Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization

Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization (Page 6)
Thread Tools
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 09:19 PM
 
Please show me where in the 14th we have to tolerate behavior that isn't acceptable to us in the majority.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 11:00 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Please show me where in the 14th we have to tolerate behavior that isn't acceptable to us in the majority.
Countermajoritarian protection of minorities is kind of the point. You don't need constitutions to protect majorities. Surely you were exposed to that idea in civics class?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 05:05 AM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Let's see: man has penis. Woman has vagina. Penis goes into vagina. Natural. Exactly as nature designed humans.

Woman has vagina. Woman has vagina. There's no penis. Impossible to have natural characteristic sex for two humans.

Man has penis. Man has penis. There's no vagina. Impossible to have natural characteristic sex for two humans.
Think of the full scope of your argument.
Homosexuals generally don't reproduce, so shouldn't they die out by virtue of evolution if they are of no use to society?

Homosexuals have been around forever, and so there seems to be a use for them (as we can see by your argument above), whether you can see it or not. Hence, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 05:08 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Cloning in the respect that gay couples CANNOT procreate or produce a child that shares the genes of both partners. That is what I mean by cloning...a way for a gay couple to 'reproduce'.
Cloning uses the DNA of only one person, not two.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 05:12 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
No ****. BUt what about gaycentric entertainment? What about the introduction of gay comic book characters, sitcom characters and cartoon characters? What about all pf these semi-reality shows like queer eye for the straight guy or that sexualliy expliciy show on Showtime? What about Will and Grace. What about the internet and the gay left's agenda to recruit and manipulate the American people with deceptive lies? The gay left IS imposing its lifestyle on the American people and we can see a decline in morals already. The gay left is trying to romanticize and legitimize poor behavior. Some people have already been manipulated and brainwashed. Others have not. I am glad we live in a conservative nation that has a moral compass that points in the right direction. Regretfully, the liberal left and the gay agenda are trying to force that compass to point south.
Well, gaycentric entertainment has been around since (at least) Greece. Obviously, they had no TV and internet.

BTW, now you're definitely mingling those gays and the `liberal left'.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 06:03 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
1. We are not focusing on what 2% do in their bedroom. We are wondering why 2% of the people want to redefine marriage to legitimize their lifestyle choice. We are wondering what the true motive really is. As I mentioned...there is never an argument for same sex marriages that relates to love...only arguments for special rights and specia benefits.

2. Attacking heterosexual families to gain special rights for the gay left isn't very prudent. may I direct your attention to November 2nd, 2004. Perhaps if the gay left can come up with better arguments for their effort to redefine marriage and family, some people would listen. Instead, gays think a wholesale attack on anything pro-family is the way to get people to sympathize with their predicament (of choice). Please, continue. Your effort does more good for my cause.
AFAIK the percentage of homosexual males is around 5-10 %, for homosexual females around 5 %. It's far higher than suggested by conservative sites.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 09:29 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
AFAIK the percentage of homosexual males is around 5-10 %, for homosexual females around 5 %. It's far higher than suggested by conservative sites.
Those figures are hotly debated, and the fact is, nobody really knows. The more recent studies seem to settle on about 4-7% for males, a little lower for females. But those are still very tentative.

However, the most important thing is that when anti-gay people use fixed percentages like 1-2%, they are implicitly admitting two important things:

First, that there is such a thing as a homosexual. That's important, because in other arguments, they try to deny that. So they have to talk about it as if homosexuals are in fact heterosexuals who do homosexual acts. That's not really credible to most people, I think including most anti-gay people. But it is a necessary tactical position for them because I think they recognize that openly advocating discrimination against a group of people isn't a winning argument legally, politically, or ethically. The tension between these explicit and implicit positions is why their arguments are often so incoherent.

Second, that even at 2%, the gay community is larger than many communities that do receive legal protections. 2% is larger than the Jewish population of the US, for example.

The second point is important politically. As more and more gay people come out to their friends, families, workmates, neighbors, schools, churches, synagogues, it becomes increasingly difficult to vilify them. That's why the language used against gay people is so shrill. Reasonable people can debate gay marriage, but people appealing to unreasoned emotions have to use language like "molesting" marriage.

However, legally, it makes no difference whatsoever whether a minority is large or small. Equall rights applies as a concept without regard to the size of the group you belong to. This is a country founded on individual rights, not group rights.

In fact, the larger the minority is, the stronger the argument is that it should be able to protect itself through the political process (it's one of the reasons the feminist Equal Rights Amendment failed -- people pointed out that 52% of the population is a majority). When they argue that we are a very small percentage, there is a tendency for reasonable undecided people to conclude that A. maybe we do need legal protections, since 2% can never get anywhere close to a majority; and, B. why is everyone so scared of such a small percentage?

So all in all, it isn't worth debating the numbers. If the percentages are what we think they are, that will become apparent as people come out.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 23, 2004 at 10:13 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 11:36 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Those figures are hotly debated, and the fact is, nobody really knows. The more recent studies seem to settle on about 4-7% for males, a little lower for females. But those are still very tentative.

However, the most important thing is that when anti-gay people use fixed percentages like 1-2%, they are implicitly admitting two important things:

First, that there is such a thing as a homosexual. That's important, because in other arguments, they try to deny that. So they have to talk about it as if homosexuals are in fact heterosexuals who do homosexual acts. That's not really credible to most people, I think including most anti-gay people. But it is a necessary tactical position for them because I think they recognize that openly advocating discrimination against a group of people isn't a winning argument legally, politically, or ethically. The tension between these explicit and implicit positions is why their arguments are often so incoherent.

Second, that even at 2%, the gay community is larger than many communities that do receive legal protections. 2% is larger than the Jewish population of the US, for example.

The second point is important politically. As more and more gay people come out to their friends, families, workmates, neighbors, schools, churches, synagogues, it becomes increasingly difficult to vilify them. That's why the language used against gay people is so shrill. Reasonable people can debate gay marriage, but people appealing to unreasoned emotions have to use language like "molesting" marriage.

However, legally, it makes no difference whatsoever whether a minority is large or small. Equall rights applies as a concept without regard to the size of the group you belong to. This is a country founded on individual rights, not group rights.

In fact, the larger the minority is, the stronger the argument is that it should be able to protect itself through the political process (it's one of the reasons the feminist Equal Rights Amendment failed -- people pointed out that 52% of the population is a majority). When they argue that we are a very small percentage, there is a tendency for reasonable undecided people to conclude that A. maybe we do need legal protections, since 2% can never get anywhere close to a majority; and, B. why is everyone so scared of such a small percentage?

So all in all, it isn't worth debating the numbers. If the percentages are what we think they are, that will become apparent as people come out.
About the statistics, I just noticed the same thing, that conservative websites usually state, only 1-2 % of the population is `infected'. All other sources I have seen quoted 5-10 %, even if we settle for 4, it'll be more than twice as high than claimed by conservative websites (there are lots of problems, e. g. gays who are trying to live a heterosexual life, etc.).

I agree that even at 0.5 %, homosexuals would be entitled to the same protection as they are with 5 %. But the argument `there are so little of them', so why should we, the `healthy' majority be forced to accept a `perverted' lifestyle is used, and I'm sick of that.

People who impose their morale on others when these other people don't interfere with my life. Sorry for the rant, but I had a lot of experience with people who preach and impose their morale on others last year. (Cost me a lot.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 11:58 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
About the statistics, I just noticed the same thing, that conservative websites usually state, only 1-2 % of the population is `infected'. All other sources I have seen quoted 5-10 %, even if we settle for 4, it'll be more than twice as high than claimed by conservative websites (there are lots of problems, e. g. gays who are trying to live a heterosexual life, etc.).
Well, as I say, I don't think it is a very productive argument.

I think it is also important not to paint with too broad a brush. Not everyone who is uncomfortable with gay marriage would agree with Lou Sheldon. There is room for compromise. Not with a fringe, perhaps, but certainly with the majority.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 12:30 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, as I say, I don't think it is a very productive argument.

I think it is also important not to paint with too broad a brush. Not everyone who is uncomfortable with gay marriage would agree with Lou Sheldon. There is room for compromise. Not with a fringe, perhaps, but certainly with the majority.
Things will change slowly. It'll take a generation or two maybe.

Fifty years ago, most men were convinced, women couldn't drive as well as men. Homosexuality was a crime back then, and now (at least in Germany), it's getting more and more accepted. Fortunately, the direction of time is forward. Most of the time at least
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃOâ…ƒ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 06:55 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Things will change slowly. It'll take a generation or two maybe.

Fifty years ago, most men were convinced, women couldn't drive as well as men.
This has changed?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 07:43 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
It is older than canada amoral code that allows gays to marry. But then again, who cares, eh. Canada has always been a haven for American undesireables. Your new anti-family law should attract quite a few gays...along with military deserters, liberal cry babies and wanted felons.
So, in other words, you either don't have an answer for my question or don't like the only answer available to you and choose instead to attack someone else as distraction.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 06:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Mithras:
This has changed?
Yes, in Germany women do indeed drive, and they drive as good (as bad) as men. In Germany, women have less accidents, but more fatal accidents. They tend to drive better during the day than at night, etc. But this is all statistics.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:28 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Countermajoritarian protection of minorities is kind of the point. You don't need constitutions to protect majorities. Surely you were exposed to that idea in civics class?
A rational basis discussion about someone's right to engage in a particular kind of behavior doesn't entail any interpretation of any part of the Constitution.

We cannot execute you for being homosexual but we can prevent two homosexuals from marrying since the right to marry already exists. You simply choose not to marry a woman. That's not a reasonable basis for changing the law since you aren't being denied anything.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:33 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Think of the full scope of your argument.
Homosexuals generally don't reproduce, so shouldn't they die out by virtue of evolution if they are of no use to society?
Many disorders come and go regardless of the impact reproduction has on the continuation of such disorders.

Homosexuals have been around forever, and so there seems to be a use for them (as we can see by your argument above), whether you can see it or not. Hence, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.
What use would that be, exactly?

Using your argument, slavery was around for a very long time, therefore, we should continue it?

Amending the law on the basis of where a person sticks their genitals and thus providing legal protections for that in the form of marriage is something I and the majority of this country will not stand for.

There is no benefit to society or the human race as a whole for two homosexuals to marry, therefore, marriage on that basis must be denied just as a man should be denied from having more than one wife.

The homosexual is perfectly free to marry under current laws but chooses not to.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:38 PM
 
Time changes things, including the meaning of words, and beliefs. You don't have to accept it personally, but it will happen, because it's right.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 01:09 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
A rational basis discussion about someone's right to engage in a particular kind of behavior doesn't entail any interpretation of any part of the Constitution.
You don't really understand the legal process, so you continue to contradict yourself. Do you know why a "rational basis" discussion is conducted in the first place?

I would answer but I figure Simey can take care of it since you were addressing his post.

We cannot execute you for being homosexual but we can prevent two homosexuals from marrying since the right to marry already exists. You simply choose not to marry a woman. That's not a reasonable basis for changing the law since you aren't being denied anything.
What if the law said that two people of opposite genders could enter into a contract to build a house, but two people of the same gender could not? Would you argue that since the right to contract already exists, there's no basis for changing the law? It's essentially the same thing.

And if you say, "But marriage is for the purpose of procreation," you'll only contradict yourself again, because as the law stands, marriage isn't restricted to procreation. It's essentially just a contractual relationship governed by the state.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 02:04 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
A rational basis discussion about someone's right to engage in a particular kind of behavior doesn't entail any interpretation of any part of the Constitution.

We cannot execute you for being homosexual but we can prevent two homosexuals from marrying since the right to marry already exists. You simply choose not to marry a woman. That's not a reasonable basis for changing the law since you aren't being denied anything.
Oh dear, where to begin? First, the basic concept of protection of minorities, which is absolutely central to the Constitution is exactly to prevent the abuse of minorities by majorities. That is why this country is a Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracies quickly tend to collapse into what Thomas Jefferson called the tyranny of the majority. Its something that has been observed since Plato wrote about the majority who forced Socrates to drink hemlock for no better reason than they found him annoying.

Second issue: You cannot execute American citizens for being homosexuals. Well, thank you so much for that extraordinary act of tolerance. What a humanitarian you are. Give yourself a pat on the back.

However, this may shock you, but it is already established that you cannot pass laws to vindictively target homosexuals at all. "But I wanna" isn't going to cut it as an argument, and nor does simply being in a majority. In order to do things to homosexuals, you have to come up with a justification that is based on someting more than your dislike for homosexuals. The case that says so is called Romer v. Evans, and it is the law.

There are verious tests that the courts use to decide if a justification is sufficient to pass laws against people. In this case, the test is the basic one -- it is called the rational basis test. In order to pass a law, you have to show that there is some rational basis for passing it. Prejudice and dislike isn't a rational basis.

There is also an intersection with the rights at stake. Certain rights are considered fundamental, and to restrict them, you have to show a very strong need. Marriage is considered a fundamental right. The case for that proposition is Loving v. Virginia. In Loving, Virginia tried an argument which is logically identical to the one you attempt. Virginia argued that because blacks could marry blacks, and whites could marry whites, the law wasn't discriminatory. Virginia argued that it was only the choice to marry a person of the other race that created the problem.

The problem the court correctly identified is that spouses aren't fungible. Mr. and Mrs. Loving were special to each other. There is no replacement for a person's spouse. You can't go to WalMart to find another one identical if the law doesn't like the color of the one you first picked out. So of course if they can't marry each other, the law is discriminating. It's a ridiculous and inhumane argument to say that they were free to marry other people.

The argument for gay marriage is the same. If I told you that you were free to marry, but only if you married a man, you would see why that is similar to the dilemma Mr. and Mrs. Loving found themselves in. A man for you is not a replacement for the woman you love. Nor is a woman for the man I love. And that, my friend, is how legal arguments are constructed.

I know that non-lawyers hate this factor about the law. I constantly hear the same complaint -- that Loving was about race, and this isn't race. But that is the common law legal tradition. the law evolves by breaking cases down into their logical components, and then reconciling different situations. Common law judges look at situation A and at situtation B, and where situation A and B are logically similar, the law expects the result to be similar as well. It doesn't tolerate different outcomes because of legally insignificant differences in the facts. It certainly doesn't tolerate a different outcome driven by nothing more than the fact that a majority doesn't like a minority of their fellow citizens and wants to sh1t on them.

As much as this upsets people who are comfortable screwing their fellow citizens over, it is one of the main reasons America is the free country that it is. You benefit from those freedoms as much as anybody else. You can't hoard those benefits selfishly and think you cannot share them with others.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 24, 2004 at 02:15 PM. )
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 04:48 PM
 
Originally posted by KarlG:
Time changes things, including the meaning of words, and beliefs. You don't have to accept it personally, but it will happen, because it's right.
Time does not such thing.

Humans do.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 04:50 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Humans do ...
... over time
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 09:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Time does not such thing.

Humans do.
Time is a concept that keeps everything from happening at once.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 09:34 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Many disorders come and go regardless of the impact reproduction has on the continuation of such disorders.
This one doesn't come and go, it's been here throughout history as we know it (i. e. at since some people started to document it).

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
What use would that be, exactly?
If there is no use, homosexuality as we know it wouldn't exist.

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Using your argument, slavery was around for a very long time, therefore, we should continue it?
So you connect slavery to homosexuality now?

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Amending the law on the basis of where a person sticks their genitals and thus providing legal protections for that in the form of marriage is something I and the majority of this country will not stand for.

There is no benefit to society or the human race as a whole for two homosexuals to marry, therefore, marriage on that basis must be denied just as a man should be denied from having more than one wife.

The homosexual is perfectly free to marry under current laws but chooses not to.
It is your wishful thinking that there is no benefit. If homosexuality were be harmful, it would be extinct or at least negligible by now. It is not. So the question is not that you don't see a purpose, you don't know it.

The same goes for your polygamy remark -- it is common in certain cultures (usually as long as it is sustainable).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 10:04 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
This one doesn't come and go, it's been here throughout history as we know it (i. e. at since some people started to document it).
Not the point. As a type of behavior it is about as consistent as those who steal, rob, cheat, etc.


If there is no use, homosexuality as we know it wouldn't exist.
Let's play a game. If there is no use, stealing as we know it wouldn't exist.


So you connect slavery to homosexuality now?
I don't, those who support the gay agenda do.

It is your wishful thinking that there is no benefit.
There isn't.

If homosexuality were be harmful, it would be extinct or at least negligible by now.
If stealing were be harmful, it would be extinct or at least negligible by now. If being drunk were be harmful, it would be extinct or at least negligible by now.

It is not. So the question is not that you don't see a purpose, you don't know it.
There is no purpose served to society by homosexuality and there certainly isn't any purpose to be served by legitimizing behavior of this kind for the purpose of marriage.

The same goes for your polygamy remark -- it is common in certain cultures (usually as long as it is sustainable).
It's not for our culture. I don't care if people in other cultures eat **** for breakfast. It doesn't imply that we should.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 10:08 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First, the basic concept of protection of minorities, which is absolutely central to the Constitution is exactly to prevent the abuse of minorities by majorities.

...ad nauseum cut out...
Gays are not a recognized minority. They don't look the same, don't have the same beliefs, don't even sleep with the same sex. In order for you to circumvent the marriage laws it becomes necessary for gays to even go so far as to pervert the meaning of what a minority really is. Disgusting and abhorrant.

Therefore, since you are not a recognized minority, nothing you state applies at all. Rational basis, not strict scrutiny.

If you want to marry then marry a woman like normal men do.

Society doesn't want to legitimize your concept of marriage because you choose to wipe your dick with some other man's feces as your "basis" for intercourse.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 10:10 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
What if the law said that two people of opposite genders could enter into a contract to build a house, but two people of the same gender could not?
I would support such a law. If one chooses to act outside the social norms then one should expect to pay the penalty.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 12:23 AM
 
Matress--
Gays are not a recognized minority.
In the US, at least, there is no such concept. There's no need for government imprimatur to receive the benefits of the constitution. When the 14th amendment states that [No] State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, that means everyone. Not just 'recognized' people.

They don't look the same, don't have the same beliefs, don't even sleep with the same sex. In order for you to circumvent the marriage laws it becomes necessary for gays to even go so far as to pervert the meaning of what a minority really is. Disgusting and abhorrant.
Well, people who don't look the same as the majority are in a minority. People who don't share the same beliefs as the majority are also in a minority. People who don't sleep with the sorts of people the majority sleeps with are also a minority.

In fact, I'd say that as a general rule, if you find someone disgusting and abhorrant, there's a decent chance that they are indeed members of a minority group. Though of course, don't take that as a certain thing: I'd like to think that hateful sorts such as yourself are also in a rapidly shrinking minority.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 01:21 AM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:

Society doesn't want to legitimize your concept of marriage because you choose to wipe your dick with some other man's feces as your "basis" for intercourse.
Well, at least we know what's on your mind.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 06:06 AM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Gays are not a recognized minority. They don't look the same, don't have the same beliefs, don't even sleep with the same sex. In order for you to circumvent the marriage laws it becomes necessary for gays to even go so far as to pervert the meaning of what a minority really is. Disgusting and abhorrant.

Therefore, since you are not a recognized minority, nothing you state applies at all. Rational basis, not strict scrutiny.

If you want to marry then marry a woman like normal men do.

Society doesn't want to legitimize your concept of marriage because you choose to wipe your dick with some other man's feces as your "basis" for intercourse.
Tough **** for you and whatever "society" you live in, it will be legitimize whether you like it or not.

I really don't get where all this hatred for homos comes from? Can someone point to the section of the NT bible where it says this ****? And why are so many straight guys who hate queers so focused on anal sex? Are you just as disgusted when chicks take it up the bum as well?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 06:57 AM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Not the point. As a type of behavior it is about as consistent as those who steal, rob, cheat, etc.

Let's play a game. If there is no use, stealing as we know it wouldn't exist.

I don't, those who support the gay agenda do.

There isn't.

If stealing were be harmful, it would be extinct or at least negligible by now. If being drunk were be harmful, it would be extinct or at least negligible by now.

There is no purpose served to society by homosexuality and there certainly isn't any purpose to be served by legitimizing behavior of this kind for the purpose of marriage.

It's not for our culture. I don't care if people in other cultures eat **** for breakfast. It doesn't imply that we should.
It's interesting that you speak for `your own culture'. And you don't want to see a purpose in homosexuality nor do you want to tolerate them. So, `naturally', you don't see one.

I won't even get into your BS suggesting that homosexuals connect being gay to slavery, you did so.

(BTW, stealing is part of survival of the fittest, basically a fight over resources.)

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Gays are not a recognized minority. They don't look the same, don't have the same beliefs, don't even sleep with the same sex. In order for you to circumvent the marriage laws it becomes necessary for gays to even go so far as to pervert the meaning of what a minority really is. Disgusting and abhorrant.

Therefore, since you are not a recognized minority, nothing you state applies at all. Rational basis, not strict scrutiny.

If you want to marry then marry a woman like normal men do.

Society doesn't want to legitimize your concept of marriage because you choose to wipe your dick with some other man's feces as your "basis" for intercourse.
You are speaking of society as a whole again, as if you speak for `all of us'.

Guess what: minorities don't have to look the same (and usually don't look the same), don't share the same beliefs, i. e. they are usually pretty heterogeneous. Blacks are not just blacks, usually you just can't see the differences. Ditto for Asians. If you would go to Asia for a bit, you would recognize their differences.

Your only `strategy' (if you can really call it a strategy) is to say `I don't approve and accept gays as a minority, so they are not entitled to any rights that would protect `real' minorities.'

For legal arguments to apply (as put nicely by Simey), the words minority and discrimination are not mentioned, so you don't even need to be part of a minority which is recognized (by you).

BTW, gay rights groups don't want to circumvent law (as in doing something illegal), they want to change law (so to make what they want legal).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 09:19 AM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Gays are not a recognized minority.
That's what you think, but the law says otherwise. Romer v. Evans is quite clear. You cannot discriminate against homosexuals unless you can demonstrate a rational basis for the discriminatory law.

You can't sidestep the Constitution by pretending a group of people don't exist. Homosexuals are as much a "discreet and insular minority" as many others. The very fact that we are discussing the rights of homosexuals and all know who we are talking about disproves your point.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 25, 2004 at 09:28 AM. )
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 10:18 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
Are you just as disgusted when chicks take it up the bum as well?
My thoughts exactly. If a straight couple have anal sex then I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry either, right? I'm also sick of this talk about the "natural" basis for sex... If you happen wear a condom then I guess you're breaking the rules. Should that be illegal then? Of course not.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 03:39 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's what you think, but the law says otherwise.
The Court isn't the law. Courts don't make laws.

Show me an act of Congress that specifically grants the same protections to homosexuals as those enjoyed by real minorities (you know, the ones that really have been persecuted).
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 03:39 PM
 
Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
blah
Go back to Arstechnica.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 03:41 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
Tough **** for you and whatever "society" you live in, it will be legitimize whether you like it or not.
No, it will not. Never will it happen in this country. 11 states and their citizens spoke loud and clear last month. The majority opposes trashing the institution of marriage just so some fudge packers can have "equal" rights.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 03:46 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
It's interesting that you speak for `your own culture'. And you don't want to see a purpose in homosexuality nor do you want to tolerate them. So, `naturally', you don't see one.
Again, there absolutely is not one single benefit to society of homosexuality.

I won't even get into your BS suggesting that homosexuals connect being gay to slavery, you did so.
Those that support the gay agenda do that.

(BTW, stealing is part of survival of the fittest, basically a fight over resources.)
LOL, now we must legitimize stealing in order to legitimize another abhorrant behavior?



You are speaking of society as a whole again, as if you speak for `all of us'.
The majority of the society I care about has spoken out against homosexual marriage.

Your only `strategy' (if you can really call it a strategy) is to say `I don't approve and accept gays as a minority, so they are not entitled to any rights that would protect `real' minorities.'
Destroying the institution of marriage over some misguided notion of "equal" rights is what we in the majority oppose. They'd better get used to it.

For legal arguments to apply (as put nicely by Simey), the words minority and discrimination are not mentioned, so you don't even need to be part of a minority which is recognized (by you).
For the courts to overturn the definition of "man and woman" one would have to prove that not only is a gay person being denied the right to marry (which they are not) but also that it would benefit society as well. In other words, some class of discrimination would have to exist (and it doesn't because behavior doesn't make one into a minority).

BTW, gay rights groups don't want to circumvent law (as in doing something illegal), they want to change law (so to make what they want legal).
It's already legal for one to marry a person of the opposite sex (you know, like nature intended). Thus, they want to change the law only to fit their needs. Do fudge packers support the right of men to marry daughters? Sons to marry sisters? Mothers to marry sons? Didn't think so.

Tell me, is a penis supposed to go into an anus or in a vagina?
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 03:49 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
Are you just as disgusted when chicks take it up the bum as well?
I can't look at a straight couple and know that their predominant method of intercourse involves getting crap all over the guy's dick.

But, yes, anal sex is just as disgusting regardless of who takes part in it. I can't imagine why
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
Matress--
The Court isn't the law. Courts don't make laws.
Courts make law all the time -- it's called the common law. For example, the law of contracts and torts is pretty much all judicially created.

But at any rate, overturning a law isn't the same as creating a law. Constitutional guarantees of equal rights exist. Laws may have been passed that interfere with this, and which are unconstitutional. Abolishing them isn't lawmaking. It's fixing unconstitutional lawmaking through the appropriate process for doing so.

11 states and their citizens spoke loud and clear last month. The majority opposes trashing the institution of marriage just so some fudge packers can have "equal" rights.
Yes they did. And many more states than that had Jim Crow laws, because the white majority opposed trashing the institution of white superiority and segregation just so some blacks could have equal rights.

Nice company you're keeping there.

Go back to Arstechnica.
That'd be tricky; I was posting here first. And besides, I derive no end of amusement from kicking down every hair-brained, half-assed bilious bit of crap you post. Whatever would I do without it?
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 04:40 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
The Court isn't the law. Courts don't make laws.

Show me an act of Congress that specifically grants the same protections to homosexuals as those enjoyed by real minorities (you know, the ones that really have been persecuted).
Uh, we have been talking about the federal Constitution. The Constitution trumps acts of congress. The Constitution is interpreted by the Courts. So when I said that the Court's word was the law, what I meant was that it was Constitutional law. Sorry I thought you understood this basic aspect of how our country's government works. I guess I overestimated your understanding of high school civics.

[Aside for Cpt. kangarooski: Technically, I don't believe we are talking about common law here. We are talking about Constitutional construction. AFAIK, post Erie, Common law would only be state law or federal common law. It's not the latter because federal common law is subordinate to federal statutes, and this isn't. These issues are clearly of constitutional dimensions.]
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 04:48 PM
 
SimeyTheLimey--
[Aside for Cpt. kangarooski: Technically, I don't believe we are talking about common law here. We are talking about Constitutional construction. AFAIK, post Erie, Common law would only be state law or federal common law. It's not the latter because federal common law is subordinate to federal statutes, and this isn't. These issues are clearly of constitutional dimensions.] [/B]
I should've been more clear. I know that this is a matter revolving around constitutional law. I was just pointing out that the claim that courts don't make law is dead wrong.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 05:32 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
The majority of the society I care about has spoken out against homosexual marriage.
So mathematically, if you reduce the society you care about to just yourself, 100 % of society you care about would agree with you. Alternatively, you could single out every opponent to gay marriage and say 100 % of the society I care about is against it.

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Tell me, is a penis supposed to go into an anus or in a vagina?
Depends on your mood, I would say. And your partner's.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 05:39 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I can't look at a straight couple and know that their predominant method of intercourse involves getting crap all over the guy's dick.

But, yes, anal sex is just as disgusting regardless of who takes part in it. I can't imagine why
Why do you even have to imagine (or approve) of other people's ways to have sex. Some use wax or handcuffs, some take it in the ars, why do you care about it. You sound like you wish there were a white list of ways to have intercourse.

`Oh, baby, wait a second, let me check if it's in the manual.'

Even though the majority has one way to have sex, it doesn't mean that I should have sex just this way. You would live much more comfortably, if you wouldn't try to imagine yourself in other people's stead.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 06:10 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I would support such a law. If one chooses to act outside the social norms then one should expect to pay the penalty.
So you would support a law under which male building contractors could only contract with female clients, and female building contractors could only contract with male clients? Interesting.

You've painted yourself into another illogical corner. We're here to help.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 10:53 PM
 
So by your logic Mattress the penis is meant for the vagina. I guess oral sex is out of the question because the penis isn't "meant" to go in ones' mouth?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2004, 11:31 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I can't look at a straight couple and know that their predominant method of intercourse involves getting crap all over the guy's dick.

But, yes, anal sex is just as disgusting regardless of who takes part in it. I can't imagine why
You're really fascinated with anal sex, aren't you?!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2004, 09:21 AM
 
Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
SimeyTheLimey--


I should've been more clear. I know that this is a matter revolving around constitutional law. I was just pointing out that the claim that courts don't make law is dead wrong.
Absolutely.

It's also kind of ironic that he thinks that only statutes are the law, and that the courts should only be allowed to follow statutes mechanically. What is he, French or something?
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2004, 09:17 PM
 
Originally posted by KarlG:
You're really fascinated with anal sex, aren't you?!
I just read this thread and am hugely amused by Mr. Mattress.

It's pretty clear that he's struggling with a huge amount of insecurity and self loathing, which is expressed by his overtly crude and abusive choice of language. My suspicion is that he is struggling with homosexual urges himself.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2004, 10:13 PM
 
Well this is the problem with the whole Gay Agenda - they tempt people.

Why, I almost became homosexual last night. One minute we were discussing Queer Eye and draperies and the next thing you know I'd down-trou'd and Pete was behind me going hammer and tongs.

And then I thought "Hang on a minute! This is awfully close to homosexual behaviour".

You really have to keep your guard up.

Now I'm thinking my buddy Pete might be gay.
     
Butterball
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2004, 11:43 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Uh, we have been talking about the federal Constitution. The Constitution trumps acts of congress. The Constitution is interpreted by the Courts. So when I said that the Court's word was the law, what I meant was that it was Constitutional law. Sorry I thought you understood this basic aspect of how our country's government works. I guess I overestimated your understanding of high school civics.
Seems to be it would be point, set, match against the Supremes merely if Congress passed a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Looks like things could be headed that way as a majority of citizens in this nation oppose marriage between gays.

By the way, what army or police force do the courts have to back up their "laws?"
     
Butterball
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2004, 11:45 PM
 
Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:


That'd be tricky; I was posting here first. And besides, I derive no end of amusement from kicking down every hair-brained, half-assed bilious bit of crap you post. Whatever would I do without it?
*snip*

Has someone been handing out asshole sandwiches lately? Seems an awful lot of blatant asshole-ism for the holidays. I think some folks just can't get into the spirit. Anyway, kiss this account goodbye sport, and more than likely your regular account too. Kudos though, on being such a POS coward that you wouldn't post such garbage under your normal user name.
( Last edited by ThinkInsane; Dec 27, 2004 at 12:18 AM. )
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2004, 12:13 AM
 
Originally posted by Butterball:
Are you a faggot too? I hope you die of AIDS you miserable POS.
Tell us how you really feel... Having to hide behind a new username is pretty lame too.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,