but my parents like to tell me that if i want to have a kid to do it as a single parent because its not fair to raise a child in a same sex partnership.

to that, i tell them to go fucl< themselves.

not fair? to whom?
besides, who the hell ever suggested life is fair? i think kids are better off finding out it's not, instead of having some of the parents these days who never say 'no', and shield their kids from any and every negative thing under the sun.
fat lot of good it's doing their kids. i remember at least three different times when we let someone go, that either mommy/daddy, and in one case, grandmommy called to demand we repent our error. how dare we let their precious angel darling go!
one of the parents was the step-dad, said he was 'going to sue'. yeah, cause the 5k to the lawyers retainer would go a lot further than putting that money into votech or something for the kid, so he wouldn't have to work in a warehouse making a pittance. :rolleyes: or maybe he could learn to actually do his job, instead of doing half and going home?

and kids do best in a loving home without upheaval and concern about whether their family will remain as one. doesn't matter who the family is made up of.

I think they believe it wouldnt be fair to them. Since they really dont want me to be gay and all.

saletan, lithwick and others on slate had a brief debate regarding marriage laws and states rights. in that article, i found this link:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/singleton/


it all brings up some good points. but i thought the best question was 'we vote on civil rights?'

here's a study that pretty much answers Math's question:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-07/h...s?_s=PM:HEALTH

i would think that's a safe bet.

unreal
 

this gay issue is fk-up/shame on them, wow as humans/people they should know better not 2b brainwash just because is 2012 that don't mean shitttt


America has laws/constitution that apply to every1 as human beings male or female but when 1 is brainwash and becomes gay those laws shouldn't apply because now your a gay human being.
gender= Male or female, not gay

somehow that loophole needs to be close

gay people should repent and seek god that's my message to them.

the constitution was written for humans beings male & female
gay is a loophole use by the genders to change stuff, and is working
in some states

i see the future and to live eternal life you can't be gay.

is you're gay and you don't care what do you think god is going to say.
enuff said here.

very touch subject.

That's sad. I'm sorry. Like having another loving parent is a bad thing? Yikes.

If I were gay, I'd move to a same-sex marriage legal state - a more tolerant social environment - immediately. I've seen what happens to gay people here in conservative Kentucky. It makes their lives miserable professionally and personally, there is so much backwards jagoff around here.

A different take on same sex..
 

^^ :tro:

I have a question for you. It's not a trick question. There is no right or wrong answer. You say that if gay marriage is illegal, that is a civil rights issue and gay people are not being allowed the same rights as others.

I think that being gay is genetic in most cases. I don't know what percentage of the time. I'm sure there is a very small percent of the population that are gay simply by choice. But I would guess that in 95% of cases, it is genetic.

Here is my question for you. Let's just pretend that being gay was a choice and was not genetic. Then would you still have the same opinion? In other words, if there was no such thing as gay people, but some people simply had an attraction to both sexes, would it be unconstitutional (in your opinion) if marriage was only legal between a man and a woman?

i don't give a rats behind why someone wants to marry someone else. whether it be biological or not, it's their business. i certainly didn't have to explain to anyone why i chose to marry my husband.
it's unconstitutional to grant rights to some citizens and not others, which is what currently happens in most states. and i'm ashamed that some countries are ahead of us in this regard.

I don't understand your argument then. If there were no such thing as gay people and I decided out of the blue that I wanted to marry a man, it would be unconstitutional if I wasn't allowed to? I don't see how that could possibly be considered unconstitutional by any measure.

By the way, I didn't say anything about anyone having to explain why they want to marry a certain person.

Take it to the Supreme Court then. Like the poor old black man did when Chicago banned the right for him to have a gun, even in his own home!

BTW Protesting against taking away 2nd amendment rights by the lesbian and gay community in Chicago was strangely non-existent. In fact a alderman known for being gay supported the city taking away 2nd amendment rights as did the majority of the city's religious leaders, including the bastard producing Rev. Jackson.

well, i don't understand why your posing a question that has nothing to do with anything.
are there gay people? yes. are they citizens of this country? yes. are they given the same rights as heterosexuals insofar as marriage? no. not sure why you want to get into what if's that have nothing to do with any of it.

majority does not rule, state law doesn't supersede the constitution. not sure why anyone wishes to make the attempt.
granting of rights already given to some doesn't equate removing of rights from those already enjoying them.

These are the same folks who were against the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's. Who stood on the steps with guns rather than have an American with different skin pigment get a public education and the rest of their Constitutional rights as Americans.

"America for me - but not for thee".

I'm just trying to understand your legal argument. Have you ever read transcripts from or listened to Supreme Court arguments? The judges always ask hypothetical questions because they are trying to understand the arguments that the lawyers are making. For example, if a lawyer is making his case for Obamacare before the Supreme Court, a Judge may ask a question like "If the government can mandate health insurance, would it be ok for them to mandate a yearly physical examination?"

The Judge is simply trying to understand what the lawyer is arguing.

That is all I'm trying to do here with you. I'm just trying to understand your legal arguments. There is a chance that states banning gay marriage could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

I was just trying to understand whether your argument was that gay people are a distinct group whose rights are being taken away and/or gay people are born gay just like a black person is born black.

If that is your argument, I think that argument at least makes sense. I don't know if that argument would win in the Supreme Court but at least the argument makes some sense.

If the argument is that being gay is just a description of a behavior, then I think the argument wouldn't be nearly as good. If the argument is simply that a person simply chooses to engage in a certain behavior and by engaging in that behavior, that makes this person part of a distinct group, and therefore we should have new laws to accommodate this group, I think that is a very weak argument that would have little or no legal merit. If this were the case, then any group of people that engages in a certain behavior could claim that engaging in this behavior makes them part of a special group and therefore entitles them to special laws to accommodate their group.

What are your thoughts on polygamy? Do you think it is unfair that polygamists have had their constitutional rights taken away? Why are polygamists not allowed to marry more than one person? Why is it the governments' business if a guy wants to have 3 wives. If the 3 wives are comfortable with the situation, how does the government have any right to interfere?

As you said, it's unconstitutional to grant rights to some citizens and not others (polygamists). I'm ashamed that some countries are ahead of us in this regard.

The best argument against gay marriage was made by the comic Steven Colbert the other night:

"Marriage was originated so men could pass on their chattel to other men (possessions and daughters). As gays can't reproduce, no need to be married"

:rolleyes:


edit~
i tell you what rupe, since i didn't offer you a better response-altho your absurd question doesn't merit one...

when polygamy becomes a legal practice, and the right to engage in said practice is given to some and not others, i'll be sure and consider that constitutionality then. in the meantime, i'll give it the amount of attention it deserves, which is no more than your absurd 'what if there were no gays' query. in other words, no more than this.

Andrew Sullivan of Daily Beast posted this last night, then again today, so it can get the media attention it deserves. Andrew got a hold of an internal GOP memo.

That is the whole point. As of right now, a polygamist is not allowed to marry more than one person. He can have 4 girlfriends at the same time. He can live with all 4 of them. But he can't marry all 4 of them because it is illegal.

And by the same token, a man can date a man and he can live with a man but he cannot marry a man because it is illegal.

That is the law as of right now.

Any by the way, if you think my question is absurd, you should see the questions that the Supreme Court Justices ask. They ask about all kinds of crazy analogies to try to understand why something should apply in one case but not in another. They are always asking, 'Suppose this, and suppose that. Would what you are saying apply in this type of case (some absurd case), if it would apply in the current case we are discussing?'

lol
wow.

That is often times how the parties and candidates make their decisions. How do you think Obama decides his policy on gay marriage? He will be on whatever side of this issue he thinks will get him the most votes. On this issue, it is that simple.

Wow? Did I misstate the law? I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm telling what the law is as of right now. Am I misstating the law?

not sure what marriage between two consenting adults has to do with polygamy. i don't know why some like to bring that up, or bestiality, or other ridiculous things when people dare mention gay marriage should be allowed.
but hey, rupe. go for it. you go for whatever you want, state it however you wish.
once upon a time DADT was a law of the land...so was slavery. once upon a time i wouldn't have been allowed to vote. so what. those were all incorrect, and were fixed. some states have already recognized that marriage between two consenting adults is a right that should be enjoyed by all, since certain rights were being given to only some TWO people marriages.

thankfully others get it, while some want to come up with cockamamie slippery slope arguments.

In case you don't believe me, here are some questions that the Supreme Court Justices asked just recently. In the Obamacare case, here are some of the questions that the Justices asked to the lawyers defending Obamacare:

Justice Antonin Scalia sharply questioned whether the Obama administration’s requirement that Americans have health insurance or pay a penalty—the so-called “individual mandate” at the heart of the law—might mean that “therefore you (the government) can make people buy broccoli.”

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs.

http://www.addmorejuice.com/?p=5410

lol

yeah, i get what rhetorical questions are. yours was an absurd question tho, not rhetorical. the absurdity of yours was to imagine a world with no gays, which i'm figuring is one you'd rather have.
a question regarding purchasing one or another of things that exist is nothing like your question.
lol you use the supreme court to justify your question. that is too rich.


as for your bs polygamy point...if they ever allowed some polygamy, but not other, that would also be unconstitutional.
it's really that simple. we're all supposed to be treated equally here. the govt has no business granting certain privileges only to some. the govt should never have gotten into the marriage business in the first place, but they did...so here we are.
the only arguments i've seen against allowing gay marriage have been religious arguments. that should get the opponents nowhere.

Polygamy is marriage between 2 consenting adults (at least one of which is married to at least one other person). Why should it be illegal? I'm sure you know I care nothing about polygamy. I'm just trying to make a point. I'm not saying that polygamy should be legal, although I think good arguments could certainly be made in favor of polygamy being legal. It is legal in some countries.

What is your argument as to why polygamy should be illegal? The act itself of a man dating and living with 4 women at once is not illegal. People can do whatever they want. They just can't get the marriage certificates. Anyway, I'm wondering if you have a rational answer as to why the government should prevent a guy from marrying more than one woman. If they are consenting adults, how is it the government's business?

oh, rupert, by the way...not interested in your discourse and can no longer see it. so save yourself the energy.

"If they ever allowed some polygamy?" Do they allow some gay marriage? No, they don't allow any gay marriage as of right now.

I don't think you understood my hypothetical question about a world with no gay people. I wasn't referring to a world with no sex between same-sex people. I was referring to a world where gay people did not label themselves as gay and where gay people were not considered a specific group. I was referring to a world where people engage in the same behavior but they are not labeled as a result of the behavior. If that were the case, I wonder whether people would still make the same types of arguments about it being unconstitutional for same-sex people to not be able to get married.

The only reason I bring that up is because I think it is a legitimate argument that if people are born gay (which I believe they are in at least 95% of cases), then they are a specific group like any group (such as an ethnic group) that is born that way. And if that is the case, then an argument could be made that the group is being discriminated against if they aren't allowed to marry people of the same sex. I'm not saying that I agree with that argument, but at least the argument makes sense. If being gay is simply a life choice, then I don't think there is any type of discrimination argument to be made.

I was simply trying to understand your whole argument. So far I understand half your argument. You don't need to explain the other half if you don't want to.

The other half would be the half where you explain how far the laws (that define marriage) should go and why. In other words, if the government should not be allowed to dictate that marriage is between a man and a woman, should they be able to dictate other aspects of marriage? If so, why?

The questions the Justices asked were not rhetorical questions. When one asks a rhetorical question, they do not expect an answer. The Justices' questions were serious questions that required a response. And if you noticed, the lawyers answered those questions. They needed to answer them. The questions may have seemed absurd on the surface but they were serious questions. Considering that it would usually be considered unconstitutional for the government to compel people to buy a product, why would it not be unconstitutional for the government to compel people to buy health insurance? That was a legitimate question that needed to be answered and the lawyers answered those questions.

When the question of gay marriage comes to the Supreme Court, I can practically guarantee you that the Justices will be asking the same types of questions that I am asking you right now. I am going to predict specifically that they will bring up polygamy. They will bring it up because it is an almost perfect analogy. You obviously think it's a bad analogy. We will see if the Justices bring it up. I predict they will.

Here is a good argument as to why the current laws are not unconstitutional:
In the US, all men are allowed to marry one wife. So all men have the same rights. No man is being discriminated against. If a guy wants to have more than one wife, he cannot do it. That doesn't mean he is being discriminated against. He can marry one woman just like everybody else. It doesn't matter if he is gay. It doesn't matter if he's a polygamist. It doesn't matter what his religion is. He can marry one wife, period. He can't marry two women. He can't marry a man. He can marry one wife. There is no discrimination there. All men have the same right, which is the right to marry one woman.

A polygamist could argue, "I am a polygamist. Therefore I should be allowed to have more than one wife." A gay man can argue, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man." Both of those arguments are the same. Both guys are saying that because they identify themselves as having a preference for a certain behavior, that the laws should be changed to accommodate them. The only possible argument you can make as to why these two behaviors should be treated differently (why the law should be changed to accommodate one behavior but not the other) would be that one behavior (being gay) is a born trait while the other behavior (being a polygamist) is simply a lifestyle choice.

She definitely understands it.

You don't have to worry yourself even a second more about THAT problem with your "argument."

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying either. If you understood it, then tell me what I was saying. What was my point? I will explain it:

My question had to do with the Constitutionality argument. My question was whether the alleged discrimination of not allowing same sex marriage derives simply from the fact that a man can't marry a man, or does it derive because gay people are a group per se, and by not allowing same-sex marriage, you are discriminating against a group. That was what I was trying to ask Danzig.

Hey rup, old lawyer joke..

What do you call 100 lawyers holding hands underwater?




A good start...:D




P.S. my granddaughter is a young lawyer...

A short but good editorial on gay marriage:

Rupert, buddy. Between this and the travon martin thread, I believe you have some issues dude.

You went to school in Queens?