Can Gays Be Conservative?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Danno is struggling with his homosexual tendencies.

[Danno 1,228]

So, Danno, since you want to be all so specific, why don't you step up to the plate and point to all the countries that are, as a result of legalizing same sex marriage, also embracing and legalizing bestiality, under-age marriage, incest and all the other ills you'd like us to believe are the natural result of legalizing same sex marriage. Show me the list, man. Come on!

Big Dog nice try.

I can show you lots of countries which have a great track record of rejecting alternative marriage arraignments, history has found them to be successful.

I asked Scandal to show me the results of the things he pulls for.... isn't that a reasonable request?

Now you ask that I show you countries which have gone past Homosexual marriage on to legalizing bestiality.

It's no secret that such countries as Denmark have no laws against it now and in fact bestiality is legal in the UK as long as penetration is not proven.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga...#pt1-pb18-l1g69

Just a few years ago there was a news story about a Brothel for those who are interested in taking a walk on the wild side, that was also a scandinavian country.

It's also funny you have no problem looking at fake data and tracking global warming.... but you just can't foresee what the trajectory on these things can have for the long term.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno is struggling with his homosexual tendencies.

And you promised not to tell.... see if I confide in you again.

I'm tempted to post those pics you sent me.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yes. But you can't ask, and they can't tell.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Danno, the fact that laws exist to define what constitutes a sexual act with an animal does not mean that beastiality is "legal", nor that the government explicitly endorses such behaviour.

But even leaving aside the legal nuances on the subject in different countries has it occurred to you how a person would "prove" that an illegal sex act had taken place? It's not exactly cut and dried...

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, the fact that laws exist to define what constitutes a sexual act with an animal does not mean that beastiality is "legal", nor that the government explicitly endorses such behaviour.

But even leaving aside the legal nuances on the subject in different countries has it occurred to you how a person would "prove" that an illegal sex act had taken place? It's not exactly cut and dried...

Oddly enough it ends up being saved in a digital format..... but really Hunt,

one could use this lame logic with proving any crime so whats your point?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oddly enough it ends up being saved in a digital format..... but really Hunt,

one could use this lame logic with proving any crime so whats your point?

Oddly enough, there are usually separate laws governing the content and distribution of pornographic material. So generally speaking, you will still be charged even if the video you took just involved (just indeed) you getting an animal to suck you off.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Ah yes, the gay marriage cannot be discussed without first legalising polygamy, invest, bestiality and pedophilia.

That sh!t never ceases to stink

yes it can. gay marriage is legal in Vermont and beastiality, polygamy and pedophilia are not. well, maybe beastiality...and maybe polygamy...but not pedophilia, and who really cares anyway? How does it affect me?

[scandal 951]

Scandal,

I asked you to tell me some countries which embrace your concepts and you respond back with a map about Polygamy, my friend, you embrace much more than just Polygamy.

Where are the wonderful societies which embrace The things you do?

I suspect there are not many... and for a good reason.

Even of the ones who accept Gays in marriage, those are relatively new changes, most not even more than a generation or two at the most.

Forgive me for not being clear when I brought up -people having the freedom to have relations with animals. I did not mean "in marriage" as they clearly have no ability to make commitments, legal or otherwise.

I was addressing the idea that, we are all free to do as we want as long as we don't hurt others.

You say bestiality is wrong because animals cannot give consent.

I'm not sure what type of consent you are looking for in an animal, do dogs or cats consent to be confined in cages or lashed to dog sleds. Do they consent to being being fixed or neutered or having their claws removed to protect or furniture?... Do they give consent to have their young sold off?

Considering written consent is not required in those instances.... why would a women and her Husky be considered "outlaws" for doing what she enjoys and he clearly is game for?

I'm still a little unsure how this incest marriage act would work.

Minors can and do mary all the time but if you are going to wed an older brother, uncle or father, you must be 18?

That hardly seems fair to me.

THe problem is, when we go down this path... if it doesn't work how do we get back?

It's not's not the same as back tracking on a stupid tax increase or poorly thought out EPA ruling.

Danno, I think I've answered everything you asked. I've demonstrated to you that other countries have made legal those things you mentioned (polygamy, incest).

You write here "my friend, you embrace much more than just Polygamy.". My friend - I embrace no such things. I made that clear too. This is not about my personal view of these practices. They're abhorrent to me. What this is about, and the only thing I'm discussing with you, is the applicability of US constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment for mature, consenting adults to marry each other. Not children. Not animals. You raise here all sorts of irrelevancies - fixing or neutering dogs and cats, etc. has nothing to do with it. We are talking about marriage, and ONLY about marriage, because there's a well established constitutional protection for the right to marry. There is no such protection for furniture or spay clinics. Let me refer back to Ted Olson's excellent article on this point:

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.

As others are saying, you see a slippery slope from gay marriage to these other things. And you fear that once we go down this slippery slope there will be no turning back. In a limited sense, I agree with you. But I don't fear it the way you do. I think we ARE on a "slope" (slippery or otherwise). It's a slope that started with the Declaration of Independence, goes through the Gettysburg Address, the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and the Loving Decision, all the way to the present day. That inevitable trajectory is one that recognizes Americans INALIENABLE rights - in this case the right to marry whom they choose. I have no doubt this "slope" will in due course extend to gays and lesbians. Whether it continues to others - who knows? A case would have to be brought, tried, and won. I can conceivably imagine a group such as the FLDS doing so for polygamy. I can't conceive of anyone ever doing so for incest. Even bringing such a case before the court is no assurance of winning. FLDS could make an argument for protection of polygamy, and the court could decide that "group" marriages are not protected and have no status, and toss it out. It's entirely hypothetical to speculate.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Big Dog nice try.

I can show you lots of countries which have a great track record of rejecting alternative marriage arraignments, history has found them to be successful.

Okay, I take that as you conceding the fact that your "road map" is a load of paranoid #######. Thanks for confirming.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now you ask that I show you countries which have gone past Homosexual marriage on to legalizing bestiality.

It's no secret that such countries as Denmark have no laws against it now and in fact bestiality is legal in the UK as long as penetration is not proven.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga...#pt1-pb18-l1g69

A quick look at the map reveals that neither the UK nor Denmark actually have legalized same sex marriage. The dark blue one's do.

The first same-sex marriage bill to ever be voted on was passed in the Netherlands in December 2000 and went into force in 2001. Belgium later passed a same-sex marriage bill in 2003, with Spain (2005), Canada (2005) and South Africa (2006) becoming the next three countries to pass such acts. Same-sex marriage was later legalized in both Norway and Sweden in 2009.

So, that's a Colossal Fail on your part. Care to try again? Maybe you can make an Epic Fail? I have faith in you, Danno.

[alienlovechild 75]

The first same-sex marriage bill to ever be voted on was passed in the Netherlands in December 2000 and went into force in 2001. Belgium later passed a same-sex marriage bill in 2003, with Spain (2005), Canada (2005) and South Africa (2006) becoming the next three countries to pass such acts. Same-sex marriage was later legalized in both Norway and Sweden in 2009.

Can anyone explain how a fundemental right to gay marriage only came about by 2000? No one evers has any background on why this suddenly happened or what event triggered this issue. Does is have something to do with global warming or what?

Edited February 20, 2010 by alienlovechild

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Can anyone explain how a fundemental right to gay marriage only came about by 2000? No one evers has any background on why this suddenly happened or what event triggered this issue. Does is have something to do with global warming or what?

Can you explain how a woman's right to vote came about at a certain time? Or that right for a colored person? Or the idea that people aren't property? You know, each of these items was brought to light at some point in time - seemingly suddenly. I posted a pretty comprehensive argument - a conservative argument at that - for gay marriage earlier. I'd encourage you to read it, you might find it enlightening. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with Global Warming. For the US, it has to do with the Constitution. You know, that document that conservatives like to claim to value so very much.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes it can. gay marriage is legal in Vermont and beastiality, polygamy and pedophilia are not. well, maybe beastiality...and maybe polygamy...but not pedophilia, and who really cares anyway? How does it affect me?

Ask Danno.

[alienlovechild 75]

Can you explain how a woman's right to vote came about at a certain time? Or that right for a colored person? Or the idea that people aren't property? You know, each of these items was brought to light at some point in time - seemingly suddenly. I posted a pretty comprehensive argument - a conservative argument at that - for gay marriage earlier. I'd encourage you to read it, you might find it enlightening. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with Global Warming. For the US, it has to do with the Constitution. You know, that document that conservatives like to claim to value so very much.

Sure, the women's suffrage and civil right movements were marked with events such the spread of the woman's vote by state for example and blacks had the support of the abolitionist movement and so on. There were events that took place and you can find it in any basic U.S. history on look it up online. I read the article and still found it wanting on my question and it certaining doesn't explain at all way different countries only now recognize legal gay marriages.

"For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate."

What made us so tolerate only recently?

"If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society."

Religion and social culture radically changed in the last 10 or 20 years? With interracial marriages, it was never an outright ban in all states. Certainly interracial marriage was practiced for thousands of years in different cultures so there was far more of precedence for it than legal gay marriages which which were never recognized anywhere. In U.S. the civil rights movement was directly responsible for making interracial marriages more commonplace even before Loving.

"In the United States, the various state laws prohibited the marriage of whites and blacks, and in many states also the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans or Asians[6]. In the U.S., such laws were known as anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced such laws[7]. Although an "Anti-Miscegenation Amendment" to the United States Constitution was proposed in 1871, in 1912–1913, and in 1928,[8][9] no nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was ever enacted "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation