patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,259,778 comments by 15,039 users - AmericanKulak, RedStar online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 11 - 50 of 171 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dan8267
2012 Jul 31, 12:27pm
do you agree with sex based public toilets?
So let me get this straight. The existence of separation of bathrooms in your mind is justification for any gender-based discrimination. After all, if we don't shit in the same stall, we're not equal under law. Hey, that rhymes.
Nice attempt. I appreciate that you are trying. However, the separation of public bathrooms does not constitute inequality under law like segregation did.
As stated by the Supreme Court in Brown vs. the Board of Education
Segregation of children in the public schools solely on the basis of race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the role of public education in American life today. The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, which applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education.
Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law tends to impede the educational and mental development of black children and deprives them of some of the benefits they would receive in an integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.
Clearly, this analysis does not apply to separation of the men's room and the women's room, which is done to prevent teenage boys from peeking at girls while they pee.
The Supreme Court's analysis does however apply aptly to the question of same sex marriages. Since marriage affects many legal statuses including federal income taxes and benefits, the equal protection clause clearly demands that all adults can marry whomever they want regardless of their or that person's gender.
Again, why is this a difficult concept for a conservative, who claims to be for small, unintrusive government, to understand? The government should not have the right, power, or responsibility to decide which personal relationships are valid and which are not.
Disregard your personal and religious beliefs. From a purely secularist perspective, any ban on gay marriage while hetrosexual marriage is recognized by the state is clearly a violation of equality under law and the Fourteenth Amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws not even gays.
Ok, I added the part in lavender.
The point is that as an American you should believe in gay marriage even if you don't like it or believe in it religiously. The gay marriage issue is absolutely no different than the interracial marriage issue of fifty years ago. The arguments being made against gay marriage today are the same as those made against interracial marriages in the 1960s.
And you don't want people 30 years from now looking back at your comments and seeing you on the wrong side of this issue. Trust me, you'll look the fool when society finally accepts gay marriage, which is inevitable just like the acceptance of interracial marriage was inevitable.
Peter P
2012 Jul 31, 12:31pm
do you agree with sex based public toilets?
I think all single-stall toilets should be unisex.
Dan8267
2012 Jul 31, 1:56pm
To use political power to squash someones opinion is practically the definition of tyranny - "absolute power, arbitrarily or unjustly administered".
The TSA, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and the arrest of civilians who video the police are far more tyrannical than a municipality refusing to grant commercial zoning to a corporation that is actively trying to suppress an already suppress minority. Granted, what the municipalities are doing may very well be wrong, as I stated, but clearly the intent is not nearly tyrannical like the intent of the acts and agency I just mentioned.
However, I would agree that preventing the CEO of Chick-fil-A from speaking on his beliefs would be tyrannical, un-Constitutional, and downright wrong. But that's not what the municipalities are doing. The blue laws of many states is clearly a much better example of municipalities violating people's rights to express their opinions and be free to reject other people's opinions. Just because you're religious belief prohibits alcohol consumption on Sunday, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to buy alcohol on that day.
Most importantly, the municipals actions are directed against commerce performed by a corporation, and contrary to Citizen's United, corporations aren't people. And no, I don't care what the corrupt Supreme Court says, it's retarded to consider corporations equal under law to human beings. The best arguments you can make against the municipals is that they don't have the legal authority to block this commerce and in doing so they are depriving the people of the choice to eat shitty food. Of course, why then can a city prevent auto dealerships from operating within its limits as Boca Raton, FL does?
In any case, the municipalities may be wrong, but they aren't nearly as wrong as the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, Gitmo, the Bush-Iraq War, Obama's drone strikes against civilians including children. There's a lot more tyrannical things going on right now.
You indicate that its a zoning law issue. Let me ask you this: if any branch of the LGBT wanted to start a restaurant in the same location that CFA wanted to - would they be allowed to...or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
A simple yes or no never suffices because the reason why always matters.
To clarify your question, you are asking "if a LGBT organization wanted to open a gay-only restaurant, would this be legal?". If that is your question, then the answer is no. A restaurant that prohibits heterosexuals from entering would violate federal anti-discrimination laws just like a restaurant that prohibits whites from entering would. There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination", it's all just plain discrimination.
However, gay and lesbian bars don't prohibit straights from entering and drinking just like nudie bars don't prevent female customers from entering. These establishments may cater to their intended customer base, but not prohibit others from using the services. Moreover none of these establishments ever advocate passing laws preventing straight people from marrying or preventing people from wearing clothes in public. So it's not really the same thing.
Come to think of it, if municipalities can ban strip clubs, which they do, then they can ban CFA. Personally, I don't think municipalities should be able to ban strip clubs, gay bars, underground fight clubs, Satanic churches, etc. But that's just my opinion.
BTW, if you want to be intellectually honest,
Which I always do…
a restaurant owned by any branch of the LGBT would NOT "serve the whole community", because a percentage of the religious right wouldn't patronize it.
In the same way that McDonalds or CFA don't serve the whole community because a percentage of health-minded individuals wouldn't patronize it? Or the same way that a golf store doesn't serve the whole community because most people don't golf?
There is a huge difference between having your doors open to all people and appealing to all people. The state is only concerned with the former. The free market is concerned with the later.
The real issue here is the glaring INTOLERANCE of the LGBT community and liberal democrats. They are the INTOLERANT ones, AND by utilizing unjust POLITICAL TYRANNY, want to crush, censure and destroy it.
Gays have been horrifically discriminated against throughout history. The word "faggot" comes from a Medieval joke that the thing homosexuals are good for is burning alive at the stake like a kindling of faggots.
Up to the mid-20th century even in America and the U.K. homosexual behavior was a felony. This is clear, systematic, state-sponsored discrimination and dehumanization of homosexuals. The smartest man in all of human history, with the (slightly) possible exception of Karl Friedrich Gauss, was a homosexual by the name of Alan Turing. He was driven to suicide by the anti-homosexual persecutions by the British government.
The loss of this one man changed all of human history. I do not exaggerate when I say that had Turing lived, he would have probably figured out a cure for cancer using computers. That's a bold claim, but I'm pretty damn sure of it because he was that smart. So, every person who dies from cancer does so because of the anti-homosexual bigotry of the 20th century. The lost of him alone impoverishes the world more than all of religion could, even in principle, enrich the world.
To claim that the LGBT community is being intolerant for not tolerating legislative discrimination against them is hardly a justifiable position.
Now, I will agree that political correctness is evil and is a road to tyranny. However, a liberal, by definition, is against political correctness. Like many conservatives, you confuse the terms "liberal" and "leftist". The left was known for political correctness during the 1990s -- although today the right seems just as if not more guilty of it. Liberals, however, were always against it.
For example, the leftists wanted to ban "hate speech" from college campuses but all the liberals opposed that. The liberals believed that
1. All speech is protected, even hateful speech.
2. There should be no thought crimes.
3. All of America is a free-speech zone.
4. Colleges especially are places where controversial issues and opinions should be discussed.
5. Silencing racism, etc. only does bad. The bad ideas fester silently whereas if free speech is tolerated, bad ideas can be shown to be bad in an open forum. Without such a forum, bad ideas grow in the dark.
So clearly, the concept of liberal is independent of left-vs-right. That said, over the past 15 years or so, the republicans have become so anti-liberty that no liberal would be a part of that party. This wasn't the case in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Also, liberalism is not the opposite of fiscal conservatism. For example, I am a fiscally conservative liberal. I believe in small government, eliminating the national debt, balancing the budge, and greatly reducing both spending and taxes for the middle class. I also believe that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime.
However, liberalism is pretty much the opposite of social conservatism because social conservatism and "family values" are basically code for accepting racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and being for a theocracy that imposes classes on people at birth. Unfortunate, but true.
Anyway, I think that I've addressed all of your issues. If not, let me know.
Bap33
2012 Jul 31, 2:37pm
but Dan, wait, you are now making a blanket call that says sexual difference matters when it suits the needs of the liberal adgenda.
What potty should a queer use?
You are a smart guy, so you already know my next step .. like chess .. but do me the favor of following along so I can make my point once you hit the end of the logic used to grant special laws based of unfounded privet personal assertians. Thanks.
Dan8267
2012 Jul 31, 2:54pm
but Dan, wait, you are now making a blanket call that says sexual difference matters when it suits the needs of the liberal adgenda.
Since when is keeping tween perverts from looking at your daughter taking a dump a "liberal agenda"?
What potty should a queer use?
Gay men use the men's room. Sure, it would be nice if we all got individual, self-cleaning bathrooms, but that's not economical with today's technology.
You are a smart guy, so you already know my next step .. like chess
Go ahead, make your next move, but remember to address the point I made above. You know, how single-sex bathrooms don't degrade men or women or make them unequal under law, whereas white and black segregated bathrooms and schools do.
Twisting sex-separated bathrooms into justifying a ban on gay marriages is completely unattainable. You'd be better off trying to use sex-segregation as a justification for banning opposite sexed marriages as the analogy is much more of a fit.
Furthermore, the fact that I use the men's room doesn't impact my federal income taxes. Whether or not I'm married (gay or not) does. If heterosexual couples can reduce their net taxes via marriage, than equal protection demands the same for homosexual couples. Now, as I said before, one could argue against the married filed status, but that's another story. As long as there are heterosexual marriages, equality under law demands equal standing for homosexual marriages.
Peter P
2012 Jul 31, 2:56pm
Again, I am all for individual unisex toilets. I am against the abolition of urinals because it saves men at least 7 seconds every time.
The Original Bankster
2012 Jul 31, 3:02pm
"that's like saying Hilter !@#$ werfasded the Concentration Camps and Guantanamo BAY!!!!!!! ARGHHHH!!!"
-example of liberal nonsense argument.
The Original Bankster
2012 Jul 31, 3:04pm
"Now hold on here, 4 out 5 professors said the KKK and Palestinian Date Rape and !#@$ed my !&&&%goofer uh huh? ARGHHHH!"
-another example of liberal nonsense argument
JodyChunder
2012 Jul 31, 3:06pm
Gay men use the men's room. Sure, it would be nice if we all got individual, self-cleaning bathrooms, but that's not economical with today's technology.
Disagree. This would not only be more hygienic, but would create jobs.
Dan8267
2012 Jul 31, 3:18pm
Disagree. This would not only be more hygienic, but would create jobs.
Self-cleaning bathrooms don't create jobs. They eliminate them.
Peter P
2012 Jul 31, 3:25pm
Self-cleaning bathrooms don't create jobs. They eliminate them.
Not if you are a bathroom engineer!
JodyChunder
2012 Jul 31, 3:27pm
Self-cleaning bathrooms don't create jobs. They eliminate them.
Someone has to install them!
Bap33
2012 Aug 1, 9:47am
Bap33 says
What potty should a queer use?
Gay men use the men's room.
a lezbo in a ladie's room is different than a male in a ladies room???
Bap33
2012 Aug 1, 9:52am
If heterosexual couples can reduce their net taxes via marriage, than equal protection demands the same for homosexual couples.
the republic is better served by supporting normal coupling. maybe that is the reason for the tax difference? The benefit should increase with time served.
Dan8267
2012 Aug 1, 11:49am
the republic is better served by supporting normal coupling. maybe that is the reason for the tax difference?
No. Tax law is not determined by what is best for society or the republic. Tax law is determined by what is best for those writing the tax law.
More to the point, you are going off on a tangent. Our discussion was about why gay marriage should be legalized or banned. I've presented my thesis, reiterated below, present yours.
Marriage should not exist as a secular institution since it is not the right or the responsibility of government to intervene or judge personal relationships. All laws regarding marriage should be repealed or replaced with marriage agnostic laws.
That said, if America does recognize marriage as a legal institution, then the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the philosophy of equality under law demands equal recognition of gay marriage.
See, my thesis is quite simple, easy to understand, easy to defend, and specific. What's your anti-thesis?
Dan8267
2012 Aug 1, 12:39pm
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
Chikfilet sandwiches are used in gay rituals. Guys shove them into their assholes and go to bars and pick up congressmen to eat them out of their assholes.
Um, that's actually how Chikfilet sandwiches are made.
xrpb11a
2012 Aug 1, 12:47pm
And you know that how??......Oh, I see...
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
Chikfilet sandwiches are used in gay rituals. Guys shove them into their assholes and go to bars and pick up congressmen to eat them out of their assholes.
Um, that's actually how Chikfilet sandwiches are made.
Hey, those mayors are just expressing their opinions, you know, like the chick-fil-a CEO.
Oh no, wait, you're right, those two comments by random mayors expressing dislike for bigotry and discrimination is exactly the correct example of the complete liberal plot to take over and destroy the country.
Dan8267
2012 Aug 1, 1:05pm
Cross-posting from another thread because it's relevant to this one...
Marriage is not a civil right.
Actually, according to the Supreme Court it is. In the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not ban or restrict interracial marriages, a common practice at the time that was called miscegenation, as it was a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As I argue in this thread, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies exactly the same way to the issue of gay marriages.
Ultimately the people twenty years from now are going to look back at this debate in the exact same way we look back at the 1960s debate over interracial marriages. And those who oppose gay marriage will look as bigoted and stupid as those who opposed interracial marriages. It's the natural progression of liberty and equality.
Dan8267
2012 Aug 1, 1:06pm
Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.
As repugnant as that text is, the prohibition of gay marriage is just as repugnant and for exactly the same reasons.
Dan8267
2012 Aug 1, 1:32pm
Loving v. Virginia
...an ironic name for the case. It seems that sometimes history has a sense of humor.
Bap33
2012 Aug 1, 1:46pm
@Dan,
I say your assertion that "marriage" is a generic term for coupling, and does not soley mean male coupling with female, is wrong. The word has meaning. It means what it means. What you want is something-other-than-marriage, and needs a name. Sexual deviants pulled "gay" out of their behinds and made it "mean" something it never ment. Maybe the same needs to be done for the unnatural coupling that you suggest be recognized.
Your demands for special consideration for non-productive, unnatural coupling, could be very bad for the republic. If you were to take all of those whom you represent and create your own republic, how might you plan to reproduce?
The act of sex and marriage are not allowed with a person that is not of sound mind, or not of age. There are laws preventing these things. I submit that having sex with a person who is suffering from uncontrollable deviant desires, or from a birth defect that has rendered them a sexual deviant, is sexual abuse. Having sex with such a person is against the law. Just as having sex with a low functioning downs person that is of age is not legal. It is disgusting the way the mentally challenged and/or physically handicapped are being targeted by sexual deviants. Shameful. ANd you suggest the Gov sanction such abuse?? Why?
Bellingham Bill
2012 Aug 1, 2:54pm
fwiw I think the SF, Chicago, and Boston attacks on CFA were retarded and un-American, helping the right wing message machine turn the CEO into a free speech martyr instead of the bigoted badguy (with a big checkbook) he really is.
People refusing to eat at CFA are just exercising their fundamental freedom to not support things that are working to harm them or those they care about.
Local government getting into the act is bad juju. Morons.
I'm gay and I am liberal. I firmly believe that anyone should have the right to say anything they wish, short of yelling fire in a dark, very crowded theater when there is no fire. I actually even welcome folks going on the record with their white trash bigoted comments.
One thought and concern regarding Chick Fil A day: As if a bunch of trailer trash need another special day or another excuse to go out and buy a bucket of chicken thighs and display their bigotry.
As for those who support them, that is your right as well as it is mine to withhold my patronage. This is easy for me to do as I actually love good and healthy food. So no, I probably would never walk into one of their stores to begin with.
On this note, I was sort of wondering how the christianist rights boycott of companies supporting gay rights is going? A Million Moms against JC Penny because of their support of gay rights was sort of funny. Are all of you anti gay bigots also boycotting Microsoft, Apple, Google, Mercedes, Starbucks and virtually all of the TOP 100 Companies to work for as well as the vast majority of fortune 500 companies? Yea, there is tyranny at work here as the tables have now turned and being a douche is now far less popular than it was even just a few years ago.
As far as equal civil rights go, there is simply not a single RATIONAL reason to withhold such rights from anyone under the laws of the USA. DOMA will go down as shameful US history. The faster the better. As for greasy chicken crap, I am sure it will be served for many more years. Social Security balances would benefit greatly if the bigots started to eat a bucket a day and I actually hope they do.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2012/full_list/
They are the INTOLERANT ones, AND by utilizing unjust POLITICAL TYRANNY, want to crush, censure and destroy it.
I rest my case.
The above is the very definition of being a perpetrator and at the same time claiming VICTIM status. Psych 101. In other words in 2nd grade language: you can dish it out but you can't take it. Grow up.
Saving Chick fil a, straight marriage, and social security account balances one bucket of chicken at a time: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/chick-fil-as-vice-president-of-public-relations-dies-of-heart-attack/
"Chick-fil-A’s Vice President of Public Relations Don Perry died “suddenly†Friday morning, the company confirmed. Perry was based in the Atlanta area and worked in Chick-fil-A’s corporate communications department for 29 years.
Ross Cathy, who owns the Midland, Georgia Chick-fil-A and is related to the company’s CEO Dan Cathy, said Perry died of a heart attack, Columbus, Georgia’s News 3 reports. A company spokesman could not confirm Perry’s cause of death to ABC News."
Tenpoundbass
2012 Aug 2, 12:08am
Self cleaning lesbian toilets, great idea.
But since when did Chick-Fil-A become ordained priest capable or marrying people, or the place where you go for a wedding ceremony?
Oh that's right it's not and they don't, so what difference does it make what the CEO thinks. The place is closed on Sunday, anyone that has eaten there, can tell you they serve Jesus Sandwiches. What would you expect?
Now if you want sodomy, I think the King campaign from Burger King suggests that for a good time...
Its all about freedom. The "gay community" insists on receiving tolerance, but refuses to grant tolerance to others.
Double standard = FAIL
Bellingham Bill
2012 Aug 2, 5:38am
The "gay community" insists on receiving tolerance, but refuses to grant tolerance to others.
This is not about tolerance. Nobody needs to tolerate the intolerable.
It is about the right of same sex couples to legally partner in this country, a right that is under attack by the religious nutcakes as Cathy and the general Republican social conservative movement that got rolling under Reagan.
Whether corporations like CFA are legally able to limit their business relationships to those they morally comport with is an interesting question.
How many gay store managers and franchisees do they employ / do business with?
Unfortunately, being homosexual is not a protected right in this country yet, AFAIK, unlike in the more enlightened / less radical Christianist nations in Europe.
Double standard = FAIL
Room temperature IQ = FAIL
Bap33
2012 Aug 2, 6:36am
This is not about tolerance. Nobody needs to tolerate the intolerable.
True.
BUT, for 98% of humanity, deviant sexual behavior is intolerable.
MisdemeanorRebel
2012 Aug 2, 6:41am
How can a corporation be against gays?
I didn't know pieces of paper had the same rights as real people.
Maybe we should pierce the Corporate Veil.
leo707
2012 Aug 2, 7:35am
BUT, for 98% of humanity, deviant sexual behavior is intolerable.
90% of people are shocked and disgusted by the sex lives of 90% of people.
Bellingham Bill
2012 Aug 2, 7:42am
BUT, for 98% of humanity, deviant sexual behavior is intolerable.
Incorrect, of course, since gayness isn't "deviant", LOL.
As for the less intellectually-dishonest point you were trying to make, the nicer places on this planet -- Scandinavia, Germany, France, blue-state USA -- love gay partnerships (in the majority).
The real shitholes -- we're talking KSA, Iran, Afghanistan, BFE Africa -- kill gays when they find them.
That's all that needs to be said about that.
Can you really conceptualize how utterly wrong you are about this?
I have my doubts.
Dan8267
2012 Aug 2, 12:37pm
I say your assertion that "marriage" is a generic term for coupling
Damn, I can't even read the very first sentence of your response to the period before encountering a mistake. I have never asserted that marriage is a generic term for coupling. Where the hell did you get that?
I've stated that marriage is a religious institution and a social institution. I've also stated that marriage is a legal institution in the United States, but should not be because it is a religious and a social institution. The entire debate we and the rest of the country have been having is about the legal, secular institution of marriage and the secular laws regarding it including the filing of tax forms, the receiving of health insurance benefits and thousands of other benefits, and other legal rights conferred through marriage.
As for fucking -- I hate to break this to you, bap, well, actually I don't -- you can fuck without marriage. In fact, I assure you that no gay man is waiting for gay marriage to be legalize before engaging in man on man ass sex. I absolutely guarantee you that legalizing marriage will not increase gay sex. Marriage might decrease it like marriage has done to heterosexual sex.
The word has meaning. It means what it means.
The meaning of the word marriage has change throughout history.
But that's not important. A word is just a bunch of letters arranged in a particular order that corresponds to one or more definitions in a dictionary. Words are not important. You could replace every word in any language with other combinations of letters, it would not make a material difference in the universe. Lexicon is not important.
What is important are legal rights. If your objection to gay marriage is you don't like the letters g-a-y preceding the letters m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e, then that's a pretty lame ass objection. And it's easy to remedy.
We'll simply search-and-replace all instances of the string "marriage" with the string "civil union" in all laws in our country whether federal, state, or local. Then the state won't recognize your marriage or anyone else's. The state would only recognize civil unions, which have nothing to do with marriages. On your tax form you would check one of the following: single, civil union, head of household. All benefits would be based on civil unions as well as rights such as hospital visitation.
Oh, and one more thing, there would be gay civil unions.
There, your objection is remedy quite simply. Instead of calling the legal institution "marriage", we'll call it civil unions. There will be no legal institution of marriage. The term would only apply to religious and social ceremonies. Then the gays and rational people could continue calling ceremonies involving gay couples exchanging vows marriage, and social conservatives could call those ceremonies whatever the fuck they want to. The debate over the word "marriage" would be reduced to arguing over whether or not golf is a sport. It would be an insignificant social issue with no real world effects rather than an important legal issue.
Of course, the important change of gays have equal standing to heterosexuals in the eyes of the law would be upheld. In this scenario, you are for gay marriage in all ways except the naming of the legal status. Big deal. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Sexual deviants pulled "gay" out of their behinds and made it "mean" something it never ment.
I don't even know what you are trying to say here. If you're suggesting that gays coined the term "gay" as a marketing term, you are incorrect. The term gay was originally a derogative term used by people like you. See Online Etymology Dictionary.
In any case, the word itself is not important or relevant to this discussion. The question at hand is whether or not homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal standing under law.
Maybe the same needs to be done for the unnatural coupling that you suggest be recognized.
Whether or not gay marriage is recognized, homosexuals can and will have sex. And it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Any law preventing homosexuals from having sex is a human rights violation and would not be tolerated or enforceable in this country any more than a law prohibiting interracial sex. Thus the gay marriage debate is not about homosexual sex.
Furthermore, getting married does not mean the two people are having sex. Nor is it even a requirement. When gay marriage was legal in California, most of the weddings were old gay and lesbian couples who have been living together for decades and have long past the point where they wanted to fuck each other. They got married not for sex, but because they wanted to publicly acknowledge their relationships and obtain the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. The 65-year-old lesbians getting married didn't go to town afterwards.
Also, homosexuality is natural. Stating that homosexuality is unnatural is a grotesquely ignorant statement that is trivially disproved. Things that happen in nature are natural by definition, and homosexual acts occur throughout nature. Do you really want me to start showing those videos here, because I can. Here's a little taste...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/ggl5ZGaJFFM
Audio's a bit off, but you get the point.
With homosexuality rampant in nature, it's not hard for scientists to document this behavior extensively. But if you want to continue arguing that homosexuality is unnatural, I can supply much, much more physical evidence to the contrary.
Of course, even if something is unnatural that doesn't mean it's bad or should be outlawed. Automobiles are clearly unnatural. Do you want to ban NASCAR?
And rape is natural. Does that make it a good thing? Police, court systems, and jails are unnatural. Does that mean our government should release all the rapists from jail and disband the police? Our laws promote quite a few unnatural things even at the expense of natural things.
Your demands for special consideration for non-productive, unnatural coupling, could be very bad for the republic.
You have reality completely backwards. It is not I who is advocating special consideration for homosexuality. It is you and the opponents of gay marriage who are advocating special (negative) consideration of homosexuality. The pro-gay marriage argument is that no one should get special consideration and all people are equal under laws. That's the exact opposite of what you just said.
Also, by your argument, a heterosexual couple in which one or both were infertile would not be legally allowed to marry. Are you really going to try to make that argument? What about the old widow and widower who meet over a game of bingo at the local church and then decide to get marry and spend their golden years together? They aren't marrying to have children and can't reproduce. Should their marriage be illegal? What about straight married couples who choose not to have children? Should they be forced by the state to get a divorce? I know many straight, married, childless by choice couples.
Furthermore, the republic has over 300 million people. We're not lacking in population. But if you are so concerned about under-population, there are 112 million Mexicans waiting at the border to alleviate your concerns. I'll tell them you said to come in.
But even if the United States were experiencing a population shortage crisis -- which quite frankly is a ridiculous idea as we, along with the rest of the world, are way overpopulated -- that would still be a completely ludicrous argument against gay marriage. It's not like a gay man is going to decide to marry a woman and father a child with her if only the state prevents him from marrying another man. Banning gay marriage isn't going to cause gays to turn straight or resort to heterosexual marriage and child bearing as the only alternative. What world do you live in that you think that is so?
Furthermore, it's perfectly possible through artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood for gays and lesbians to have their own children including with each other's DNA. Take a human egg cell, remove the egg's DNA, add DNA from both same-sex parents, plant egg in surrogate or, in the future, artificial womb, wait nine months, and take out. If you add any male's Y chromosome to the mix, lesbian parents can even have male children.
For all these reasons, your argument that somehow gay marriage would be bad for the republic doesn't hold water. Was interracial marriage bad for the republic?
If you were to take all of those whom you represent and create your own republic, how might you plan to reproduce?
Well, they could do like I said above, but that's not the point.
Do you really base your worldview on the idea that a society has to be made of homogonous entities? Everyone has to think and act identically. Everyone in the nation has to be straight or everyone has to be gay? Homogonous societies are doomed to fail because they cannot compete with heterogeneous societies if only because only heterogeneous societies can accommodate specialization and all the economic benefits that arise from specialization.
The society the rest of us envision has heterosexual and homosexual people living side-by-side not giving a rat's ass about each other's sexuality except when they are interested in forming romantic relationships. Otherwise, it's none of your business. We envision a society where sexual orientation is not used to subjugate any people. We want a society of rights, not privileges. We want a society where all men are created equal and have equal protection of law. Why is that a hard concept for your side to grasp?
The act of sex and marriage are not allowed with a person that is not of sound mind, or not of age.
Neither of which is an argument against gay marriage. Homosexuals are certainly of sound mind and legal age. Just because you consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder doesn't make it so. I consider social conservatism and religious beliefs to be a mental disorder and I can do a hell of a better job justifying that those things are disorders than you can that homosexuality is a disorder. Do you really want to open the door to me getting the government to take away the privilege to vote from anyone who attends church? Belief in a god that does not exist is by definition a delusion, and delusional people do not have the right to vote because they are mentally incapable of rational decision making. This argument is far stronger than your argument that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
I submit that having sex with a person who is suffering from uncontrollable deviant desires, or from a birth defect that has rendered them a sexual deviant, is sexual abuse.
Just because a person chooses to have consensual sex with another person does not make that choice "uncontrollable" or "deviant". It is no more an uncontrollable desire when two men have sex than it is when a man and a woman have sex. Furthermore, it is a human right for men and women to choose their own consensual sexual partners. Moreover, it is not a birth defect to be homosexual or bisexual.
It would take a lot more than your submission that homosexuality is a mental disorder or birth defect to justify any consideration of this position by the state. It would take substantial concrete proof to justify the state outlawing a basic and highly valued human behavior.
It is disgusting the way the mentally challenged and/or physically handicapped are being targeted by sexual deviants. Shameful. ANd you suggest the Gov sanction such abuse?? Why?
Just because you find homosexual sex disgusting doesn't make it so. That is your opinion and nothing more. I find faith as disgusting and despicable as you find homosexuality -- and I'm not exaggerating here -- but that does not mean the state should ban faith. Heck, I even find man on man ass sex icky, but I don't want to ban it. As for lesbian sex, I need to do much more research before coming to a conclusion on that. Any lesbians out there want to help me with my studies?
But more to the point, your accusation that homosexuals are abusing each other and behaving shamefully is not only ridiculous, but it is actually quite offensive to the loving same-sex couples out there. Imagine if you said that a white person having sex with a black person is shameful, disgusting, and abusive because all black persons are mentally challenged and/or physically handicapped and therefore incapable of consenting to sex. Image how much that would offend people. Guess what? You're comments are just as offensive and for the exact same reasons.
By recognizing gay marriage, government isn't sanctioning sexual abuse of the handicapped. However, by banning gay marriage, government is sanctioning the same kind of social injustice that existed during segregation. A ban on gay marriage is essentially the same kind of dehumanization that took place on the basis of race before the civil rights movement.
« First « Previous Comments 11 - 50 of 171 Next » Last » Search these comments
Liberal politicians have finally come out of the closet with public displays of political tyranny. The liberal bastions of Boston and Chicago are using politics in an attempt to squash, censure and punish Chick-fil-A by preventing the company from opening outlets in their towns.
Its an open display of hostility, intolerance and government sponsored tyranny. Its glaringly obvious liberals are anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-job creation and anti-constitution.
With liberal politicians headed down tyranny road, is it any wonder America is headed toward the cliff at wide open throttle?