Your stance on gay marriage

[Wikkiwallana]

I myself am often annoyed by those very flamish homosexuals, and I don't particularly like it when the non flaming ones stare at me all the time.


I'm indifferent to their cause, and don't particularly like them.

I don't like flamish anyone. It distresses me to see people on fire. People who like to get involved with their own gender don't bother me at all though.

[Xsyne]

Yes.

It seems I still have a lot to learn.

The list of things that some human at some point was, is, or will be sexually attracted to consists of the list of things that exist. Not just in the physical realm, but in the realm of concepts. And including all the concepts that technically do not exist on account of being incoherent.

[Rhodmhire]

So many threads on the homosexual crowd lately. Kind of makes you wonder if there's some kind of plot that they are undertaking to convert us all to their evil ways to progress their agenda of hate, evil, and destruction of all that is good in our nation, let alone the world.

Just let them get married so that we can end this seemingly endless discussion.

So far most of us seem to agree that they should be able to marry, what discussion?

The discussion that has probably been ongoing since the problem of gay marriage ever became an issue.

I'm not just talking about this one thread, if you want to think small I'm talking about the General Forum, but really it's bigger than that too.

[Christian Democrats]

That was a ruling that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminated on race. The same cannot be said for gay marriage. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas, which concerned sodomy laws. The Court ruled that mere moral disapproval of a group cannot be the basis for a law. In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor (at that time, one of the Court's moderates) indicated her belief that there could be constitutional reasons for limiting marriage to heterosexuals:

The best chance of legalizing gay marriages is to do it through state legislatures and statewide constitutional referenda. This is a political issue, not an issue that should be taken to the courts.

There is a lot wrong here...let's begin.

Almost every argument used for antimescegenation laws are used (practically verbatim) against same-sex marriage. "It's against nature. It's against God's will. It goes against historical tradition. There is no precedent." Ad nauseum...

We don't regulate civil rights in this country by a vote. We do it through the court system so as to avoid becoming a tyranny by majority. This is why we don't let counties vote in the deep south about whether or not black people should be allowed to run for city office. It's the same reason why we don't vote about free speech...

Also, the constitution stipulates that marriage licenses (and death cerficates and such things) issued by one state be recognized by ALL STATES in the union...so there is a giant hole in your idea of letting states figure this out. It flies in the face of our own constitution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows Congress to regulate the manner in which proceedings in one state are recognized in others. Congress has determined that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states (i.e., the Defense of Marriage Act). Even if DOMA were repealed, whether or not states would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states still would be in question unless Congress passed a statute specifically requiring states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I just googled "ancient greek word for mud"for mud. So, you mean that's actually a word already? Well crap. Sorry, did not mean to offend or confuse.

Someone who was sexually attracted to hair would be pilosexual.

Interesting. So does pelosexual really mean someone sexually attracted to mud? If it does, then I don't fit the textbook definition. Pelophile would be closer. But it's good to know these things.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes.

It seems I still have a lot to learn.

You haven't heard of Rule 34 yet? Well, for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT GOOGLE IT!!

[Rhodmhire]

I don't like flamish anyone. It distresses me to see people on fire.

Eh, I personally go with "To each his own," when it comes to people who are on fire.

You know what they say,

Some like it hot and some sweat when the heat is on.
Some feel the heat and decide that they can't go on.
Some like it hot, but you can't tell how hot till you try.
Some like it hot, so let's turn up the heat till we fry.

[Ifreann]

In the US, a fair while ago.

That was a ruling that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminated on race. The same cannot be said for gay marriage. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas, which concerned sodomy laws. The Court ruled that mere moral disapproval of a group cannot be the basis for a law. In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor (at that time, one of the Court's moderates) indicated her belief that there could be constitutional reasons for limiting marriage to heterosexuals:

That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations—the asserted state interest in this case— other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.

539 U.S. 558 (2003)

I don't see how someone can be a moderate, even in the US, and really believe that one of the "basic civil rights of man" can be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Denying people basic rights strikes me as decidedly immoderate.

[Franco-Philia]

The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows Congress to regulate the manner in which proceedings in one state are recognized in others. Congress has determined that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states (i.e., the Defense of Marriage Act). Even if DOMA were repealed, whether or not states would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states still would be in question unless Congress passed a statute specifically requiring states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Yes, and that clause makes a difference between laws and judgments. But that's beside the point really. DOMA is unconstitutional in my opinion. If glbt marriage passed federally, no the congress would not have to make a special law because if, at the federal level, glbt marriage was declared as a valid marriage then the states wouldn't be able to use the clause to try and discredit same-sex marriages performed out of state. And this is still not the point I was making. You actually made the point even stronger that working this out at the state level is not going to work and it must be federal/SCOTUS.

[Fatae]

I myself am often annoyed by those very flamish homosexuals, and I don't particularly like it when the non flaming ones stare at me all the time.


I'm indifferent to their cause, and don't particularly like them.

Yeah, whatever...because gay people want you so bad baby, mmmm, can't keep our lustful thoughts from zeroing in on your macho heteroness. Spare me, troll. Hating someone because of personal characteristics that have no effect on you is pathetic and small minded. I love how straight people think gay people are always after them. Narcissism to the umpteenth degree. "Why does everyone wanna do me? Am I really that good-looking? Well...guess so."

That's my opinion, make of it as you will.



...I still say I'm super sexy, though. :shepface:

Do you dislike Flemish heterosexual people as well?

Eh, they're alright I guess.

[Galenaima]

I don't like flamish anyone. It distresses me to see people on fire. People who like to get involved with their own gender don't bother me at all though.

Sigged.

[Wikkiwallana]

There is a lot wrong here...let's begin.

Almost every argument used for antimescegenation laws are used (practically verbatim) against same-sex marriage. "It's against nature. It's against God's will. It goes against historical tradition. There is no precedent." Ad nauseum...

We don't regulate civil rights in this country by a vote. We do it through the court system so as to avoid becoming a tyranny by majority. This is why we don't let counties vote in the deep south about whether or not black people should be allowed to run for city office. It's the same reason why we don't vote about free speech...

Also, the constitution stipulates that marriage licenses (and death cerficates and such things) issued by one state be recognized by ALL STATES in the union...so there is a giant hole in your idea of letting states figure this out. It flies in the face of our own constitution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows Congress to regulate the manner in which proceedings in one state are recognized in others. Congress has determined that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states (i.e., the Defense of Marriage Act). Even if DOMA were repealed, whether or not states would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states still would be in question unless Congress passed a statute specifically requiring states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

DOMA is unconstitutional. As is not recognizing the right for homosexual marriage.

[Risottia]

Why a religious figure? Now only priests can perform weddings?

Because in my opinion, weddings and marriage should be a religious/spiritual venture, not a legal one.

Hm, considering that all countries recognise some kind of marriage, I'd say yours is a kind of wishful thinking, but hey, it's all yours.

[Risottia]

I myself am often annoyed by those very flamish homosexuals

I bet you have nothing to object to walloon homosexuals.

[Niur]

Do you dislike Flemish heterosexual people as well?

Eh, they're alright I guess.

So you only dislike Dutch speaking Belgian's if their gay? Are you a gay frenchmen?

[Franco-Philia]

I myself am often annoyed by those very flamish homosexuals

I bet you have nothing to object to walloon homosexuals.

I once said something in college about wishing to major in gay and lesbian studies. My friend replied, "Didn't you major in the French language?" Me: "Yeah." Her: "So. Same thing."

Walloon homosexuals get the benefit of speaking French and having a..cough cough...cock, as their national symbol.

[Esternial]

Volatile compound according to any conservative.
Hot subject according to progressives.

To me: Do as thou pleaseth

[Lord Tothe]

I didn't know it was libertarian hour...

I'm sorry. I didn't realize the whole idea behind finding a solution was just to make more laws and regulations for lawyers to argue over instead of actually attacking the root of the problem. My bad. Government licensing of marriage has always been a means of control, primarily to prevent mingling between races or classes or families that some government official thought was inappropriate. Simply saying one more group is OK is not finding a solution. For example, polygamy would still be illegal under a system that allows same-sex couples to marry. Maybe you or I don't want multiple marriage partners, but fundamental mormons and many non-european cultures have plural marriage traditions.

I advocate removing all barriers to voluntary contract, while you seem to think we need new laws and regulations and codes and decrees and statutes for everything, and any group that wants a change needs to fight and squabble and petition and bicker in order to change the laws to suit themselves.

[Christian Democrats]

DOMA is unconstitutional.

How? (I hate unsupported arguments.)

[Hounddoggie]

Gay people have just as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us. Thankfully Western world has that little thing about separation of Church and state to protect citizens from religious fanatics.

[Kiromo]

I find it OK

[Franco-Philia]

DOMA is unconstitutional.

How? (I hate unsupported arguments.)

Loving vs. Virginia, a SCOTUS ruling, ruled that marriage was a basic fundamental human right between two people. DOMA also makes a federal ruling with no constitutional backing and no support from legal precedent. There is no definition in our higher laws as to what exactly marriage is so they pulled it out of their ass.

[Osterveim]

Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me.

Agreed.

As for my stance on Homosexuals getting hitched, I don't care if the goverment allows them to be legally married, so long as they don't force Gay Marriage on religious establishments. Religious Freedom is more important than Gay marriage. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

Also, the first Amendment, if anyone is thinking of bringing that up, doesn't say anything about having a secular state. It simply says the government cannot prevent people from having their religion and the Government cannot specify a state religion.

[America 51]

Just the fact that the idea of gay marriage exists shows what level our society has dropped down to. Disgusting. Thank god it's illegal in California.

[Fatae]

Eh, they're alright I guess.

So you only dislike Dutch speaking Belgian's if their gay? Are you a gay frenchmen?

Yes, I'm a gay Frenchman who speaks perfect english and who bashes Dutch Belgian homosexuals.