They've studied identifical twins and confirmed there is a genetic component. Twins are more likely to both be gay then non identical siblings and they in turn more so than two strangers.
Yes we are
Whoop te dooo
yeap
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]
We don't live in the 18th century.
1.)Has nothing to do with Individual Rights.
2.) Being gay is not a race.
3.) Why should gays have the right to redefine marriage to whatever postmodernism definition they see fit over polygamists or pedophiles?
4.) Yea I know, we'll never go there right? Yea sure we won't. The groundwork to rationalize it as "normal" and therefore "acceptable" is already being lain.
5.) Gays don't deserve a special right to redefine marriage over any other political group based upon their sexual deviancy. They should create their own institutions, their own traditions for the homosexual community. Marriage is for heteros only and it should stay that way. If it's about taxes and inheritance, then just grant those institutions and traditions homosexuals create the same exempt status. This should be left up to the states to decide however. These types of social issues were supposed to be worked out by the states by design.
6.) In the instance of "gay rights", what they want tramples on the rights of others and changes the definition of words for no rational reason, so the concept of it being a "right" that gay people previously didn't possess is a false premise.
7.)There is no right for gays to be able to marry in The Constitution. The Founders never conceived of such a deviant perversion of marriage.
Sorry, but you have been misinformed. No study conclusively has found a genetic link to homosexuality. Not that it matters in this debate.They've studied identifical twins and confirmed there is a genetic component. Twins are more likely to both be gay then non identical siblings and they in turn more so than two strangers.
1.)It's Texas' choice to do this if they want to.
2.) No law prohibits it.
Has nothing to do with Individual Rights. Being gay is not a race. Why should gays have the right to redefine marriage to whatever postmodernism definition they see fit over polygamists or pedophiles? Yea I know, we'll never go there right? Yea sure we won't. The groundwork to rationalize it as "normal" and therefore "acceptable" is already being lain.
Gays don't deserve a special right to redefine marriage over any other political group based upon their sexual deviancy. They should create their own institutions, their own traditions for the homosexual community. Marriage is for heteros only and it should stay that way. If it's about taxes and inheritance, then just grant those institutions and traditions homosexuals create the same exempt status. This should be left up to the states to decide however. These types of social issues were supposed to be worked out by the states by design. In the instance of "gay rights", what they want tramples on the rights of others and changes the definition of words for no rational reason, so the concept of it being a "right" that gay people previously didn't possess is a false premise.
There is no right for gays to be able to marry in The Constitution. The Founders never conceived of such a deviant perversion of marriage.
I don't SCOTUS should rule on national marriage honestly. I think these guys should have to move back to Mass. Harsh, however, it should be Texas' right to uphold their state laws. If not, we could have activists doing things like this all the time. Imagine a gun owner applying for and receiving a concealed carry permit, then moving to Washington DC and saying "Well, my state allows it so you should to." Not a good precedent to set IMO. These guys screwed up by A) Marrying the wrong person, and, B) Moving to a state this is not friendly towards their situation.1.)this is currently 100% true.
2.) i dont think its going to stay this way
though i have said many times i believe the TSSC will rule against these guys and they will push it to SCOTUS where it will be changed. (although i could be wrong other judges in the state already ruled this is a violation in thier opinion)
and when this cases gets there I do NOT think SCOTUS will make the national change(based on this case, they will in the future) making all states grant equal rights and grant SSM but i do think they will rule that divorce requirements in all states will apply to all recognized state marriages no matter their make up.
1.)I don't SCOTUS should rule on national marriage honestly.
2.) I think these guys should have to move back to Mass. Harsh, however, it should be Texas' right to uphold their state laws.
3.) If not, we could have activists doing things like this all the time.
4.) Imagine a gun owner applying for and receiving a concealed carry permit, then moving to Washington DC and saying "Well, my state allows it so you should to."
5.) Not a good precedent to set IMO.
6.) These guys screwed up by A) Marrying the wrong person, and, B) Moving to a state this is not friendly towards their situation.
Well....you are just plain and simply wrong. There is something in the Constitution called "Equal Protection". It was exactly what Kennedy was referencing in his majority opinion in the DOMA case and the reason why Scalia was so vitriolic in his dissent. The writing is on the wall. This war is over, only a small battle or two remain, but this one is DOA for the bigots who are clinging to their fight against marriage equality.
Wow....how many slippery slopes can you throw into one irrational argument?The only "new morality" being created is one that focuses back on the Fundamental rights that this country was founded upon and preventing our country from being surrendered to a radical right-wing social agenda that seeks to curtail those rights.Sorry....but the Constitution exists because certain rights are fundamental and should NEVER be subjected to the tryanny of the majority. To put it simply.....fundamental rights should never be put to a popular vote.Kennedy is a political activist. A lawyer in a black robe. That same argument can be made for any conceivable sexual deviancy, polygamy ect. Where does it stop? At what point will we have equality? Unisex bathrooms? Sodomy being taught to pre schoolers? Gay Family shows? Every week a new gay thread is started where emo libs "champion gay rights" and call everyone who disagrees with them a bigot. There is a moral boundary that has always existed that is being breached here. Rights and beliefs for what consists of a healthy and functioning society are clashing. A new morality is being created by a secular society that praises and worships deviant filthy behavior. They are imposing that morality onto the rest of society and it's now encroaching upon First Amendment rights. The people throwing the word bigot around with impunity are acting like Fascists. So let's compromise. Let the states decide by a vote. Once that vote is cast that decision is ingrained into The Constitution and can never be repealed. You believe in the right to vote right?
Kennedy is a political activist. A lawyer in a black robe. That same argument can be made for any conceivable sexual deviancy, polygamy ect. Where does it stop? At what point will we have equality? Unisex bathrooms? Sodomy being taught to pre schoolers? Gay Family shows? Every week a new gay thread is started where emo libs "champion gay rights" and call everyone who disagrees with them a bigot.
There is a moral boundary that has always existed that is being breached here. Rights and beliefs for what consists of a healthy and functioning society are clashing. A new morality is being created by a secular society that praises and worships deviant filthy behavior. They are imposing that morality onto the rest of society and it's now encroaching upon First Amendment rights. The people throwing the word bigot around with impunity are acting like Fascists.
So let's compromise. Let the states decide by a vote. Once that vote is cast that decision is ingrained into The Constitution and can never be repealed. You believe in the right to vote right?
So let's compromise. Let the states decide by a vote. Once that vote is cast that decision is ingrained into The Constitution and can never be repealed. You believe in the right to vote right?
Wow....how many slippery slopes can you throw into one irrational argument?The only "new morality" being created is one that focuses back on the Fundamental rights that this country was founded upon and preventing our country from being surrendered to a radical right-wing social agenda that seeks to curtail those rights.Sorry....but the Constitution exists because certain rights are fundamental and should NEVER be subjected to the tryanny of the majority. To put it simply.....fundamental rights should never be put to a popular vote.
So you want the right to vote now, but in the future votes wouldn't matter? Wow, that's a vote for democracy.
Thinking about the fact that Maine voted in 2009 against SSCM yet in 2012 it passed based on a vote of the people. You want to deny future people the right to vote?
>>>>
This is why we can't have an honest discussion. Gay Marriage was never conceived as a "right" by The Founders of this country. The Founders of this country believed what I believe about homosexual and other perverted lifestyles. That they are deviant and filthy.
You should read what is above. The Constitution grants the power to Congress in Article IV Section 1, Congress exercised that power in DOMA Section 2.
>>>>
This is why we can't have an honest discussion. Gay Marriage was never conceived as a "right" by The Founders of this country. The Founders of this country believed what I believe about homosexual and other perverted lifestyles. That they are deviant and filthy. That we shouldn't teach such nasty debauchery to our children. The only people with a social agenda here, which is to change societal norms, are radicals like you.
Let the people decide if only gays get the special right (not fundamental right) to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
Yes we need to set societal standards on what is moral and decent. Standards which are not subject to change and not subject to interpretation.
Every deviant is going to come out of the cracks claiming they are "born that way and normal" so they deserve to get married too
Really? What did they ever say about it?
nobody is stupid enough to fall for this strawman, people already claim call types of things, none of them have anything to do with equal rights for gays. This scare tactic will never work.
Which of the Founding Fathers do you think approved of Homosexual sex and Gay Marriage
does it matter if they were for it or against?
nope
this is about equal rights and stopping discrimination and bigotry.
your post is 100% meaningless to the issue and facts at hand.
let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.
Which of the Founding Fathers do you think approved of Homosexual sex and Gay Marriage
Wait second there buckaroo. You said:
Now then I'll rephrase, how do you know this? What did they say about the subject?
I only need to point to their faith in Christ and in God.
Why are you trying to debate this? The concept of Gay Marriage was completely alien to The Founders. Your kneejerk Postmodernism is almost becoming a comical drinking game.
None of The Founding Fathers approved of Homosexuality/Sex or condoned any such concept as Gay Marriage. Period.
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?