If you're okay with homosexual marriage would you support..

SS, if you want to believe the US today "fits the definition of democracy", you keep on with that.

There is nothing I am going to say that will shift you from that position, I have been through that many times before.

- - - Updated - - -

But it is not about what's "easy".

But about what is "fair".

 

You said only Islamic and I proved you wrong.

End of story.

- - - Updated - - -

Says the law what?

- - - Updated - - -

Are many doing that then?

 

Remember that when you're opposing same-sex marriage.

 

Did I say that?

 

No but the same rules apply whether the group is straight or gay unless polygamy or multiple marriage is made the law.

 

I said I was not a fan, no.

 

Your falsehood is a matter of record, so I have no idea why you'd try.

I have no idea. I wish them well, but why should I closely follow Israelis' efforts at progress?

 

We are obviously talking about different kinds of equality. This leftist interpretation of equality, which is equality of results, isn't not what I'm talking about. I'm not seeking some egalitarian society in the sense that everyone is equal in a manner of outcome. I'm talking about processual equality, equality of the law, independent of the results of those processes. Two completely different things. To give homosexuals the same right to social process as other people isn't some kind of unnatainable utopia as you'd paint it -it has in fact already been achieved in many countries.

Even dictatorships have segments of the population from where they draw their support, is my point. A dictator with vision A cannot steer a country in which literally everyone else has vision B. Dictatorships cannot survive without support from the people -or powerful segments of it-, which is why they fall from time to time. A minor point anways, let's move on.

They need not speak freely, for the very fact that they aren't allowed to speak freely is already an expression of their culture which evidently doesn't value freedom of expression very much. Governments doesn't pop into existance from a vaccuum, they are formed by the culture. The governments of each country is in effect the manifestation of the culture.

 

There is no falsehood here on my side.

You mentioned Islamic theocracy, not I.

You mentioned it as having some sort of ownership on homosexual marriage being illegal.

I merely corrected you and added that Israel, a so called democracy, it does not allow homosexuals to marry either.

I further went on to state that they enforce an ethnic criteria, a Jew cannot marry a non Jew there.

Please tell me this.

Out of interest and with no caveats, let's say that we declared ourselves a "democracy ...but a white Christian state', at which point it became enshrined into law that a non Jew could not marry a Jew here?

How long do you think it would be before Spielberg had a film out?

 

True.

But we do not have that either.

 

The Constitution states that government can not discriminate due to gender or race. Now...we know that the intent of that law and why it was written was to prevent men from being discriminated against. Or to prevent the gender women to be discriminated against.

But now you are saying that it can twist into something different....that a law should have no discriminating guidelines. So frankly, limiting marriage to one man and one woman...could be as discriminating and unfair as limiting the number of any gender to just two. What if Sally and Jack wanted Jill in the mix as well?? Isn't that discrimination?? Could it even be twisted and turned into "gender discrimination" because a loved gender can't be included?

A proper reading of the constitution will tell you that the Federal government is designed for specific tasks. Social norms...social laws such as when life actually begins or what a marriage should be...is not one of them. THAT was designated to the states. So you actually ignore the constitution, advocate for a powerful and intrusive federal government when you don't acknowledge states rights simply because YOU personally think that gayness should be treated as a gender and wish that gay behavior was deemed a constitutional right.

 

In that case, I would play this music.....[video=youtube;MK6TXMsvgQg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

Its nice to finally agree with you on something Jack. On this issue---we agree 100%

 

The answers to your questions are in the parts of my posts you obtusely chose to ignore. Dogs may like to chase their own tales but, if it's all the same to you, I'll pass thanks!

 

I ask questions for clarification.

That you do not give it, I shall take as a defeat.

 

I already gave the answers you just chose to ignore them because they don't suit your meme. I'll take that as a defeat.

 

It states no such thing. It states "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to ackowledge that all citizens are equal under the law.

Strawman #3. You're not very good at this, are you? Please quote me accurately or not at all.

I agree completely. What business is it of yours if Sally and Jack and Jill want to live together as a romantic trio?

Strawman #4. Please stop lying about my position. Go ahead and find the post where I talk about "gayness" as you wrongly imply. You can't--because I never said anything about it. As far as the role of the federal government is concerned with relation to the states, read the 10th Amendment and get back to me.

Best solution is still to just do away with government marriage altogether. But if you statists insist that the government nanny sanction our interpersonal relatinships and dangle carrots to encourage citizens to marry, then I will insist that it do so within the bounds of the law. If not A then B.

 

How would you feel if a homosexual said he felt sure he could be cured, and wanted to at least try?

 

Of course he should try. He should try everything. It's called being a trysexual.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...orm=QBIR&pq=sex+with+donkeys&sc=0-2&sp=-1&sk=

 

I would counsel them against such a thing, for not only has it not been found to work, it has been found to be counterproductive, and will in all likelihood make their lives worse.

 

No, since I never said that, you are unable to quote me saying that. My noting that Islamic theocracies were solidly and vehemently opposed to gender equality in marriage did not assert any exclusivity in their benighted attitude.

After you pretended that I has said something that I had never said, you correctly cited Israel as being discriminatory regarding religion and gender in marriage contracts. You might have equally mentioned Paraguay as not yet recognizing same-sex marriages, but you seem to fixate on Israel.

You seem to have wandered into a realm of fantasy to accommodate your prejudices.

I regard Israel's restrictions based upon religion and gender as being antithetical to my moral values, and am edified that the US is advancing. If you regard your scenario regarding restrictions being placed upon marriage in the US as even remotely possible, I do not. The US is continuing to move toward equality, not away from it.



.

 

Do you believe that homophobes can be cured?

 

the thing about Israel is that they leave marriage to the Religious Authorities. (Catholics can't marry non-Catholics either for example but that is not mentioned. Fact is that is true world-wide in Catholic Churches). In Israel non-religious co-habitators have virtually the same rights as married couples in the eyes of the state (including same-sex couples) and marriages done outside of the State of Israel are registered and while not fully recognized are not considered illegal (as some American states have tried to make same-sex marriages done outside of the states). So while Israel continues to operate under a system that has been used in the region for 100s of years, there is a movement for civil marriage in Israel and it is a topic of discussion. The religious authorities have control and there is a majority in Israel that approve of that, or have, the opinion is changing. The thing is that many non-religious people in Israel don't care about the state or clergy condoning their relationship because they have access to the rights anyway and that is the difference. But of course seeing only what one wants to see is par for the course for some. Yawn. Hate must be like cataracts

 

We don't? Perhaps, you brits don't, us swedes have. Legal equality ought to be everywhere.

I'd be fine with that.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Napier View Post
How would you feel if a homosexual said he felt sure he could be cured, and wanted to at least try?

Jack: If a GAY person (can you say "gay") was so self loathing and confused that he/she thought that it was necessary to be "cured" of the disease of homosexuality....I would say that person has some serious problems way beyond their being uncomfortable with their sexual orientation. In any case, if an adult GAY PERSON wanted reparative therapy it would be their business