Gay Pride

Of course they are. They are demanding their lifestyle be covered as race and gender is without a shred of evidence to prove their lifestyle is genetic or natural.

Are you kidding? They are suing a bakery that refused to make them a wedding cake kicking the first amendment

We are.

lol Because divorce is high? How does that prove heterosexuals are destroying marriage?

You invented a right based on nothing but your own personal beliefs. Zero scientific basis natural or genetic and most importantly, you can't explain how your religious crusade for 2 person adult homosexual marriage is worthy of this new "right" while you exclude all other lifestyles you don't agree with. It goes to the very heart of bigotry and hypocrisy.

 

Ok, to begin with, lifestyle is how one lives their life. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Homosexuals have the same lifestyles as heterosexuals do. Based on the constitution, a homosexual does not have to prove he or she is homosexual because of genetics or choice. They are entitled to the same benefits as heterosexuals because they are tax paying US citizens. Taxation without representation is the key reason the US separated from England.
People sue people and companies all the time for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't mean your rights are being taken away. However, when you have couples that have lived 10 years together as a married couple and one of them gets sick, the other can not make life altering decisions on their behalf like a married couple can. There is a case where a military woman was killed and her homosexual partner was not allowed the same benefits that heterosexual spouse get when their military spouse dies. Homosexual couples can not get the tax break that heterosexual couples get when paying income tax, even when they have children they are raising together. Homosexual couples can not be added onto their spouses health insurance plan as a family member. The list goes on and on. So you see, it is not special rights they are asking for, it is equal rights.

Marriage is defined as consenting adults that join together in a union for whatever reason they wish to do so. Divorce destroys marriages, and heterosexuals have not only promised to love, honor and cherish one another until death does them part, but a great number of them (around 50%) have broken those promises and then went on to involve themselves in one or more new marriage and divorce cycles. If this is not a destruction of the institution of marriage, I don't know what is.

I did not event a right, the constitution along with many supreme court rulings have established that all US citizens get equal rights. I also did not mention religion. I do not involve myself in religious crusades, but I do honor the US constitution and will do my part to see that all US citizens are treated equally. I also do not disagree with anyone's lifestyle because it is not my business how people choose to live their lives. I am not a control freak to thinks everyone must live their lives based on my ideologies. You are the one who is trying to prevent homosexuals from having the same equal benefits as heterosexuals have.

 

As a Christian Conservative, legal unions for homosexuals are acceptable to me. I just don't want them calling it a marriage legally.

 

but marriage is a secular legal institution. religious views have no effect upon it. as a Christian, you are free to practice your religion any way you see fit, but you are not free to limit what other can or can't do based on your religious beliefs

 

Call it whatever you want. It wont change the fact it isn't natural or genetic.

That is a complete and total lie. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever mention homosexual marriage or anything based on homosexual behavior.

And in other news, the sky is blue. Get to the point.

So based on that tired and lazy logic if a child was sexually active with an adult for 10 years and was not allowed to marry that adult you would call it a breach of rights? This is the fallacy of your argument.

And neither do countless other "relationships". Just because they are not recognized either doesn't make your crusade for 2 person adult homosexual marriage valid.

If you truly believed in "equal rights" for marriage as you claim then you would be for all relationships regardless of number or age to be valid. Do you make such a pledge?

Marriage is also defined as being between a man and woman yet you want to change that. You can't hide behind some definitions of marriage you like and disown the other definitions.

No, it ends them.

It was their choice. And no one is stopping any homsoexual from getting married. That is another liberal lie. Any 2 person adult homosexual can go out right now find a minister who will agree to do it and they can get married. This is about state recognition of marriage and you still haven't explained how 2 person adult homosexual marriage is worthy of this new "right" while you exclude all other lifestyles you don't agree with. That is the fallacy of your argument. You claim you want equal rights then you turn around and limit that new right making it no right at all.

Of course you did.

That is complete BS. People are discriminated against every single day by laws the society has passed. Your lazy general claims are not helping your argument.

If you truly honored the Constitution you would be pursuing an amendment. That is what the Constitution dictates when you want to add new law. But you don't want to do that because you don't have the votes so spare us your "honoring the Constitution" because you are doing anything but. Even slavery wasn't ended by anyone claiming the Constitution said equal rights which abolished it. They passed an amendment because that is what people who actually honor the Constitution do.

Then you must be ok with pedophilia if you don't disagree with anyone's lifestyle. You just keep walking into a field of landmines with these general lazy phisophilical claims that can be so easily torn apart.

If an amendment was being pursued and was passed you would never hear me talk about this issue again. But that isn't what you are trying to do. You are trying to rewrite the Constitution to fit your personal feelings about a specific group of people claiming its a new "right" while only granting your new "right" to that specific group. You can't get more hypocritical than that.

 

Sorry, sir, but that's just a bankrupt analogy disproven time and again, and it's especially offensive to African-Americans who really did have to fight for equality.

(Not that you, as a typical liberal, give 2 turds about offending African-Americans)

 

Don't be ridiculous. 2 lesbians kissing (and I mean real world, actual, real life lesbians, not Howard Stern lesbians) is pretty darn nasty too.

 

no it is about who they find attractive and fall in love with....

 

Wow, you sure made a lot of stretches in that statement. The argument you are trying to make is based on the idea of separate but equal. This ideology was shot down by the Supreme Court back when school segregation was ended. The courts said separate but equal is not the same as equal in benefits. That is all homosexuals are asking or, is equal benefits in marriage.
It doesn't matter if homosexuality is natural or a choice. However, there is no evidence to suggest it is a choice because homosexual behavior has been observed in wild animals, and they act based on what is natural more so than we humans do.
As for your comments about a child being sexually active with an adult and your pedophilia comment, that is a stretch on your part and absolutely irrelevant because we are talking about consenting adults. pedophilia is also not a life style, it is a sickening crime that harms children. Why do people like you bring up pedophilia in these arguments all the time? It gets old.
Again, your arguments are the same that were given back when racial marriages were banned. Like it or not, homosexual marriages will be recognized by the state and federal government soon. Times are changing.

 

I am a progressive, not a liberal, just to let you know. A part of the rights that African-Americans fought for was to be able to marry who they wanted to marry. I doubt seriously that any African-American is offended that I compare their struggle to gain equal rights with that of the homosexual struggle.

 

To me, "marriage" has religious meaning. To others, it may not. I obviously realize that marriage is a secular legal institution, but it is also a religious one to many of us, so homosexuals should only call it legal unions to not give a false impression that it is also of God.

 

Some would, some wouldn't.

Personally I think it's not 100% the same, but it's still a matter of civil rights. Marriage is afterall a civil institution, and SCOTUS has declared it a fundamental right. Doesn't take a stretch to call equal marriage a civil rights issue.

Opponents can say "stop piggy backing" all they want, but it doesn't change that reality. I doubt they are even black themselves.

 

I understand and respect your religious beliefs, but respectfully, you can not demand others adhere to them or not use a word like marriage because it offends those beliefs. Same sex marriage does not affect you or your marriage in any way

 

That's what we call 6 of one, half dozen of another, my ignorant friend.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a lie. An oft-repeated one, for sure, but still a lie.

Tell the woman who could very likely be forced out of business because she refuses to endorse perversion that gay marriage doesn't affect her.

 

I agree. And one could argue that the civil rights movement came on the coat tails of the women's suffrage movement. To be honest, the constitution protects equal rights, but people have had to fight to gain the benefits of those rights all throughout US history. I see the marriage equality is just the next step in the American suffrage movements.
Good point on the SCOTUS declaration that marriage is a fundamental right.

 

Should atheists also call their marriages a legal union? That would be a pretty good example of a godless marriage also, wouldn't it be? Based on your argument, anyone who does not enter into marriage based on their religious views should only be allowed to enter into a legal union.

 

Gay marriage has no effect on you or your marriage

 

Race and gender are genetic traits. Homosexuality is not. You cheapen the civil rights movement by having the audacity to compare the two.

 

Guess what else isn't genetic: Religion, and the choice thereof.

 

Since you lack the courage to address each point your statement's value is somewhat limited.

Never did I say that. And you cheapen the civil rights movement by comparing a genetic trait to a something that has never been proven as such.

No they are not. They are asking for us to ignore the law and rewrite existing law to accodate them and bypass the ammendment process. Not even the abolishment of slavery tried that.

ABSOLUTELY it does. You just opened the door for every single lifestyle to share the exact same argument.

So is cannibalism. No one is claiming that its not a choice. Please, spare me the same tired defeated arguments.

You can't limit your right to adults. If its a right its a right for all.

I'm sure the sick freaks at NAMBLA would disagree about your lifestyle claim.

Its the door you opened. I'm only forcing you to actually see who is trying to walk through it with you.

Again, race is genetic. Homosexuality

 

The jury is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic.

However, whether it is or not doesn't matter. There is no logical reason to prevent gays from marrying.

 

I love debunking junk science. Did you even read what you linked to?

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Nowhere do they claim these biological traits are the reason for homosexuality. Hell they don't even claim its the reason for homosexuality because no scientist would be that stupid. All they have found is some minor coincidence they are theorizing against. Try again.

Tell you what. When homosexuals stop having the same biological sexual reaction all humans have to sexual stimuli being the body prepares for heterosexual procreation, come back with your junk science theories then.

Wrong again. Both genders can marry there is no gender discrimination.

Big of you to actually admit it.

And wrong again. Nowhere in the Constitution is homosexuality mentioned anywhere. You want to be true to the Constitution? Pursue an amendment. That's what the process is there for. But you don't have the votes do you? This is the fallacy of your movement.

Wow. Such a well thought out argument. LOL Must be a liberal.