that is against our constitution.
Sexual orientation, having sex, wether straight or gay is not a behavior. The state does not regulate sexual acts, they used to with oral sex and any form of sex they viewed as sodomy. If any form of sex leads to polygamy or to beastiality, it is heterosexuality, not gay. All that use this excuse to discriminate against gays forgets that. Do not blame your ills on gays. States never should have had the right to institute laws into their constitutions that created a destinct discrimination against gays. DOMA never should have happened for the same reason, it was unconstitutional and based on baloney fears that somehow allowing same sex couples to marry would somehow harm straight couples marriages. Not one straight couple has reported that their marriage has been harmed by same sex couples getting legally married. Not One.
That is very true. By being the openly out of the closet homosexual party the Democrats are actively digging their own political grave. How gay can they get?
That reminds of an old Letterman joke. Something like "GLAAD turned down an offer from Elton John today to play their national convention. They said he was too gay even for them."
You have a bad case of sour grapes, this is a done deal, you need to get over it. Your post show how painfully ignorant you are about law.
You have told me to "get over it" at least 10 times. Do you always repeat yourself?? I also see the same left wing tactic being used here, an attempt to dismiss my views as ignorance. The reality here is that don't agree with you, and for that you attempt to label me ignorant. I try to stay above those types of tactics, it does nothing for my argument to insult the intelligence or challenge the education level of my adversary. You believe in an activist court which advances the progressive movement where states refuse to. I believe this goes against our constitution. I believe our legislators are supposed to make laws. I also believe federal government is very limited on how much control it can exert over the states. Courts only make sure these laws are being followed, and they make sure our constitution is followed. I believe they are supposed to be weaker than they are today. Just because they have become lawmakers in recent decades does not mean that is the way it is supposed to be.
Courts only make sure these laws are being followed, and they make sure our constitution is followed.
This is exactly what's happening, as far as I'm aware. Why are you upset about judges striking down unconstitutional bans? States are violating the rights of their citizens, and that's not okay, is it?
I suspect only left wing nut jobs would agree with this. The educated not so much.
I suspect only right wing nut jobs would have taken the comment literally. The educated would have understood the underlying point of the sardonic reference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
You have told me to "get over it" at least 10 times. Do you always repeat yourself??
Perhaps he has but he's not the one repeatedly posting patently egoistic pronouncements about society. There is nothing you've added to the discussion since your first comment. You said it all there - why say more?
(Since some people in the thread may have difficulty understanding subtlety: That's a rhetorical question, not one that you would answer. The reason why you'd post more is the the reason he posted more. The point of the rhetorical question was to get you to react to the question with that response, and then realize that it applied to your inadvertently ridiculous comment in the same way it applied to my deliberately ridiculous comment.)
You have told me to "get over it" at least 10 times. Do you always repeat yourself?? I also see the same left wing tactic being used here, an attempt to dismiss my views as ignorance. The reality here is that don't agree with you, and for that you attempt to label me ignorant. I try to stay above those types of tactics, it does nothing for my argument to insult the intelligence or challenge the education level of my adversary. You believe in an activist court which advances the progressive movement where states refuse to. I believe this goes against our constitution. I believe our legislators are supposed to make laws. I also believe federal government is very limited on how much control it can exert over the states. Courts only make sure these laws are being followed, and they make sure our constitution is followed. I believe they are supposed to be weaker than they are today. Just because they have become lawmakers in recent decades does not mean that is the way it is supposed to be.
Our constitution, and the state constitutions should never have been altered to include discrimination against homosexuals, ever. That is encoding discrimination into those constitutions, yet you want to follow the constitutions but are fine with them being altered to create laws that exclude rights from gays. So, why is it okay to rewrite them to exclude gays, but not okay to return them to when they did not have these discriminatory laws? Can you tell me why, Daniel? Why should they be changed to exclude gays, yet not changed back? Do you understand what tyranny of the majority is and what keeping the minority down is? No majority has the right to pass laws that created a bias against any minority.
Why are people so darn upset by having the Law applied equally to people of different color, sex, sexual preference or religion. All of these people were treated differently with much damage to them and little benefit to the "majority". How are these would be secessionists harmed by everyone being treated equally by the law? Why do some folks need their religious beliefs forced on others by the power of the state. If their belief system is so very much better than all the others wouldn't people naturally join?
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.
