• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va [W: 86,235]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Marriage: One man, One Woman, yes that has been labeled a right.

Discrimination by the State based on gender is unConstititional
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Yes it is actually. And if you don't want to put restrictions, siblings need to be allowed to marry, people should be allowed to marry their pets...etc...etc...

You are simply wrong. There are valid state interests that can be articulated for those other restrictions on marriage. Animals cannot enter into legal contracts nor give legal consent to anything. Children, same thing. Too close relatives already have the main purpose of marriage, establishing a legal kinship, and there is plenty of evidence that maintaining marriage between those people not so closely related will help to ensure that there is no question as to the undue influence that could have been involved in the relationship from a time prior to the age of consent.

It is all about being able to provide proof that a valid state interest is being furthered by the restriction. There is none when it comes to a restriction based on sex/gender.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Right, because that is an equal comparison..... :roll:

yes it is actually, not "equal" of course but similar enough based on logic and fact. its actually been used and referenced in court and been successful
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Notice I didn't say ANYTHING about procreation. :liar:

What other "biological purpose" would you be referring to then? Please enlighten us.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Notice that has no bearing on ssm marriage.

wrong again, laws on the books, and court cases/precedence already disagree with you
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Marriage: One man, One Woman, yes that has been labeled a right.

Wrong. That is a definition. Marriage has been labeled a right. And marriage, according to the US government includes two men or two women as well, or did you forget that that particular part of DOMA went down?
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

1.)Marriage is one man and one woman.
2.) There is no purpose for SSM. None whatsoever.
3.) Nor is there any biological purpose.

1.) false facts prove this wrong already
2.) you opinion of this is meaningless to rights, law, reality, facts and equality
3.) also meaningless to legal marriage

man you make this easy
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Yes it is actually. And if you don't want to put restrictions, siblings need to be allowed to marry, people should be allowed to marry their pets...etc...etc...

there is no larger dishonest topically uneducated failure then bringing up marrying animals. Its the fasted way to not get taken seriously and have a post mocked for its inane content.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

there is no larger dishonest topically uneducated failure then bringing up marrying animals. Its the fasted way to not get taken seriously and have a post mocked for its inane content.

Except is equal in comparison. Let's redefine marriage to mean whatever makes us "feel good" and call it "equality."
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

1.)Except is equal in comparison.
2.)Let's redefine marriage to mean whatever makes us "feel good"
3.) and call it "equality."

1.) factually false , there isnt even one shred of factual logic to make them equal. Id love for you to post it so i can laugh at its failure.

animals have human rights? are animals protecting from discrimination and granted equality? can animals enter into a marriage contract.

wow, that you for saying that, thats one of the biggest failures you have ever posted. Halarious

2.) it isnt being redefined, equality is being granted
3.) not calling it that, its what it is

PLEASE let us know how bestiality is equal in comparison to equal rights and a marriage contract, i cant wait.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep it civil and to the topic folks.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

There may also be some cases that do pass because of pro-gay activist judges as well that are so deranged in their hateful stance on "equality" that they would reverse the legal will of the people and impose their own inappropriate view of marriage upon a state using their status as a judge to unfairly impose their will upon the people.

How would you feel about the will of the people if the majority wanted to ban Christianity?
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Except is equal in comparison. Let's redefine marriage to mean whatever makes us "feel good" and call it "equality."

Your definition of marriage as only a man and a woman is merely opinion, personal belief, nothing more. Redefinition of marriage means absolutely zilch legally. What means anything in the law is how marriage operates and how changes would possibly affect that operation. Since men and women (adults) are treated the same regardless of their sex/gender under US law, then there would be no change in how marriage operates as a legal contract with two people of the same sex. A man can easily take the place of a woman within a legal contract without any legal problems. An animal cannot take the place of any adult human within a legal contract. Even when an animal is willed money, a human must be named/made their legal "guardian" in order to spend the money (presumably in the animal's best interest).
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Your definition of marriage as only a man and a woman is merely opinion, personal belief, nothing more. Redefinition of marriage means absolutely zilch legally. What means anything in the law is how marriage operates and how changes would possibly affect that operation. Since men and women (adults) are treated the same regardless of their sex/gender under US law, then there would be no change in how marriage operates as a legal contract with two people of the same sex. A man can easily take the place of a woman within a legal contract without any legal problems. An animal cannot take the place of any adult human within a legal contract. Even when an animal is willed money, a human must be named/made their legal "guardian" in order to spend the money (presumably in the animal's best interest).

Considering marriage isn't a civil liberty the definition doesn't matter...

"gay rights" is blatant ignorance...
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Except is equal in comparison. Let's redefine marriage to mean whatever makes us "feel good" and call it "equality."

Personally I like feeling good. It sure beats the alternatives
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Considering marriage isn't a civil liberty the definition doesn't matter...

"gay rights" is blatant ignorance...

Marriage is a civil right. Period. The SCOTUS has ruled as such many times.

But again, as long as marriage is within our laws, it is also protected by equal protection, meaning that it has to apply equally to all, without restrictions, unless those restrictions can be shown to further a legitimate state interest. I know I keep repeating this, but it is what this comes down to, and something that those against same sex marriage constantly ignore or don't seem to understand what it means.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Considering marriage isn't a civil liberty the definition doesn't matter...

"gay rights" is blatant ignorance...

more baseless opinion that is proven wrong by facts
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Marriage is a civil right. Period. The SCOTUS has ruled as such many times.

But again, as long as marriage is within our laws, it is also protected by equal protection, meaning that it has to apply equally to all, without restrictions, unless those restrictions can be shown to further a legitimate state interest. I know I keep repeating this, but it is what this comes down to, and something that those against same sex marriage constantly ignore or don't seem to understand what it means.


Where is gay marriage a right?

Show me something that justifies your position?
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Where is gay marriage a right?

Show me something that justifies your position?

Marriage is a right. Marriage is not defaulted at one man and one woman within the law, despite some people's beliefs. Since marriage is a right, that right exists to all potential couples, including same sex couples, up til the state can show a legitimate reason why it shouldn't. And the right to be treated equally unless the state can show a legitimate state interest is furthered by not treating people of either sex equally is a right, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

SSM is not like interacial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed aorund in these threads. Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM).

Ninth Amendment said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just so we're clear, "you don't have that right because it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution" is ALWAYS wrong. It's in the freaking Bill of Rights!

Do you honestly think I give 2 (*&^% what your opinion of me is? We have the same argument once a week. Can you guys chill with the Gay Thumper agenda a bit and trim these "homosexuality is awesome you're a bigot if you don't agree" threads down to once a month please. Thanks.

See, nobody actually says that. We say "homosexuality is okay, and you are a bigot if you try to stop or hurt people for being different from you." Notice how no one is trying to make bigotry illegal? You have a right to your opinion. Your opinion is still wrong.

Is beastiality natural and healthy? How about pedophilia?

It might be for the person with those desires, but acting on them infringes on the right of consent of the other person, so we don't allow them. Two consenting gay adults do not present this problem.

Secondly we know homosexual sex (sodomy between males) is the most risky form of sexual behavior practiced. Ramming your penis up a feces bag filled with nasty bacteria isn't natural and it isn't healthy.

Oh look, another rant about gay anal sex that assumes that anal sex between heterosexuals is perfectly proper because it's happening to women or that gay women don't factor into the equation at all. So there's more chance for STDs, so what? That's what condoms and tests for infections are for. What difference does this make? We don't prevent people from marrying if they're HIV positive. Why would we prevent people from marrying because they might be at greater risk, but don't actually have it?

What harm does beastiality cause to society? Muslims marry 13 year olds and engage in pedophilia. I thought we were supposed to be tolerant of Muslims?

Arguments like these always take sex or marriage as a one-sided thing. "Muslims marry 13 year olds". As if the 13 year olds, the children, are mere objects. They're not. They're people with rights, which includes being protected from sexual exploitation, by anyone.

I don't give a **** - It makes no ****ing difference to me considering marriage is NOT A LEGAL RIGHT.... If you want it to be then amend the ****ing constitution...

See above 9th Amendment.

There is no such thing as "gay rights" its all a power grab

It has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with attempting to take advantage of every situation possible...

Explain this to me, then. A power grab to do what? Take advantage of the situation to do what? Looks to me like the only power that gays are trying to grab is the power to marry.

Marriage is not a Civil Right

See above 9th Amendment, and see Loving v Virginia and the 14th Amendment to understand that yes, marriage is a civil right.

If you give gays the special right you have to give it to every other deviant fetish sexual group as well

Okay, we'll give all the BDSM people or whoever the right to marry, too. We'll even give the furries the right to marry each other. Oh wait, they already have that. Gee, that was easy.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

You're not citing a definition. You're citing a marketing strategy which has been pushed for decades to make people believe Homosexuality is natural and normal. It is nothing of the sort.

No, I'm citing a definition. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the dictionary's accuracy because it proves you wrong is of no concern of mine.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

No, this has been proven incorrect. Your ignorance on this topic does not alter the reality of the truth.

All fetishes are a mental disorder.

Ah. This proves that you are uneducated on psychology and diagnoses. In order for something to be a mental disorder, it needs to be shown to cause distress and/or affect functioning. Not all fetishes do that.

Your resume of being uneducated on these topics is expanding.

Gays use their partners to masturbate or engage in sodomy.

So, you still don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. You still don't know what the word sodomy means. It is good to know that you allow your meaningless personal opinions to prevent you from learning this basic information.

There is no true sexual intercourse.

Which is irrelevant.

Enough with this premise that Gays are these clean wonderful moral people or something that we can't criticize. What they do is filthy. It is classified as "high risk" behavior. It is an unhealthy and unnatural sexual practice.

This further demonstrates your complete ignorance on the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

There are SEVERE health risks associated with it.

There are no severe health risks associated with homosexuality. There are severe health risks associated with risky sexual behavior... but we know you do not understand the difference between the basic concepts of sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

Poor Bronson. You keep running into the same roadblock with every comment you make.

Do you engage in severe risky behavior knowingly?

Can you describe severe risky behavior? Bet you can't.

Nature didn't intend something to be rammed up where the poop comes out. I know MSNBC told you differently, but the biological purpose of the anus has to do with holding feces. It's filled with bacteria. Only someone with some serious issues would want to put their penis in that.

I know you get all of your information from Fox News, but apparently they don't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior either. And it's such a basic concept, Bronson. Why do you resist learning it?

Incorrect

It wasn't even 5% in the studies. These studies were done by pro gay researchers. Even one of the most prominent researchers admitted recently there isn't a gay gene. That it's entirely external and environmental factors after birth. They haven't found one for lack of trying. They haven't found one because it doesn't exist.

Incorrect. Your suppositions have nothing to do with reality. Basic biological research that had nothing to do with sexual orientation discovered how identical twins differ... oh, but this is point number 1,287,431 that destroys your position, so of course you will not accept it. Further, the studies that have proven that homosexuality is not a mental illness have been around for at least 60 years. There are plenty of them.

Poor Bronson. Still allowing your meaningless and valueless personal opinions to prevent you from becoming educated on this issue. I am trying, though.

Time Travel hasn't been discovered yet either. Good luck with that

Glad we agree. Unless you can see into the future, you cannot say something like that definitively.

Says the guy who is anti science. Those who can't pass on their genes die out. If homosexuality was genetic, Evolution would have found a purpose for it by now.

And yet we know that you are anti-science and anti-fact. You deny or don't understand definitions, you deny or don't understand research, and you don't know basic concepts like the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. And since we also know that straights give birth do gays and gays give birth to straights, we know that what you said above is easily shown to have no merit. As do all of the things you say on this topic as I repeatedly prove.

Do you honestly think I give 2 (*&^% what your opinion of me is? We have the same argument once a week. Can you guys chill with the Gay Thumper agenda a bit and trim these "homosexuality is awesome you're a bigot if you don't agree" threads down to once a month please. Thanks.

I have never called you a bigot nor have I said that homosexuality is awesome. This is just an example of one of your valueless talking points. And yes, we do have this same argument once a week. When you stop posting uneducated misinformation, I will stop humiliating your comments by showing them to have no merit as I do every time you post on this topic. The choice is yours.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

I've swatted this lie away a thousand times. Homosexual sexual activity doesn't occur in nature because of sexual attraction. There is no gay instinct in animals to mate. It happens because of dominance and other confused stimuli. It's completely irrational behavior.

You haven't swatted away anything. All you did is confuse sexual behavior with sexual orientation as you always do. You don't understand the difference as has been proven with every post you make.



Homosexuality was classified as a DSM II mental disorder until it was removed for political purposes. Like Global Warming, The Left has politicized science. Gay Mafia activists would repeatedly picket APA events and get their protests all over the evening news until the APA eventually relented and removed it from the DSM. This was done for political reasons. Not scientific.

This is a lie that you, amongst others, laughingly try to present. I have produced and posted plenty of evidence that proves you wrong. Of course, you would prefer to believe this lie because if you don't, much of your argument disintegrates.

You're lying

Is beastiality natural and healthy? How about pedophilia? Secondly we know homosexual sex (sodomy between males) is the most risky form of sexual behavior practiced. Ramming your penis up a feces bag filled with nasty bacteria isn't natural and it isn't healthy.

See, this is what you do. You mention the word "fetish" and then you change the goalposts. You do know that there are literally hundreds of fetishes. Let me explain something to you Bronson. You are ignorant of psychology and diagnoses. That is what I do for a living. Not every fetish is a mental disorder. This is a fact. Your posting of false information on this issue has now been corrected. Please act accordingly.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

So any fetish should have the right to change the definition of marriage?

What harm does beastiality cause to society? Muslims marry 13 year olds and engage in pedophilia. I thought we were supposed to be tolerant of Muslims?

So, the word fetish is another word of which you are ignorant of the definition. Actually, since I already defined the word fetish in this thread, I would have to say that you are just being willfully dishonest at this point.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Who gives a damn what consensual adults do in their own bedrooms?

What empirical evidence is there showing that allowing gay marriage will negatively affect the well-being of the American people?
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

It's a fetish

Already proven false in this thread. You are being willfully dishonest by ignoring the posted definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom