Now that we're back in power, can we turn the tide on the war on marriage?

Well you brought up a good question earlier. Why should we allow homosexuality and not incest? How about we legalize them both, so everyone wins?

 

Outlaw incest - Prohibits people from having sex with their family, thereby foreclosing sexual relationships with maybe 20 or so people out of the billions in the world.

Outlaw homosexuality - Prohibits gay people from having sex with people of the sex they find attractive, thereby foreclosing homosexuals from ever having a relationship in which they are sexually attracted to their partner.

SAME THING BRAH IM SO GOOD AT ANALOGIES

 

Ahhhh now you're coming around to the homosexual way of thinking... legalize ALL perversions... now all you have to do is advocate for the legalization of "minor-attracted persons" having their way with children and you'll be right in line with the homosexuals:

The academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) has also explored the issue of "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" in a generally approving manner. (Back issues of this journal can be ordered by calling Haworth Press at 1-800-HAWORTH.)

Discrimination Against a Minority
The vast majority of the articles in "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" argue that pedophilia should be freed from categorization as child abuse. In the foreword, Dr. Gunter Schmidt closes by saying that "Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits...the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized...it implies discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished." (p. 4)

Another group of writers (two psychologists and a lawyer--Sandfort, Brongersma, and Naerssen) argue that "the current social climate makes it rather difficult to look at [pedophilic] relationships in an objective way." (p.5)

"Born that Way and Can't Change"
In another article, "'The Main Thing is Being Wanted': Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children," the author says that one-third of the pedophiles he has studied claimed that "their sexual desire for children is a natural part of their constitution. This desire is variously described as 'inbred,' 'innate,' 'a fact of nature,' 'inherent in them,' etc. The leitmotif of their accounts is 'this is me' or 'just the way I am.'"

The author concludes that the feeling of being "born a pedophile" makes them feel they cannot change, and therefore they are convinced they have the same right as other people to pursue the "natural" expression of their sexuality. (p. 133). The same author quotes a respondent's belief that "if adult-child sex was commonplace, the majority of it would surely be good for both participants." (p. 137).

Psychology Must Remain "Unbiased"
Another article ("Boy-Lovers and their Influence on Boys," by Edward Brongersma) complains about the "bias" which labels man-boy sex as "abuse, molestation, assault, " etc. Dr. Brongersma complains that researchers are unable to remain objective about pedophilia, saying "...many people...exhibit such violently emotional hostility toward boy-lovers because they fear their own...pedophile impulses." (p. l53).

Dr. Brongersma goes on to cite cases in which social workers achieved "miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents--not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them." He describes how these sexual relationships "did far more good than years in reformatories." (p. l6l).

He advises that the loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62) and goes on to say that parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..."

Children's Rights to Autonomy
Another writer, David Thorstad, argues for "freedom of sexual expression for young people and children" (p. 255) and quotes a lesbian who talks of the "rich texture" of her experiences as a molested child.

Writer Gerald Jones says that "same-sex intergenerational intimacy may be developmentally functional" (p. 279) and says, "Some studies have found benign or even beneficial results in boys who were at the time involved with men" (p. 280). Dr. Jones speaks approvingly of recent studies which discuss pedophilia in "value-neutral terms." (p. 280)

Along the same vein, The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review interviewed poet Allen Ginsberg, a homosexual pedophile, shortly before his recent death. In a generally flattering article, they report Ginsburg's philosophy (not mentioned by the mainstream press) about sex with children, and offer no judgmental comment about it. The article is entitled, "The Liberation is the Word" (Summer 1997):

(Allen Ginsberg): "Like the whole labeling of pedophiles as 'child molesters.' Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents, pubescents, and postpubescents. Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Go ahead and hitch your wagon to that horse... when you lay with dogs you'll get fleas.

 

Homosexuality, heterosexuality and pedophilia are innate. Time to outlaw all of them.

 

When you have NAMBLA members applauding your beliefs and actions... you should really rethink your position.

 

How about we show true conservative principles and limit the power of government by getting it out of marriage altogether? Then everybody wins.

 

We just need to spike the water with saltpeter so the gays will lose their sex drive and we decent folk don't have to imagine what immoral acts they may be performing. That might also help our economy by growing the saltpeter industry.

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't that amount to a war on men, women and children?
We might legislate ourselves out of existence.

 

We should not question the will of God.

 

Please tell us all why they will lose surely you have some well thought out legal points???

 

Absolutely.

WHY did he Kennedy rule DOMA was not constitutional? He did so because he said that the STATE has the right to define marriage. He was not ruling in favor of gay rights, he was ruling in favor of STATE rights. He made the argument that if a STATE and it's people want to provide protections to homosexuals for marriage they have the right to do so and the federal government cannot force them to not get those protections. But that also means if a STATE does not provide protections to homosexuals for marriage, the federal government cannot force them to do so.

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders&#8221. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States&#8221.
Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.

-----------------------------------------------------------

And notice this from the very last portion of the DOMA opinion:

This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Notice he goes out of his way to point out the decision ONLY applies to lawful marriages... meaning marriages that the STATE has declared as married, not a judge.

Furthermore, Chief Justice Roberts points out the same thing in his dissent:

The majority goes out of its way to make this explicit in the penultimate sentence of its opinion. It states that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages,” ante, at 26—referring to same-sex marriages that a State has already recognized as a result of the local “community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.” Ante, at 20. JUSTICE SCALIA believes this is a “‘bald, unreasoned disclaime[r].’” Post, at 22. In my view, though, the disclaimer is a logical and necessary consequence of the argument the majority has chosen to adopt. The dominant theme of the majority opinion is that the Federal Government’s intrusion into an area “central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens” is sufficiently “unusual” to set off alarm bells. Ante, at 17, 20. I think the majority goes off course, as I have said, but it is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism.

 

What else is there to do? It started with Eve and we can't seem to stop.

 

Your posting of dissents has no bearing more or less you agree with them. Sadly for you but great for the rest of us, is that this in fact a federal issue. Once federal benefits were given to one set of straight couples of marriage, they must by law give those same benefits to homosexual couples.

Furthermore, you make the claim and have several time called homosexuals, deviants among other thing, relating them to child molesters. When proof has been shown that a good majority of child molesters are straight middle age white men. Now if you need an example of one of these gun toting freedom loving middle age white men that are straight but pray on children here you go

http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/11/sons-of-guns-will-hayden-arrested-child-molestation/

Now please tell me how on one hand the federal government can extend benefits to hetero couple but in the same breath say it is a state issue of marriage??? I find that argument very weak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...se-it-is-unconstitutional-sex-discrimination/

This will give you a very clear reason why these laws are being struck down. Not to mentioned you just showed your ass we all know the OP baits right wingers into these discussions. However continue to wallow in your delusions.

 

Well it all depends on what you mean by American.

For instance, white western American society is a different thing than in minority society or in political society.

Almost all white western Americas do not value liberty anymore. they value conformity, and demand that people obey them. If they do not then they will punish people to keep them in line.

political culture values money and power and nothing else. Otherwise you wouldn't see the groth of taxes and government power at the cost of the constitution.

I don't know enough about minorities.

 

... while working against it?

 

What I mean by American is that all citizens are equal. None above or below another in terms of liberty, opportunity, or equality. That regardless of a persons skin, religion, politics, or creed that we are all united under the belief that no one is less free then anyone else. That while some of our own outlooks may differ ideologically no one has the right to deny or suppress any group or person that others get to freely enjoy. That despite all our differences we are all still the same. That rights are not a privilege to be enjoyed by a select few, but something that we may all share in if we so decide ourselves. That is America, freedom and equality for all citizens.

 

Some people are more equal than others.

And there are also some problems with that too.

There is a phrase I learned while taking my Polisci class.

Tyranny of the majority, and tyranny of the minority.

What this means is that sometimes the majority infringes upon the rights of the minorities, and sometimes the minorities must infringe upon the majority, in order for both to be fully represented in the American Republic.

For example, censorship is of the minority variety. The people who tend to not let you use certain words because they are offensive are actually small groups of people with a loud voice. So now we can't say words that are obscene, except for slurs like homophobe. Nor can we see nudity on TV either, because it offends people.

And not allowing people to curse is a violation of the 1st Amendment under free speech rights.

I'm not sure if nudity would count under free speech as symbolic speech, though.

 

You don't even believe this. If an American who is under a certain arbitrary age that differs from state to state wants to have sex with and wants to marry a 55yo that American citizen is not allowed to do so. And I don't think they should be... Do you?

 

Of course I believe this. I would appreciate it if you didn't try and tell me what I do and don't believe in. And as long as someone is of legal age they should be able to marry whoever they want.

 

And what are you basing legal age on? Is it not arbitrary? Some states the age is 15 some 16 some 18. You see the problem is that you're doing exactly what you claim shouldn't happen. You think an American citizen under a certain arbitrary age should not be allowed to exercise the same rights that you want to give to everyone else.

And you do that because you consider the behavior vile. But there are plenty who disagree.

 

Since when do liberals care about the constitution? Certainly not at any time since Obama took office.

 

And you're doing the thinking for me again. I'll tell you what, you go ahead and argue both sides of the conversation yourself but if you decide that you don't actually know my beliefs, thoughts, or reasons then let me know and I'll rejoin you in this conversation.

 

By all means if I'm wrong correct me.

 

Oh no, you're the one who can read my mind. Have at it. Because I already asked you once not to do it and you went ahead and did it again so you obviously must have some superpower at work here. So dazzle me with my inner thoughts. I'm quite curious.

 

Can't read minds just capable of discerning intent. But if I'm wrong I have no problem acknowledging that. I already told you my opinion of your reasoning.

If you disagree with people under the legal age exercising their rights for reasons other than I've put forth then bring them forward. Ill be happy to point out why your wrong. Or you can just continue to evade.

 

I already explained my intent and my reasons but you still felt it was necessary to disregard that in favor of your own narrative. I find that type of behavior to be very conceited and dishonest.

I believe the age of 17 or 18 is good enough to be considered an adult. It has to do with emotional and mental maturity and the ability to weigh the consequences responsibly. They're still going to make mistakes just like we all do but they're not children anymore either and shouldn't be treated as such. Do you happen to disagree with that for any particular reason?

One last thing, if you presume to tell me my own thoughts again then that'll be the end of the conversation. I don't mind being questioned but I don't appreciate people making up my own stances for me.