- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 11,010
- Reaction score
- 5,149
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Better question: why is any of this relevant to marriage?
It isn't. Who makes what kind of sexual advances towards whom is completely irrelevant to government sanction of a marriage contract
Whatever, dude.No. There is no moral equivalency here.
The pro-equality argument is morally superior. The anti-equality crowd is fighting against the rights of a minority group based solely on their personal disapproval of the minority's actions. This is antithetical to individual liberty.
Don't you think the bigger problem with "marriage" in the U.S. is lack of it, and/or divorce, among straight and normal heterosexuals? It's always puzzled me a bit - there is this gigantic log in the eye of the straight community regarding single motherhood and divorce, but the time and effort is expended keeping gays FROM marrying. Weird...
People disgustingly and rightfully talk about that Liz Taylor, those gays are just one step behind her, making a mockery of marriage. Do you advocate what Liz Taylor has done!? This country's laws are based on age old traditions and morality, and if those gays openly and continuously disregard those laws, what is the common man supposed to think about the sanctity of marriage!Divorce is a problem but not the same kind of problem the deconstruction of it is. It's foolish to argue that one problem is justification for adding more problems.
Or 1690s ...I think you don't know what you're talking about. In both Rome and Greece, homosexuality was rampant. Of course the Bible talks of Sodom and Gomorrah which were so vile that even angels were molested but I don't suppose you'd be wanting to hear about that or believing it. I'll just tell you for a fact that homosexuals do recruit as much as possible. My brother is a homosexual and I've lived in homosexual communities for years during different periods of my life both in New Orleans and Atlanta's Midtown. I know what I'm talking about and recruitment is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest dirty little secret of the homosexual community.
Whatever, dude.
Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.
Deal with it.
Well you acknowledge that women have to suffer it and yet demand the men are too fragile to have deal with it. I guess you're right, you aren't being negative about women, you're calling men ******s, all of 'em.
Are you saying "gays want to be accepted" is a reason for the government of the United States to impose a gender-based distinction in a contract between two private individuals?
is that all it takes to justify a restriction on individual freedom?
Whatever, dude.
Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.
Deal with it.
That's what you're saying, not what I said. You should be the one admitting you're a sexist.
You're reducing it so you can avoid the point.
I don't know why it's so hard to admit. You're dead right.
Nope, just paying attention to your poutrage about the poor wittle men who might be approached by a homosexual man, WAH! Bunch of babies if they can't handle it, which is apparently what you think. Since I'm all for the normalization of homosexuality, I must think men will be able to handle it.
Nice try at "I'm rubber", but a huge fail.
Do either of you really care what strangers think of your relationship?
You're not paying attention. You're engaging in strawman argumentation.
No I read your posts quite clearly.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...falls-courts-deny-ban-ssm.html#post1063579067
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...falls-courts-deny-ban-ssm.html#post1063579129
Clearly your concern is that normalizing homosexuality will put men at further risk of being approached by other men. I am not worried at all about that, and expect it's perfectly fine for men to have to be a further risk of being approached by other men. I have no doubt they can handle it. You seem to doubt that they can or that they should have to.
Another strawman. My argument is that this isn't about rights. It's about a desire by homosexuals to normalize homosexuality in order to facilitate recruitment. My point is that the "rights" is really just the angle the legal and moral battle seems to be taking even though it's not really the primary motivation.
The idea that anyone can be recruited into homosexuality is the strawman. Bless your heart.
If it wasn't about acceptance then gays would have been satisfied with civil unions. They were not. Civil unions offered every protection and benefit as marriage but, to them, it was not acceptable. Why is that?Are you saying "gays want to be accepted" is a reason for the government of the United States to impose a gender-based distinction in a contract between two private individuals?
is that all it takes to justify a restriction on individual freedom?
I've laughed at a few homosexuals for their fixation on getting straight men for that very reason, but that doesn't stop them from trying like hell and the normalization of homosexuality does seem to aid them in this endeavor.
Why do lesbians need to be taken into consideration. It's homosexuality. I've known some lesbians but having a homosexual brother has made the male homosexual a lot easier to get to understand.
Supported by who? The entire reason for the challenge was because the people of those states didn't support homosexual marriage. The only support these challenges have received are from courts, relying on suspect precedence.
Put the hate back in your pocket. I answered your post with the same tone it was made of. Namecalling and silly rhetoric seem to suit you well.
Really? Have you also observed straight men going after/in their fixations with women? Are you saying gay guys are more extreme? LOL I beg to differ!
Because they are affected by SSM as well. Lesbians are 'same sex couples.'
Everything you are attempting to use as a reason to prevent SSM is focused on men. Hardly a balanced argument.
Unless you believe that lesbians should be allowed to marry each other?
(I cant believe I just had to spell this out.)
Why do you think I consider rude sexual advances appropriate for anyone? Merely explaining the motivation for homosexual marriage activism isn't approval of anything.
The 14th amendment says they can't. Because no important state interest exists in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Nobody was ever barred from marriage based on their own race either. But a race-based distinction in marriage contracts failed to meet th test of (strict) constitutional scrutiny. (Intermediate scrutiny applies for distinctions of gender)
Guess you weren't paying attention. I agree that if they can get them, they're not straight, so what they wanted wasn't they got. It's an interesting conundrum for them and you, apparently, had no idea what anyone was talking about when you made the non-sequitur above.
My argument is that society needn't be forced to endorse homosexuality. Period. women on women, men on men... neither is something society should be forced to endorse against their will.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?