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 must agree with Vizio on this point. Every person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so, in effect this is equal protection under the law.
Yes, that's true. However, it's how he is using this truth that creates the point of contention. In other words, he is essentially saying that the dispensation of rights ends once he receives his. After that, who cares.
I must agree with Vizio on this point. Every person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so, in effect this is equal protection under the law. Though, I don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at all, if it must, I do believe that consenting adults (2 or more) should be allowed to marry and should receive the same privileges.
That same argument was used 50 years ago. Everyone could marry someone of the same race. It was rejected by the courts. A gay man does not want to marry a woman. Straights get to marry the person they want. That makes it inherently unequal.
I must agree with Vizio on this point. Every person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so, in effect this is equal protection under the law. Though, I don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at all, if it must, I do believe that consenting adults (2 or more) should be allowed to marry and should receive the same privileges.
In the same way that in Saudi Arabia there is religious equality, because everyone is equally allowed to be Muslim and everyone is equally prohibited from practicing Christianity?
Of course, as is obvious, the right to practice Islam is as meaningless to a Christian as is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex for a gay person. Such laws are specifically intended to discriminate - and they do.
In the same way that in Saudi Arabia there is religious equality, because everyone is equally allowed to be Muslim and everyone is equally prohibited from practicing Christianity?
Of course, as is obvious, the right to practice Islam is as meaningless to a Christian as is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex for a gay person. Such laws are specifically intended to discriminate - and they do.
Well, what's going on behind the scenes and under the hood of Vizio's mindset is a lack of emapthy. It's just that simple. Everything is argued from his own perspective, what HE wants, what HE thinks is right, and there is a staunch refusal to put on someone else's shoes for awhile and genuinely ask himself - what would it be like for me if being gay was normal and I was prohibited from marrying my wife?
There just isn't any of that kind of elevated thinking going on, so it is very easy to demand that others make monumental sacrifices to their happiness and way of life just to suit Vizio. And when I say "Vizio," I'm not just picking on him specifically - this goes for just about everyone who so passionately rails against same-sex marriage using those same arguments.
And we always have. Happily, now they can serve and not hide it.
And that gives a worthy lesson, for those willing to learn it. Recall how allowing openly gay soldiers was going to depress troop morale, undermine unit cohesion, and cause all other manner of intractable problems?
Never happened.
Actually, it happened in the United States in the 1800s.
There was a time in the United States when the early U.S. Navy was made up almost exclusively of Black-Americans in the enlisted ranks with white commissioned officers (commissioned officers still tend to be white). And homosexuality was rather openly tolerated aboard U.S. Navy ships and so was gay pedophilia. Both of which were punishable by death in the British Royale Navy and much more harshly policed against in the British Royal Navy than the American Navy.
The U.S. Navy pretty much sucked at that time. Jealousies over male lovers were common place aboard ships out at sea. And senior enlisted males frequently "groomed" the younger, more junior enlisted males into gay sexual behavior.
Adults do have their minds groomed by other adults. That's how interests groups through political means and media technologies groom American adults' minds into X, Y, or Z.
But the U.S. Navy today is much more of a professional outfit than it was in the 1800s, so, I think homosexuality and even women aboard ships can be adapted to without causing much harm through jealousy fights over sex, crushes, and love affairs.
You can marry a person of the opposite gender...just like me. Men and women are not treated any differently.
As others have said, this argument was tried and failed miserably in many of the most recent wins for pro-SSM groups. The more you use it, the more out of touch it makes you look with the reality of those cases.
Quote:
If a liberal hack judge refused to accept that, not much I can do. Judges are appointed by politicians and they do not always have pure motives.
During the process, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, described Shelby as "pre-eminently qualified" and predicted he would be "an outstanding judge."
When you find yourself thinking the Utah GoP is a hotbed for liberal activism, maybe it is time to realize that you've drifted a bit outside the mainstream.
Walker was originally nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. However, this nomination stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[4][5] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived insensitivity to gays and the poor.[6]
On September 7, 1989, Walker was re-nominated by President George H. W. Bush to the seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams.[2] He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received his commission on November 27, 1989.
Yep, looks like yet another obvious liberal plant.
Interesting how little reality has to do with the objections coming from the extreme right on this subject.
Smoking doesn't threaten civilization as the likelihood of civilization being destroyed by smoking is so astronomically small that I can't even think of a realistic scenario where it could occur.
An all-out war over a patch of holy sand, however, could destroy civilization. Moreover, the idea that some misguided religious zealout might decide to walk a bomb into the Dome of the Rock and set it off isn't all that far fetched.
I agree that smoking won't destroy civilization...but my point is that will have a greater deleterious effect than religion.
From a "sickness and death" standpoint...there is no comparison...religion is way less a factor.
A bomb...no matter where it's set off...is only as consequential as the ensuing war.
A detonation at The Dome of the Rock will get the Muslims up in arms, no doubt...but they aren't a formidable military force. They may respond with all they have...but all they have isn't much, relative to the major players.
The big "societal game changer" has been abortion.
Here are the stark facts: If it is seen relative to "war"...in the U.S., since just 1973, abortion has killed more than the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and Iraq & Afghanistan Wars, COMBINED! What is the effect on "civilization" and "society" of the elimination of over 50 MILLION people. 1 out of every 7 people...GONE!
By the end of their reproductive years...over one third of American women will kill one of their children as it grows in her womb...half of them will have done it before.
Abortion accounted for near HALF of ALL DEATHS FROM ANY CAUSE worldwide over the past few years...between 40 and 50 MILLION.
And people talk about "religion" as a threat! That's just bias and prejudice against it that's talking...and nothing to do with the facts.
As far as "Gay Marriage"...that falls in the "homosexuality" realm.
If it were to be applied worldwide as a "Universal Law" (As in Kants' "Categorical Imperative")... and got to a point where all followed "Pedigree Homosexuality", the human race would have never thrived and just ended quickly.
Theoretically that could be seen as the biggest threat to "society" and "civilization". But that is in theory only...it will never manifest to actual reality.
All were "Pedigree Hetero" = mankind was good to go....All were "Pedigree Homo" = man would have been doomed. It is in this way Heterosexuality can be viewed as conceptually superior to Homosexuality, and also superior to Abstinence.
I realize that the OP is about same gender "marriage"...but that still ends up a Homosexuality issue. Lots of sex occurs void of a relationship...but few relationships occur void of sex.
Same gender sexual interaction is always non-procreative. If ALL had ever adopted the exclusive practice...THAT would have been the biggest threat to "civilization" and "society"...and would have had the effect to completely wipe out the entire human race in about 115-120 years.
I'd bet money that the two gay men in the featured video never so much as THOUGHT about abortion.
Here's what gets tossed into the pot on any "gay" thread. Anything gay leads to abortion, population decline, polygamy, murder, closure of churches, people marrying their pets, decline in reading scores, pedophilia and sex with goats (who may or many not be Satan in disguise).
Meanwhile those two men in the video are doing things like going to the grocery store, paying their bills, enjoying their grandchild (wasn't she a beauty?), cleaning the house, and, if they're real wild and crazy, staying up until midnight on New Year's Eve.
Actually, it happened in the United States in the 1800s.
There was a time in the United States when the early U.S. Navy was made up almost exclusively of Black-Americans in the enlisted ranks with white commissioned officers (commissioned officers still tend to be white). And homosexuality was rather openly tolerated aboard U.S. Navy ships and so was gay pedophilia. Both of which were punishable by death in the British Royale Navy and much more harshly policed against in the British Royal Navy than the American Navy.
The U.S. Navy pretty much sucked at that time. Jealousies over male lovers were common place aboard ships out at sea. And senior enlisted males frequently "groomed" the younger, more junior enlisted males into gay sexual behavior.
Adults do have their minds groomed by other adults. That's how interests groups through political means and media technologies groom American adults' minds into X, Y, or Z.
But the U.S. Navy today is much more of a professional outfit than it was in the 1800s, so, I think homosexuality and even women aboard ships can be adapted to without causing much harm through jealousy fights over sex, crushes, and love affairs.
I am highly doubtful of all this - perhaps you could provide some citations?
Service of blacks in the 19th Century peaked during the War of 1812 and the Civil War; in the former, black numbers approached as much as 20% of those at sea, while by the end of the Civil War 1/4th of the branch was black. Those were the high-water marks of black service in the U.S. Navy in the 19th Century. Never was the Navy 'almost exclusively' (as you put it) made up of black enlisteds.
Given that blatantly incorrect assertion in your post, absent a reputable source I'm not inclined to buy your claim that homosexuality was widespread and open in the 19th Century American Navy.
I'd bet money that the two gay men in the featured video never so much as THOUGHT about abortion.
Here's what gets tossed into the pot on any "gay" thread. Anything gay leads to abortion, population decline, polygamy, murder, closure of churches, people marrying their pets, decline in reading scores, pedophilia and sex with goats (who may or many not be Satan in disguise).
Meanwhile those two men in the video are doing things like going to the grocery store, paying their bills, enjoying their grandchild (wasn't she a beauty?), cleaning the house, and, if they're real wild and crazy, staying up until midnight on New Year's Eve.
Just like the straight people.
I'm gonna have to agree with you, Mr. Dew. Right here in this thread we've had polygamy, marriage with animals, pedophilia and bestiality mentioned, along with incest and probably several other unsupported accusations. Anal sex seems to be another thing that homophobes obsess about, even though fewer same sex couples engage in it than hetero couples do.
Unfortunately, I'll have to wait to give you the rep that your post deserves.
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-15-2014 at 12:21 PM..
Reason: had to add that rep thing.
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.
