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.
Well I wont ask about the world in which you live, where a man uses his P*n*s to clean the tailpipe of another is natural, but you will never convince me of that.
Look to nature for what is natural. There's plenty of gay sex0ring going on in nature. You may not like it for yourself but that doesn't disqualify it from being natural.
Quote:
There is no discrimination based on gender it is based on behavior and we discriminate against that all the time, look at those folks down in Texas being discriminated against right now!
It is absolutely based on gender. When a man can marry a woman but a woman can't marry a woman, the issue is gender. When a woman can marry a man but a man can't marry a man, the issue is gender. The sole litmus tests for marriage are gender, age, mental competence, mutual consent, marriage certificate filing fee. Do you see a behavioral requirement there? I don't.
the equal protection clause opens up a can of worms. If you open the door for marriages outside the traditional man and woman, you get a slippery slope. What's to stop man boy marriages from forming? what about middle schoolers that are "in love"? What about polygamy? Is this an unreasonable jump? I mean, equal protection under the law is equal protection regardless of age, sex, race, creed, ect...
The intention of the 14th amendment was to prevent state governments from violating the bill of rights. no where in our bill of rights is there an amendment protecting the right to marry. Can yall at least see where I'm coming from and acknowledge that I have a point? Because if you leftists meet me halfway and show some itellectual honesty, I'll do the same for you by stating that we should get rid of the tax benefits that come being married as it's discriminatory to single people and people who aren't allowed by law to marry.
As a libertarian, I don't really care if gays get married or not. As a firm believer in states rights and the rights of the people to determine laws regarding the issue of marriage, I'm apalled at what the judicial activism in this case. The people of Cali were pretty clear that they were against gay marriage. When judicial bureaucrats go against the will of the people in regards to powers left to the states and people, I take issue. Tyranny of the minority is what I call it.
If marriage is a "civil right" this is going to be fun to watch.
Last edited by Philosophizer; 05-16-2008 at 08:22 AM..
Are you A Republican? because we keep hearing about how it is the Republicans who keep raising this issue.
Gay and lesbian people will always want to discuss this issue and fight for equal rights. Do I believe same-sex marriage is even close to one of the biggest issues this great nation faces at the moment? No. Do I and many other still believe it is an important issue worthy of dialogue? Yes.
I would much rather same-sex marriage and other issues which effect gay and lesbian individuals gradually progress under the radar than be used as a diversion by far-right conservatives seeking to rally their base around an issue that, ultimately, should mean nothing to them.
Well I wont ask about the world in which you live, where a man uses his P*n*s to clean the tailpipe of another is natural, but you will never convince me of that. There is no discrimination based on gender it is based on behavior and we discriminate against that all the time, look at those folks down in Texas being discriminated against right now!
Based on your quote, it's just something that grosses you out. I don't see how it concerns you.
Look to nature for what is natural. There's plenty of gay sex0ring going on in nature. You may not like it for yourself but that doesn't disqualify it from being natural.
It is absolutely based on gender. When a man can marry a woman but a woman can't marry a woman, the issue is gender. When a woman can marry a man but a man can't marry a man, the issue is gender. The sole litmus tests for marriage are gender, age, mental competence, mutual consent, marriage certificate filing fee. Do you see a behavioral requirement there? I don't.
Debate the semantics of natural all you want , but , as I have said many times Homosexuals argueing the fact that animals do it doesnt help their case, Animals eat their own & other's feces also, so if that is what you want to be identified with , by all means! Listen up, if the Bull is humping the other steers instead of the hefers, he gets turned into hamburger. Not really the road you want to go down!
It is protected, promoted and sponsored by the state. More hetero anal sex going on than gay anal sex.
Please!! Have you taken a survey?
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.
