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 can't help but to wonder why the non-gay part of the population spends so much time thinking about what the gay population is doing in their bedrooms. I swear some of you think about it more than I do and I'm gay.
I honestly don't think about what you might be doing in bed. It's of no interest to me. If it's not my thing, my interest or my kink, I spend no time thinking or talking about it. I don't run away squealing it's gross or icky like a six year old girl who might catch cooties. Heck, if I'm not attracted to someone chances are I'm not contemplating what they might be like in bed or what they may be doing in bed, at all.
Why then are [some] heterosexuals so obsessed in return? Serious question.
Not in the area of Constitutionality. The Legislative branch makes laws, the Executive carried them out, and the Judicial decides if the are Constitutional. The only recourse for the other branches if something is declared unconstitutional is to amend the Constitution... Well, I guess you could pull an Andrew Jackson and tell the Supreme Court, "you and whose army?", but that is generally frowned upon...
Like I said, you can think they are wrong, but the SC is the only body who determines what is Constitutional. At one point slavery was constitutional, the legislative branch fixed that with amendments. If you want to make sure marriage discrimination is constitutional, you have to change the Constitution. Which of course was tried and didn't fare so well...
-NoCapo
Huh, that's interesting because marriage isn't a right and doesn't appear in the Constitution, so I don't know why I have to do anything you just said.
At the current time yes. However; the meth head who lived across the street from me until his house was finally raided by the county drug task force apparently was bi. He had a girlfriend, but we knew that a buddy of his would come over for a "booty call." I don't know everyone in my neighborhood, and I certainly don't know everyone in my town, but I'm sure there are more. Does it bother me, or effect the way I live? No. Why should it?
I can't help but to wonder why the non-gay part of the population spends so much time thinking about what the gay population is doing in their bedrooms. I swear some of you think about it more than I do and I'm gay.
Huh, that's odd, it's funny how gay people keep saying that the only people who care about gay sex are straight people. And yet I'm pretty sure the reason it's an issue is because of gay people. So I'm not sure how this argument logically works, but it sure is popular.
"If I bring it up, that's fine. But if you oppose me, then you have a problem!"
At the current time yes. However; the meth head who lived across the street from me until his house was finally raided by the county drug task force apparently was bi. He had a girlfriend, but we knew that a buddy of his would come over for a "booty call." I don't know everyone in my neighborhood, and I certainly don't know everyone in my town, but I'm sure there are more. Does it bother me, or effect the way I live? No. Why should it?
That's the most progressive neighborhood ever. I approve!
Huh, that's interesting because marriage isn't a right and doesn't appear in the Constitution, so I don't know why I have to do anything you just said.
Marriage is, however, in the law. Equality before the law is in the Constitution, therefore if marriage as codified in the law does not provide equality under the law for homosexuals, the Supreme Court could decide that the current legal definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Then the legislature would have the options of rwriting the laws about marriage to try to get around the ruling, amending the constitution to allow current law, or extending the rights and privileges of marriage equally to homosexual couples.
Huh, that's interesting because marriage isn't a right and doesn't appear in the Constitution, so I don't know why I have to do anything you just said.
Equal protection of the laws IS a right, and IS in the constitution. There are laws called MARRIAGE. So, equal protections of MARRIAGE laws is in the constitution covered under the 14th amendment.
Or do you honestly believe that all rights are listed in the constitution?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's funny, but according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is checked by the other two branches, which means their word is not final. Sorry to make you feel badly.
There are only two checks on the Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment and appointing new Justices that change the make-up of the court. So yes, short of those two things happening, the Supreme Court is the final word on anything legal.
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.
Congratulations. You've proven you know nothing about biology or the law.
