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.
I see, So all that you homosexuals want is the goodies, it has nothing to do with "rights", does it? I knew it. You homosexuals are selfish in the extreme. That is why you put the interests of children behind your own "supposed" rights. You people are truly sick.
Yes, only heterosexuals should have access to those goodies! No double standards from this right-winger. Not at all.
What we designate as a marriage is another matter.
But when marriages get legal benefits from the government, discriminates who you can marry, it is illegal. The 14th Amendment states that, Loving v. Virginia proved that point for interracial marriage. Still waiting for a Same Sex Marriage lawsuit to be put up to the same test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YanMarcs
Conservatives need admit that the concept of individual liberties is killing traditional values, you can not give people freedom associated with democracy and expect it to keep traditional social principles.
All countries in the world that have succumbed to the ideology of democracy and civil liberties, they are undergoing major cultural changes, such as Ireland, South Korea, their traditional values are being lost ... It must be difficult for the Conservatives admit the success of Russia or China to preserve their societies and their values, and especially to recognize that what they advocate are killing their societies, that only a state strong ,can keep traditional societies with traditional values.
The problem is the conservatives in America want to use religious values that not all the country follow as the laws for all. It's damn near Sharia Law except it's not Islam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Adultery is not a crime, except in New Hampshire. Or do you think the SCOTUS should step in and write all adultery laws for the nation as well? Adultery is viewed as detrimental to marriage, which is why it is grounds for a divorce in every state I am aware of.
If marriage laws were a purely blind egalitarian issue, then all marriage laws would need to be exactly the same, anyone could marry anyone, siblings, cousins, whatever, whoever, whenever.
I've tried to find the reasons that incestuous marriages should be illegal but I cannot find anything. Sure some of it is ick factor, some people have that with gay marriage, some people have it with May-December marriage and others find it with interracial marriage too. Two out of the three are entirely legal right now. If there is a legitimate reason incestuous marriage should be illegal outside of the whole argument of children born with more medical issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
As long as it is the same race, otherwise it is promoting deviancy.
Yeah, we heard that argument before. How did it work out last time they tried that one?
Yeah, it seems most of the time these bigoted beliefs return to the same old religious dogmatic strawman of the coming of Revelations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy
Heterosexuality is the natural state of all people. It is only people who choose to do something perverse and deviant who call themselves "gays" or "lesbians".
How is that? Do you have any proof that Heterosexuality is the natural state of all people or is this just another religious conservative based strawman?
I see, So all that you homosexuals want is the goodies, it has nothing to do with "rights", does it? I knew it. You homosexuals are selfish in the extreme. That is why you put the interests of children behind your own "supposed" rights. You people are truly sick.
Selfish? The selfish ones are the straights that want to limit marriage and those rights to just them. What interests of children? What do they have to do with marriage, they are not required of marriage, nor are any of those 1049 rights about children. You have no reason to claim any one being sick and if anyone is sick it is the anti gays. You have no clue and no point.
If homosexuals can "choose to be "gay" than heterosexuals can "choose to be straight", or are y'all admitting to be different and not "equal".
No gay person I know has ever claimed to "choose to be gay". That is your claim. I no more chose to be gay than you chose to be straight. To make a choice you have to have all the options before you, meaning you are attracted to both males and females. Then you have to weigh the pros and cons of each, and decide which you want. The only people that I know that are attracted to both males and females are bisexuals. The vast majority have no control over which sex they are attracted to.
I see, So all that you homosexuals want is the goodies, it has nothing to do with "rights", does it? I knew it. You homosexuals are selfish in the extreme. That is why you put the interests of children behind your own "supposed" rights. You people are truly sick.
How does me getting married put the rights of children behind me? My children would be better off if I were married, just like heterosexuals children are better off if their parents are married.
If homosexuals can "choose to be "gay" than heterosexuals can "choose to be straight", or are y'all admitting to be different and not "equal".
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm straight, I didn't have to make a choice to be straight, it isn't something I thought about, I just am. Same with homosexuals, they didn't make a decision to be gay, they just are.
If someone actually had to make a choice to be either one, if they actually had to think about which one they are, then chances are they are at least bi....
"As the Supreme Court prepares to decide a key case involving states’ requirements to recognize same-sex marriage, public support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally continues its rapid rise: A 57% majority of Americans now favor allowing same-sex marriage and 39% oppose. As recently as five years ago, more opposed (48%) same-sex marriage than supported it (42%)."
Like the Loving v Virginia case? Or the civil rights act?
The 14th amendment addressed racial equality, it's sad that we needed a civil rights act to force the bigots to stop using the color of a person's skin to deny them equality under the law. But then, skin color is not a social issue, it's simply racial bigotry.
However, if interracial couples were sterile, as in it was impossible for a black man and a white woman to conceive a child together, then Loving v Virginia may have gone a completely different way. But the biological facts are that skin color has nothing to do human reproduction.
The 14th amendment addressed racial equality, it's sad that we needed a civil rights act to force the bigots to stop using the color of a person's skin to deny them equality under the law. But then, skin color is not a social issue, it's simply racial bigotry.
However, if interracial couples were sterile, as in it was impossible for a black man and a white woman to conceive a child together, then Loving v Virginia may have gone a completely different way. But the biological facts are that skin color has nothing to do human reproduction.
Please show me where race was mentioned in the 14th. I'm pretty sure it says ALL persons.
Legal marriage in this country does not require reproduction, and reproduction does not require marriage. Sterile, and infertile people get married every single day.
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.
