"Whites" need only apply!

[DeadPoolX 9]

Maybe in your world sodomy and marriage is the same thing. It ain't!

On the plus side, it might keep overpopulation to a minimum.

[HAL 9000 96]

Equating mixed race marriages with same sex marriages is offensive. They are not comparable.

Indeed. They should be treated the same, not compared. Equal protection under the law works for sexuality and race alike.

Very well said.

Gays can marry already, so they haven't been denied equal protection under the law. Gay men can marry women, lesbians can marry men. They just can't marry same sex, and there is no right to do so under equal protection laws, that's why banning same sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Who you want to have sex with is not a protected status. Who you can marry - male to female - is.

Its all rhetoric except this part here:

Who you can marry - male to female - is.

And depending on what kind of rhetoric you espouse, comes the definition of the action of marriage. Something that doesn't affect a heterosexual union shouldn't affect a heterosexual union.

And what I can't figure out is why these people who feel Gov't has no right to dictate the sex of those in a marriage.... somehow firmly feel the State has a right to deem "2" as the limit of the persons in a marriage.

If these people were intellectually honest, they would stop defending "gay-marriage" and instead

go straight to "alternative Marriage" would would be much more inclusive of the many combinations which people in relationships.

"INCREMENTAL-ISM"

Liberal-ism's best friend.

And what I can't figure out is why you'd want to have one group of people dictating to another group of people in equally monogamous relationships the right to marriage.

And what I can't figure out is why these people who feel Gov't has no right to dictate the sex of those in a marriage.... somehow firmly feel the State has a right to deem "2" as the limit of the persons in a marriage.

If these people were intellectually honest, they would stop defending "gay-marriage" and instead

go straight to "alternative Marriage" would would be much more inclusive of the many combinations which people in relationships.

"INCREMENTAL-ISM"

Liberal-ism's best friend.

Yeah...how about mix and match? Two men marrying one woman? Two women marrying one man and a trangender thrown in just for fun? How about minority rights for the NAMBLA crowd? Where does it end?

It ends when society as a whole decides what is relavent and appropriate for the advancement of our society. One judge's opinion and/or the screams from the lunatic fringe do not make for cultural, customary, or societal norms.

Slip slip slip the slippery ramp on this one.

[HAL 9000 96]

They both like to repeat themselves. Without a complete misunderstanding of this government, freedoms guaranteed to each individual (like marriage), and slippery slopes about pedophiles, animal marriages, and polygamy (you should be weary of this from the Mormon church, not gays marrying), there is nothing more for them to say.

How is it possible for over 200 years no one found the constitutional right for men to marry.... now all of a sudden it pops up?

Yea - Right

Is that a serious question?

...because during the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries there was incredible intolerance and prejudice against gays (and blacks).

I hate it when people look at the past with modern ideas.

Back in the 18th to early 20th century, most weren't purposefully being intolerant or prejudicial. That's simply how life was and how people thought back then. It's wrong to look at the past in any other way. That doesn't necessarily excuse what occurred, but to view those events with 21st century sensibilities is hardly valid.

To further emphasize my point: we like to think we're the epitome of civilization. However, 200 years from now, I don't doubt for a second the people living then will consider us barbaric, intolerant and full of prejudice. Would they be right? That would depend on how you view history -- if you're doing it from an understand that life was different in the past or condemning the past for not being like the present.

Its called relativism and it doesn't take away from morality. Even back in those times- there were enough people against those things which are now judged quite negatively. Therefore, its not as relativistic as you may think even though I know where you want to take your points here.

And what I can't figure out is why these people who feel Gov't has no right to dictate the sex of those in a marriage.... somehow firmly feel the State has a right to deem "2" as the limit of the persons in a marriage.

If these people were intellectually honest, they would stop defending "gay-marriage" and instead

go straight to "alternative Marriage" would would be much more inclusive of the many combinations which people in relationships.

"INCREMENTAL-ISM"

Liberal-ism's best friend.

Yeah...how about mix and match? Two men marrying one woman? Two women marrying one man and a trangender thrown in just for fun? How about minority rights for the NAMBLA crowd? Where does it end?

It ends when society as a whole decides what is relavent and appropriate for the advancement of our society. One judge's opinion and/or the screams from the lunatic fringe do not make for cultural, customary, or societal norms.

(sigh) because its f*cking obvious. I've explained it so many times - but you guys just ignore it.

Ignore what? Heather's Two Mommies? This is social progress? Fortunately the vast majority of America (and the rest of the world) doesn't think so either. But the Nutty 9th Circuit Court and the gated community crowd thinks this is what is necessary "for an America we can be proud of"? Unfortunately this concept is not only totally alien to the vast majority of the country, but the vast majority wants no part of it. It has been proven time and time again by constitutional referendums across many diverse venues. Minority rights is not an end all to this discussion. There will always be some sort of minority and always will. The end all is that society as a whole decides what is the cultural norm. The vast majority believe homosexual marriage and plural marriage are not culturally acceptable or the societal norm. Along with a whole list of other taboos. Otherwise there would be no limits or no standards. As it stands, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman (along with several other caveats). What you may think is acceptable still has to pass the test with the rest of society. Minority rights is not an end all to any discussion, much less whether the long standing cultural norm of marriage needs to redefined to suit the fringes of society.

Well, the vast majority also have the option of not being married to those of the same sex. Slippery slopes yadda yadda, never given any credence in court. Oh that's right, to you the people are the judges, not the judges. Wonder if it has anything to do with it only being because you don't agree with their rulings. By the way, if you want a real constitutional referendum, try the U.S. constitution.

If you wanna see how much it passes the test of the country, let it go through the gauntlet and see how well it does -- again.

Where in the US constitution does it proclaim that homosexual marriage is a right? Or does "equal protection" also apply to public nudists, pedophiles, adherents to bestiality, sexual voyeurs, polygamists, or any group that deviates from societal norms? Society determines what is culturally acceptable and the societal norm. "Heather's Two Mommies" doesn't pass the smell test. The vast majority of The People could care less what the lunatic fringe or the elites have to say about it. Your twisted sense of the norm hardly qualifies as a consensus to reinvent societal norms. Societal norms is not about what the minority or the fringe elements thinks. It has all to do with what everybody else thinks. And you ain't everybody else. That is obvious.

And where in the US Constitution does it proclaim that US Slaveholders could have slaves? Nowhere.

Get over your homophobia. Many more people are doing so in this country. More and more each year.

[HAL 9000 96]

Where in the US constitution does it proclaim that homosexual marriage is a right? Or does "equal protection" also apply to public nudists, pedophiles, adherents to bestiality, sexual voyeurs, polygamists, or any group that deviates from societal norms? Society determines what is culturally acceptable and the societal norm. "Heather's Two Mommies" doesn't pass the smell test. The vast majority of The People could care less what the lunatic fringe or the elites have to say about it. Your twisted sense of the norm hardly qualifies as a consensus to reinvent societal norms. Societal norms is not about what the minority or the fringe elements thinks. It has all to do with what everybody else thinks. And you ain't everybody else. That is obvious.

Well lets see. According to JUDGES (as in, people who actually know about the Constitution and interpret it), it's in the 14th Amendment, as adopted by every state. Evidently people could think to remove people's rights all they wish. Now, that being legal and being upheld in a court that determines constitutionality of these voter statutes is another story. So far, it's no. How's them for "lunatic fringes"? Evidently you also underestimate the fact that in the previous vote over 60% of the vote passed, now even less. That's a show of proof more are coming to accept gays and their marriage, even though they shouldn't even have a say-so in their marriage.

Well...the state of Texas and many other states across the USA have already defined marriage many years ago in their state constitutions as being between one man and one woman. Judges interpet laws...they don't make them. Judges also do not make changes or amendments to the constitution. That is done by the legislatures. So what's up with that? Homosexuals have no more right to marry than do polygamists to marry more than one person. Society gets to decide what societal norms are. Imposing societal norms through judicial fiat doesn't make it so. Just because you want to marry your mom or sister and some judge rules that is normal don't make it so. Society decides what cultural and societal norms are. Society doesn't give a rat's azz what the lunatic fringe proclaims. Saying something is so don't make it so.

The bottom line is that homosexual marriage is not a right. Homosexual parity with heterosexuals is biologically absurd and grand proclamations otherwise are just bloviated rhetoric. It's about as absurd as proclaiming a horse to be a cow. Empty rhetoric.

I suggest reading up a little more about behavioral genetics. Besides, nobody is arguing that parity on a biological scale is actually the point. Quit missing will you?

[HAL 9000 96]

Where in the US constitution does it proclaim that homosexual marriage is a right? Or does "equal protection" also apply to public nudists, pedophiles, adherents to bestiality, sexual voyeurs, polygamists, or any group that deviates from societal norms? Society determines what is culturally acceptable and the societal norm. "Heather's Two Mommies" doesn't pass the smell test. The vast majority of The People could care less what the lunatic fringe or the elites have to say about it. Your twisted sense of the norm hardly qualifies as a consensus to reinvent societal norms. Societal norms is not about what the minority or the fringe elements thinks. It has all to do with what everybody else thinks. And you ain't everybody else. That is obvious.

Well lets see. According to JUDGES (as in, people who actually know about the Constitution and interpret it), it's in the 14th Amendment, as adopted by every state. Evidently people could think to remove people's rights all they wish. Now, that being legal and being upheld in a court that determines constitutionality of these voter statutes is another story. So far, it's no. How's them for "lunatic fringes"? Evidently you also underestimate the fact that in the previous vote over 60% of the vote passed, now even less. That's a show of proof more are coming to accept gays and their marriage, even though they shouldn't even have a say-so in their marriage.

Well...the state of Texas and many other states across the USA have already defined marriage many years ago in their state constitutions as being between one man and one woman. Judges interpet laws...they don't make them. Judges also do not make changes or amendments to the constitution. That is done by the legislatures. So what's up with that? Homosexuals have no more right to marry than do polygamists to marry more than one person. Society gets to decide what societal norms are. Imposing societal norms through judicial fiat doesn't make it so. Just because you want to marry your mom or sister and some judge rules that is normal don't make it so. Society decides what cultural and societal norms are. Society doesn't give a rat's azz what the lunatic fringe proclaims. Saying something is so don't make it so.

The bottom line is that homosexual marriage is not a right. Homosexual parity with heterosexuals is biologically absurd and grand proclamations otherwise are just bloviated rhetoric. It's about as absurd as proclaiming a horse to be a cow. Empty rhetoric.

Comes around full circle. Black rights to marry were also "imposed". Once again, judges throw out your useless rants about "society" because society doesn't determine rights, nor do bigoted Texans from the south. The Constitution does. Sodomy was sought as another one of your Texas-justice laws, thrown out by a judge, so clearly Texas is amongst the worst in deciding what "norms" are. Judges, being the arbiters of the Constitution, not society, can and have (and will continue to) strike down voter initiatives attempting to eliminate the rights of gays. Simple as that. Give me these boring rants about society and farm animals and polygamy and the rest of the useless diatribe sh*t all you like. Some of us can address the issue for what it is, separate but equal. Not sure if you ever even went to high school here, but you sure have this penchant, a la Aficionado, for the Constitution and the role of judges completely eluding you.

Boring? Then why do you respond like clockwork?

First of all I do not equate homosexuality with beastiality, pedophilia, nudists, etc. However you and your ilk still continue your line that society should embrace and cater to every minority and their ways. Yes...but in your world everybody and everything must be equal. It ain't. Homosexuality never can be in 100% parity with heterosexuality. It is biologically impossible. No matter how many times you and your ilk proclaim it to be.

So a hand full of elites get to decide what societal norms, customs, and culture are and impose them on the vast majority? Kind of sounds like a dictatorship to me. Is this your new vision of America? You will find that the vast majority of America don't want it and won't buy it, but you and your ilk want to impose it. H-m-m-m. What a wonderful new concept. Dictatorship for America.

BTW...the sodomy laws in many states were applicable to both homos and heteros. The state has no business regulating the private behaviour of consenting adults. Maybe in your world sodomy and marriage is the same thing. It ain't!

That in bold is the biggie and the only thing in this thread coming from you that makes any (legal) sense. Being this, and since marriage is not just a biological phenomenon (unless you can bring forward biological evidence where other mammalian species carry out marriage ceremonies), then the state has no business regulating what two consenting adults do to celebrate their love for each other.

[peejay 327]

Maybe in your world sodomy and marriage is the same thing. It ain't!

On the plus side, it might keep overpopulation to a minimum.

Unfortunately in the Bizarro World of libs where 100% homosexual parity with heterosexuality must be imposed at all cost, that isn't necessarily so. In their world view homosexuals get married, raise a family, and live happily ever after. Did you forget about..."Heather's Two Mommies"? That is the big enchelada for the gay parity mob.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe in your world sodomy and marriage is the same thing. It ain't!

On the plus side, it might keep overpopulation to a minimum.

Unfortunately in the Bizarro World of libs where 100% homosexual parity with heterosexuality must be imposed at all cost, that isn't necessarily so. In their world view homosexuals get married, raise a family, and live happily ever after. Did you forget about..."Heather's Two Mommies"? That is the big enchelada for the gay parity mob.

Stop slandering people with silly ####### will you. That isn't the point at all.

[HAL 9000 96]

Maybe in your world sodomy and marriage is the same thing. It ain't!

On the plus side, it might keep overpopulation to a minimum.

Unfortunately in the Bizarro World of libs where 100% homosexual parity with heterosexuality must be imposed at all cost, that isn't necessarily so. In their world view homosexuals get married, raise a family, and live happily ever after. Did you forget about..."Heather's Two Mommies"? That is the big enchelada for the gay parity mob.

Imposed?

How is that an imposition? Is peejay going to be forced to marry an illegal alien ** from Houston if Texas legalizes gay marriage?

[peejay 327]

That in bold is the biggie and the only thing in this thread coming from you that makes any (legal) sense. Being this, and since marriage is not just a biological phenomenon (unless you can bring forward biological evidence where other mammalian species carry out marriage ceremonies), then the state has no business regulating what two consenting adults do to celebrate their love for each other.

In case you haven't noticed...defining marriage and regulating private sexual behaviour is not in the same realm. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman in the vast majority of America. Anything else is something else.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That in bold is the biggie and the only thing in this thread coming from you that makes any (legal) sense. Being this, and since marriage is not just a biological phenomenon (unless you can bring forward biological evidence where other mammalian species carry out marriage ceremonies), then the state has no business regulating what two consenting adults do to celebrate their love for each other.

In case you haven't noticed...defining marriage and regulating private sexual behaviour is not in the same realm. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman in the vast majority of America. Anything else is something else.

Defined where?

By arbitrary consensus?

[HAL 9000 96]

That in bold is the biggie and the only thing in this thread coming from you that makes any (legal) sense. Being this, and since marriage is not just a biological phenomenon (unless you can bring forward biological evidence where other mammalian species carry out marriage ceremonies), then the state has no business regulating what two consenting adults do to celebrate their love for each other.

In case you haven't noticed...defining marriage and regulating private sexual behaviour is not in the same realm. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman in the vast majority of America. Anything else is something else.

Sure, but why do you confuse the two? Behavior is one thing while the definition of marriage is another. Your problem is that you are allowing your personal homophobia to overshadow what can be a very simple matter in the law books.

[peejay 327]

Maybe in your world sodomy and marriage is the same thing. It ain't!

On the plus side, it might keep overpopulation to a minimum.

Unfortunately in the Bizarro World of libs where 100% homosexual parity with heterosexuality must be imposed at all cost, that isn't necessarily so. In their world view homosexuals get married, raise a family, and live happily ever after. Did you forget about..."Heather's Two Mommies"? That is the big enchelada for the gay parity mob.

Imposed?

How is that an imposition? Is peejay going to be forced to marry an illegal alien ** from Houston if Texas legalizes gay marriage?

Yeah...right.

Lib America as one big happy dope fueled Bacchanalia ** illegal alien orgy. Is this "Change we can believe in"? No thanks.

[HAL 9000 96]

Maybe in your world sodomy and marriage is the same thing. It ain't!

On the plus side, it might keep overpopulation to a minimum.

Unfortunately in the Bizarro World of libs where 100% homosexual parity with heterosexuality must be imposed at all cost, that isn't necessarily so. In their world view homosexuals get married, raise a family, and live happily ever after. Did you forget about..."Heather's Two Mommies"? That is the big enchelada for the gay parity mob.

Imposed?

How is that an imposition? Is peejay going to be forced to marry an illegal alien ** from Houston if Texas legalizes gay marriage?

Yeah...right.

Lib America as one big happy dope fueled Bacchanalia ** illegal alien orgy. Is this "Change we can believe in"? No thanks.

Still missing the point and going off into a tangent. Slip on into your next rant then.

[peejay 327]

That in bold is the biggie and the only thing in this thread coming from you that makes any (legal) sense. Being this, and since marriage is not just a biological phenomenon (unless you can bring forward biological evidence where other mammalian species carry out marriage ceremonies), then the state has no business regulating what two consenting adults do to celebrate their love for each other.

In case you haven't noticed...defining marriage and regulating private sexual behaviour is not in the same realm. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman in the vast majority of America. Anything else is something else.

Sure, but why do you confuse the two? Behavior is one thing while the definition of marriage is another. Your problem is that you are allowing your personal homophobia to overshadow what can be a very simple matter in the law books.

Homophobia? Is that your diagnosis Doc? What is the other dead horse the gay parity crowd pushes? Oh yeah...if you don't believe in gay parity then you must have latent homosexual tendencies ala Senator Larry Craig? Ha! That dog don't hunt either. Get real.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why else are you pushing a biological rationale for something that isn't being defined in those terms?

Its simply a veiled way of justifying your disdain for that group of people.