Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
I have no dog directly in this fight. I'm straight, married, and have two kids.
However, I have what I imagine is a relatively large number of gay friends for an otherwise typical breeder. Moreover and more importantly, I recognize the Golden Rule and understand that denying a right or freedom to one group ultimately denies freedom to everyone.
If your religion teaches against homosexuality, fine, don't practice homosexuality. (easier for some than for others, but whatever.) However, your right to practice your religion stops with you. You do not have the right to prevent other people from living their lives as they see fit, so long as affects no else. Gay marriage affects no one outside of the couple and family they create.
You're not listening. I can easily argue against being able to marry a horse without relying on "common sense". A marriage is a consensual partnership of two parties. If it is not consensual, it's really ownership or slavery, not a marriage. A horse cannot provide consent, thus one cannot marry a horse. QED.
"Common sense" is not infallible and often leads to mistaken conclusions. Magicians, for example, rely on people relying on the common sense to fool them. Con men, too. Common sense is not a valid way of supporting anything. At best, it only represents a highly contextualized baseline of understanding based more in social norms than in reality.
And you, sir, should be right at home with that logic whether it concerns a law regarding forced sterilization, a law regarding a re-definition of marriage, or a law which states that the constitutional provision as to "no Thing but Gold and Silver Coin be made a tender" can mean paper or anything else the government so chooses.
Oh, you mean the Constitutional provision that says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"?
You know, the one that's in Article I, Section 10, titled "Powers prohibited of States"? The one that applies (by its own words) only to states and not the federal government? (As opposed to Article I, Section 9, titled Limits on Congress, and as contrasted to Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress, which specifically gives Congress the authority to coin money and issue debt but contains no provision about only "gold and silver"?)
If you're going to lecture other people on not following the Constitution, you might try reading it first. Or was this you using your "Common Sense" again?
That Nature, Mother Nature or the God of Nature has willed that male and female be united for the propagation of the species, is self evident, and therefore not subject to irrational argument
Pity all those unnatural species out there that reproduce asexually in violation of the will of the 'God of Nature'. I am not certain, but IIRC there are actually more of those than ones that reproduce sexually.
Indeed it is. Anti-gay bigots are fond of falling back on comments that homosexuality is "unnatural" or leads to disease as one of their first lines of attack on LGBT equality. And of course, they're wrong. As are all of their other attacks on marriage equality and gay rights more generally.
Naturally, however, the argument for same-gender marriage is a constitutional matter. See the Cato Institutes constitutional case for Marriage Equality:
Interesting quote:
"14 times, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, right of liberty, right of privacy, right of association, right of spirituality. When the Supreme Court considered the interracial marriage case, they didn't call it interracial marriage, they just called it marriage."
Watch the video, its 7 and a half minutes of your life.
Laws prohibiting same-gender marriage fail to meet a rational basis test -- that is, there's no rational basis for prohibiting same-gender marriage, no harm to heterosexual marriages when gay people can marry. It fails to meet the constitutional requirements of equal protection for gay couples, by specifically singling them out as being inferior to heterosexual couples.
The constitutional argument for marriage equality is lopsidedly, overwhelming tipped in favor of supporters. Gay people want to marry for all of the same reasons straight people marry; protecting that right benefits them without infringing on any of your rights at all.
0 for 7, speaking of one-sided arguments tipped decidedly in favor of LGBT supporters...
Oh, you mean the Constitutional provision that says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"?
You know, the one that's in Article I, Section 10, titled "Powers prohibited of States"? The one that applies (by its own words) only to states and not the federal government? (As opposed to Article I, Section 9, titled Limits on Congress, and as contrasted to Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress, which specifically gives Congress the authority to coin money and issue debt but contains no provision about only "gold and silver"?)
If you're going to lecture other people on not following the Constitution, you might try reading it first. Or was this you using your "Common Sense" again?
Don't get dragged into that rabbit hole, Robert has repeatedly made up his own version of the wording of the Constitution to give the states whatever rights he imagines.
And he has proven to be immune to the actual wording that everybody else sees when they look at the document.
Let me put it to you ABC Kindygarten simple:
When you use an orifice for something other than it's purpose in nature, that is unnatural and unnatural acts can lead to horrific natural consequences. Common Sense.
If a gay person touches any part of your body, you become gay. He was in San Francisco once and accidentally brushed up on one walking down the street. It was crowded.
Anyway, he became so blazingly gay that even Carson Cressley looked at him funny. All he does now is watch Ellen during the day and head over to the Blue Oyster at night.
Seriously though.
I so do enjoy watching your kind squirm as your beloved archaic, bigoted ideas fall by the wayside one by one.
Indeed it is. Anti-gay bigots are fond of falling back on comments that homosexuality is "unnatural" or leads to disease as one of their first lines of attack on LGBT equality. And of course, they're wrong. As are all of their other attacks on marriage equality and gay rights more generally.
Naturally, however, the argument for same-gender marriage is a constitutional matter. See the Cato Institutes constitutional case for Marriage Equality:
Interesting quote:
"14 times, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, right of liberty, right of privacy, right of association, right of spirituality. When the Supreme Court considered the interracial marriage case, they didn't call it interracial marriage, they just called it marriage."
Watch the video, its 7 and a half minutes of your life.
Laws prohibiting same-gender marriage fail to meet a rational basis test -- that is, there's no rational basis for prohibiting same-gender marriage, no harm to heterosexual marriages when gay people can marry. It fails to meet the constitutional requirements of equal protection for gay couples, by specifically singling them out as being inferior to heterosexual couples.
The constitutional argument for marriage equality is lopsidedly, overwhelming tipped in favor of supporters. Gay people want to marry for all of the same reasons straight people marry; protecting that right benefits them without infringing on any of your rights at all.
0 for 7, speaking of one-sided arguments tipped decidedly in favor of LGBT supporters...
Outside of this Prop 8 issue, the Court is more likely to apply the reasonable balance test, and for anti-gay marriage proponents to prevail, they would have to demonstrate a factor that outweighed the 14th amendment.
Given that even the military isn't claiming a benefit worth discriminating over, and that state laws about 'unnatural acts' were rendered useless by Lawrence, about the only thing they've got left is the religious argument, which even they know has certain fail written all over it.
My guess is that they don't want the current Supreme Court to address the big issue at all, and are hoping for some fantasy where Antonin Scalia is cloned 6 more times by President for Life Romney.
If a gay person touches any part of your body, you become gay. He was in San Francisco once and accidentally brushed up on one walking down the street. It was crowded.
Anyway, he became so blazingly gay that even Carson Cressley looked at him funny. All he does now is watch Ellen during the day and head over to the Blue Oyster at night.
Seriously though.
I so do enjoy watching your kind squirm as your beloved archaic, bigoted ideas fall by the wayside one by one.
In contrast, I am straight, married, and have two kids (didn't know about your second, uc; when was that? I know you have one that is about the same age as my older (3.2 years)), and I don't even know any gay people that want to get married, but I DO have a dog in this fight, because I consider discrimination against others on superfluous grounds, especially due to religiously bigotry, to be unacceptable.
I seem to find that as an atheist, I really don't like bigotry against gay people. I have even done things like joined GLBT organizations as a "Friend" status to provide support for their efforts.
In contrast, I am straight, married, and have two kids and I don't even know any gay people that want to get married, but I DO have a dog in this fight, because I consider discrimination against others on superfluous grounds, especially due to religiously bigotry, to be unacceptable.
Just to pendant, I said I didn't have a dog directly in this fight, meaning that gay marriage legalization does not directly effect my life. And seeing how I have already attended gay weddings, I can't even claim that that would be much different for me, should gay marriage be legalized.
Indirectly, however, I think we all have a dog in this fight.
I seem to find that as an atheist, I really don't like bigotry against gay people. I have even done things like joined GLBT organizations as a "Friend" status to provide support for their efforts.
Just to pendant, I said I didn't have a dog directly in this fight, meaning that gay marriage legalization does not directly effect my life. And seeing how I have already attended gay weddings, I can't even claim that that would be much different for me, should gay marriage be legalized.
Indirectly, however, I think we all have a dog in this fight.
I always say I'm the "A" in GLBTA, for "Allied".
I don't think you should feel that way as an atheist. I think you should feel that way as a human *********** being.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
