- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
None that I know of, so they mix, if allowed, with the dominant culture under their rules. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.Name a predominantly same sex culture that has existed.
I have never claimed that homosexuality is a ever a majority of any culture. However, there is a difference between treating people who are attracted to those of the same sex equally and those who are attracted to the same sex being the majority. Pretty sure no culture has ever been predominantly gay. However, no culture has ever been predominantly geniuses or predominantly over 6 feet tall or predominantly left-handed either.
Actually all those people you mentioned would kill homosexuals (in all likelihood). So that would place them pretty fairly on your side. As for the founders, if they lived in our current society, the majority would be on my side. Freedom of the people was the mantra of the founders, including freedom from the whims of any majority.
Again, you keep contradicting yourself. I show you that the majority is on my side at this moment, and you say the majority doesn't matter. Then you go back to your same old mantra of you having the majority on your side. So which is it? Does the majority only matter when it is on your side or does it not matter at all, making your attempted view on being "oppressive" completely pointless?
None that I know of, so they mix, if allowed, with the dominant culture under their rules. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.Name a predominantly same sex culture that has existed.
I have never claimed that homosexuality is a ever a majority of any culture. However, there is a difference between treating people who are attracted to those of the same sex equally and those who are attracted to the same sex being the majority. Pretty sure no culture has ever been predominantly gay. However, no culture has ever been predominantly geniuses or predominantly over 6 feet tall or predominantly left-handed either.
Actually all those people you mentioned would kill homosexuals (in all likelihood). So that would place them pretty fairly on your side. As for the founders, if they lived in our current society, the majority would be on my side. Freedom of the people was the mantra of the founders, including freedom from the whims of any majority.
Again, you keep contradicting yourself. I show you that the majority is on my side at this moment, and you say the majority doesn't matter. Then you go back to your same old mantra of you having the majority on your side. So which is it? Does the majority only matter when it is on your side or does it not matter at all, making your attempted view on being "oppressive" completely pointless?
Hard to be overly oppressive if you have the majority on your side...
Help me out here. Can you see the contradiction in these two paragraphs?Marriage is for adults to be protected from each other and from other adults. It has little to do directly with children. Children benefit because those protections put their parents in a better position of security.
If no one could have children, then there would be no need for marriage (although there would likely be few to actually get divorced if they were married) because we would be living in basically a "Children of Men" situation.
There is no necessity nor requirement to allow the non norm, deviance, to be equated with the norm. It would be untrue to begin with. All those you mention, they don't get to have everything changed to accomodate them. There are standard car sizes and door sizes that the tall must adjust to, we don't make everybody right-handed write with their left, or start on the opposite side of the page so its easier to write. All those outside the norm adjust to the norm, not vice versa.
.
You have no values as established by OUR common Constitution. They get equal protection under the existing laws, they don't get special privileges [marrying another gender was not a part of our laws ] under the laws as that would not be equal [ and please don't start with the state's legitimate interest stuff again, its a false equivalence...saying it three more times does not erase that. I have my vote and my opinion and that along with a minimum of 50 plus % and we maintain the status quo.We are gaining support and we have the arguments that involve actual values established by the US Constitution, equal protection, fair treatment, individual rights, etc. You have nothing except attempting to maintain a faulty belief about homosexuality/same sex couples, discriminating against them without any legitimate legal reason for doing so, but rather simply because you don't like/approve of them being married.
The irony of your post here is that you were earlier arguing that you were in the majority.
But is it really equating when one does not discriminate?There is no necessity nor requirement to allow the non norm, deviance, to be equated with the norm.
And what is changed in this case?All those you mention, they don't get to have everything changed to accommodate them.
They also understood the possible tyranny of a majority and very wisely precluded that in our Constitution.And you are flat out wrong in your assessment of the founders. Most were moral upstanding men, men who understood the need for regional differences, understood Federalism, many of whom understood the limits of a national government and the follies of a tyrannical court.
So you are married in one state and not in another? Does that make any sense? How about if a state decides to vote divorce illegal?How about we vote on it by state, that's reasonable. If a state wants SSM, thats up to them [ you seem to be ok with that ].
But states do not get to vote away people's rights.If a state doesn't want it, thats up to them [ you don't seem to be okay with that, don't states get equal protection under the law?].
Help me out here. Can you see the contradiction in these two paragraphs?
And if that second paragraph is what you feel, then you agree that those who cannot procreate, as would be an impossibility of a same sex gender couple together, have no need for marriage, right?
Not when they are not allowed to do the same things other can do.They get equal protection under the existing laws
Why is not allowing to marry a person of the same gender part of it? Why should it remain so?they don't get special privileges [marrying another gender was not a part of our laws ]
Apparently you do not understand how our society and Constitution work.I have my vote and my opinion and that along with a minimum of 50 plus % and we maintain the status quo.
But they are denied what you take for granted and neither are you hurt in any way and you too will live.Same sex couples aren't hurt, they will live no doubt.
And no matter how many times you wish otherwise, equal protection works a certain way. SCOTUS created the system, and SCOTUS applies it. You think that's not how it should work, but your opinion on what should be isn't exactly relevant to those nine people.You have no values as established by OUR common Constitution. They get equal protection under the existing laws, they don't get special privileges [marrying another gender was not a part of our laws ] under the laws as that would not be equal [ and please don't start with the state's legitimate interest stuff again, its a false equivalence...saying it three more times does not erase that. I have my vote and my opinion and that along with a minimum of 50 plus % and we maintain the status quo.
-Property inheritance problemsSame sex couples aren't hurt, they will live no doubt. If they were happy type people before, they will be after. If not a happy person, they will probably remain unhappy.
That is nothing short of ignorant bigotry.then you agree that those who cannot procreate, as would be an impossibility of a same sex gender couple together, have no need for marriage, right?
Yeah, well, that looks like kinda like a floater, not in that it is a valid premise, but, you know...Roman Empire became Christian.
Roman Empire no longer exists.
QED?
Yeah, well, that looks like kinda like a floater, not in that it is a valid premise, but, you know...
That my dear, is a prevarication on your part. Want to amend, or would you rather me to prove this misstatement of truth?So, tell me, what source would you prefer I show since you refuse to provide any of your own sources, ever?
Yeah, well, that looks like kinda like a floater, not in that it is a valid premise, but, you know...
Yeah, damn us guys who want some semblance of order, are against complete chaos, who allow for personal liberty but not anything/everything goes, no matter how deviant, how gross, how pathetic, how sad. Damn those guys who want to keep America strong, preserve it for coming generations... why can't they just go along with the me me me... be hip and turn on, drop out... why can't they just promote the be less than you can be and expect the same from everybody else policies like the rest of us...CONFORM OR SUFFER, WEAKLINGS
Listen to yourself, man. It's pretty freaky.
That car door fix sounds a little squeaky, oh dang, the whole thing fell off... what shall we do, what shall we do... oh the humanity...Let me fix your car door analogy, G-man. Because I'm not trying to make you change the size of your car door.
You want it to be illegal to make a different car door.
Yeah, damn us guys who want some semblance of order, are against complete chaos, who allow for personal liberty but not anything/everything goes, no matter how deviant, how gross, how pathetic, how sad. Damn those guys who want to keep America strong, preserve it for coming generations... why can't they just go along with the me me me... be hip and turn on, drop out... why can't they just promote the be less than you can be and expect the same from everybody else policies like the rest of us...
...blah blah blah...
That car door fix sounds a little squeaky, oh dang, the whole thing fell off... what shall we do, what shall we do... oh the humanity...
Your idea of "keeping America strong" is no different then those that wanted interracial marriage banned.Yeah, damn us guys who want some semblance of order, are against complete chaos, who allow for personal liberty but not anything/everything goes, no matter how deviant, how gross, how pathetic, how sad. Damn those guys who want to keep America strong, preserve it for coming generations... why can't they just go along with the me me me... be hip and turn on, drop out... why can't they just promote the be less than you can be and expect the same from everybody else policies like the rest of us...
...blah blah blah...
Huh? Explain.But is it really equating when one does not discriminate?
And what is changed in this case?
They also understood the possible tyranny of a majority and very wisely precluded that in our Constitution.
So you are married in one state and not in another? Does that make any sense? How about if a state decides to vote divorce illegal?
But states do not get to vote away people's rights.
Only if they were of the same sex.Do you apply this reasoning to elderly couples or the infertile? Should their marriages be prevented or annulled if already existing?
Only if they were of the same sex.
Only if they were of the same sex.
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?