So LGBT is a personal life style choice — so what?

Idealism, and faith in the triumph of the better angels of our nature. What has already been achieved is encouraging.

You'll be happy to know that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission has also held that discrimination against an individual because of that person's sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex and therefore prohibited under Title VII.

As of now, twenty-two states plus Washington, D.C and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and twenty states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression. We're still making progress at an impressive pace.

Other advanced nations have as well, but none that is under sharia law.

 

Sexual orientation should be a protected category and will be someday

- - - Updated - - -

Laws prevented gays from getting the government benefits of marriage and that is a violation of their civil rights

- - - Updated - - -

Gays did not need to present a good reason for wanting marriage benefits. The state needed to present a good reason for stopping them. And they could not

 

Why should there be ANY protected categories? Sexual orientation is no less important to people than religion is.

 

How does idealism and faith justify your exclusion of all other classifications?

 

No law ever did any such thing. You wont find even a mention of sexual orientation in any marriage law at any time of our nations history. Sexual orientation was irrelevant. That's just the judicial fiction created by the courts.

 

Because "Equal Protection" in the US has become UNEQUAL by design. Because lefties like you demand "Sexual orientation should be a protected category"

 

Your pretending that I excluded "all other classifications" is extremely silly.

The thread's topic is not about "all other classifications."

If the recent progress by nations with a Christian heritage toward ending discrimination upsets you, there are alternatives that should accommodate your disparate attitude.

 

Oh here we go again. Ok GENDER DISCRIMINATION. Happy?

- - - Updated - - -

And it should be

 

Not silly because you did. You even gave justification for doing so. I stated and you quoted-

to which you replied-

 

Such gender discrimination was perfectly constitutional because only women become pregnant and only men cause them to do so. That's why the courts had to falsely characterize it as discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

 

Not according to SCOTUS

 

Of course they don't portray it as a false characterization, but the rest is precisely what has happened. Marriage limited to men and women was perfectly constitutional because only men and women have the potential of procreation. It was marriage limited to men and women in order to "disparage and injure" homosexuals that was held to be unconstitutional by the court

 

Procreation is not a compelling interest to continue gender discrimination in marriage law and this was shown in over 30 different courts including the highest court in the land SCOTUS and even some of the most conservartive courts in the country.

 

You don't need a "compelling interest" to justify limiting marriage to men and women because only men and women procreate. THATS WHY they had to change the facts to reach the conclusion they wanted.
It is discrimination intended to "disparage and injure " homosexuals that requires a "compelling interest"

The liberals on the court follow the Thurgood Marshal method of Constitutional interpretation, “you do what you think is right and let the law catch up,” regardless of what the Constitution says.

 

The doctrine of strict scrutiny REQUIRES a law that discriminates against a group to show a compelling interest in maintaining that discrimination. You can keep saying it and I can keep correcting you.

 

Was aimed having an argument with the OP? No.

Now kindly shut it!

 

You haven't yet even begun to comprehend what I am saying. Discrimination against homosexuals intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals because "the voters don't like homosexuals" requires a compelling interest. Marriage limited to men and women because only men and women procreate, does not.

 

That would be a good argument to justify extending marriage to any two "people" of age who desire marriage. Does nothing for the arguments for gay marriage.

 

Marriage limited to men and women for ANY reason requires a compelling interest. How can you not get this? Compelling interest is ALWAYS required when a group is being discriminated against.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at even the words you use. You want to LIMIT a right....how is it even possible that compelling interest does not apply?

 

You cherry pick my post, mumble some unintelligible nonsense, and then tell me to shut it ?!

 

Of course it does. Are gay's not people ?

Right now Gays who marry are not treated the same (do not receive the same benefits) as heterosexual people who marry.

How does the comment: "People should be free to choose who they get married to and should not be discriminated against because of that choice."

not address that issue if gay marriage ?

 

I didn't cheery pick (*)(*)(*)(*). I wasn't arguing with the OP. Shut it!

 

You did cherry pick and I never claimed you were arguing with the OP.

 

And people who are not gay are also "people".

 

Scientific Studies. Where? Where is the proof for the Gay Gene? We have all kinds of "studies" that demonstrate early childhood environmental inputs to the brain having epi-behavioral genesis for homosexual tendencies later in life when there is little to no adult guidance, direction and parameters established around and within the life of a young child and/or adolescent.

I am a Scientist and I have a PhD. Can you please paste a link to the White Paper(s), Clinical Trial(s), Formal Lab Study(s) or a Etymological Research Panel that concludes a genetic link to homosexuality. Thank you.

You can blame that on those who laid the foundations for this current Western based paradigm that includes colonialism, imperialism and enslavement (both physical and mental) as foundations for its existence. People who are made to think alike about that which is irrational are easily manipulated. To wit, the irrational notion that there is a gene sequence responsible for homosexual tendencies is just as illogical as the 6,000 year old earth and no more rational than the flat earth.

Personally, I don't care about the individual choices that one makes as long as those choices don't violate my Human Rights, my Constitutional Rights or the safety of the planet we share. Beyond that, I would conclude that one is free to engage in as much irrational, immoral and deviant behavior as one desires.

One is free to be a freak. I don't see any problem with that other than the breakdown of the fabric of society, as when you carry homosexuality out to its most logical conclusion you end up with a planet no longer capable of procreation and thus a planet where people cease to exist. But, hey - nothing lasts forever. So, go for it. Get some. End all fully sentient, fully corporeal, upright and bipedal life on planet earth. Why the hell not. Have at it. Damn right. You go girl.

In fact, let's just blow the lid off the whole darn thing and start legalizing Bestiality. Hell, why not even mandate sex with Animals. We can always get someone to "fund" some "scientific research" that "concludes" Animal Biology to be only 6% differential and therefore, there should be no restrictions (legal or moral) on the desire of people to want to have sexual relations with Camels, as just one example.

Who knows, maybe Donald Trump would join in and start grabbing the p-u-s-s-y of Long Haired Middle Eastern Goats and really set the whole thing off. This is what happens in a society that turns its back on Absolute Truth. In a relativistic world - there are no rules and anything is possible, including the subjugation of the entire world's population and outright Global Moral Decay, which is just about where we are right now.

Nice post. It really does exemplify just how little we have actually evolved.

Time to mount up: