Publicly tortured to death for being gay (in Africa)

I'm not against a state choosing its destiny. I am very against judges---who aren't thinking logically and who are legislating--- decide gay people are to be treated as genders or as a race with the same rights there of. That is where the problem lies...when a judge decides that you can't discriminate against that sexual behavior or sexual attraction, and relates that to racial or gender discrimination. That judge IS laying the way for total chaos. Because down the road we will see more activists taking advantage of those rulings.

 

It Is Not Necessary. No Need. The only people who clamor that is you. Write your congressman.

 

So...a judge upholding the constitution of the United States is now the bad guy according to you? BTW, laws against same sex marriage are indeed gender discrimination. I don't know how you could miss that. And the judge is not ruling on sexual behavior or attraction. He's ruling on a relationship, unless again, you're going to tell me the only reason you're with your husband is sex.

 

Just the Constitutional need for equal protection.

 

Nah...you are doing a lot twisting there. Not all judges uphold the constitution. We've got some legislative ones out there---and they do alot of work for you. I love my husband. But again...not all love is equal when it comes to our nation's well-being. And all unions are not equal as well. A judge forcing the state to see a gay union as equal to hetersexual union is creating a huge problem down the road for our nation. Because in essence---he's denoting all unions as a right.

 

Gay people aren't genders. They are either men or women. And they are treated the same under the law when marriage is defined as for one man and one woman.

 

Equal treatment under the law for identically situated people isn't limited by gender. But this is, fundamentally, a gender issue. "Sexual orientation" is a gender-based distinction.

 

He is doing no such thing. All he did was remove the gender restriction. Nothing else has been legalized.

 

ah....yea, ok.....so its "I'm not what I am but what I perceive myself to be".... right? you can be what you perceive but we will see you as you are. A man or a woman.

 

Than what he did---is twist the constitution. He erased all boundries and guidelines. If we can't restrict Sam from marrying Sam because that is gender discrimination, then we can't restrict Sam from marrying Sam and Sally. We can't restrict another gender whom we....love.

We expect that men go into men bathrooms and women into women's bathrooms--with the police coming to take you away if you go into the wrong bathroom. Is your judge going to crow about gender discrimination? No--because there is none. And there was none in marriage. What we had in marriage was guidelines that treated men and women the same under the law.

 

I'm not even sure what point you're attempting to make. Equal protection and due process applies to everyone (including couples as per Loving v Virginia).

Homosexuality IS a distinct aspect of someone's makeup - just because it only becomes "confirmed" through words or action doesn't mean it's not fundamental. The issue is that identically situated couples aren't being given equal treatment under the law. As soon as you can point out the difference between an infertile or elderly heterosexual couple who marry for love, and a same-sex couple who do the same, there's simply no basis for such discrimination.

It does not matter that "it's always been that way" or "we don't act on a whim". We're looking at how the law applies now, to REAL people. Today.

 

The rational basis for having separate bathrooms is the protection of women and discouraging public sex. Prohibitions against same-sex couples marrying doesn't meet equal protection requirements because the state has never shown an interest in limiting non-reproductive heterosexual couples. And moral disapproval is not a valid reason for singling out gay people.

 

You can try to vie for pedophilia or bestiality rights if you like.

But no, not all sexual attractions are equal. Some are illegal, I.E. those that involve minors or animals that can not give consent.

So unless you are trying to campaign for those things being recognized as legal, then your own argument is a simple twist of logic to justify treating gays as less than equal.

Keep trying though.

- - - Updated - - -

No they aren't, they are forbiden from marrying their person of choice.

You can blab all day longs about "well the law is applied equally to everyone." but only gays are restricted from marrying their person of choice.

 

It doesn't matter if the state showed interest in reproductive heterosexual couples....did that judge actually say that? So actually---this judge, if he said that, is saying that children don't matter in the mix. Marriage is equal for any adult whim. No boundries. He's a liberal---they don't think clearly.

 

Brothers and sisters can't marry either. Marriage isn't about making our own guidelines. You can marry--you just need to agree to the guidelines. Marriage isn't about fulfilling your choice. Its not about....you. Its an institution meant to benefit society.

 

Who here is arguing for incest? No one. Stay on topic. BTW, I live in a state where we are treated equally under the law. We are living by the guidelines. And again I must ask, same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for ten years. Everybody is doing just fine. The sky did not fall.

- - - Updated - - -

Same sex couples have been raising kids for decades. They turn out just fine. Would you like some proof? Be very careful...

 

Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if the thugs with guns didn't come knocking on the doors of homosexuals at a disproportionate rate. I don't expect equal status in the eyes of individuals - refusing service should be legal, refusing them employment should be legal, refusing to associate with them in any way should be legal - but stealing their property should not. The issue is entirely about the tax code and other legal protections.

Either government should get out of marriage (preferable), or they should offer it to all consenting adults and extend legal protections to all. (*)(*)(*)(*) big government.

 

How about this? Religion should get out of government.

 

Ehh, religion is just another value. I don't want other people forcing me into their religious values, but I don't want them forcing any values on me.

So yeah, getting religion out of government is good. Any reduction in government is good.

 

Marrying the person of your choice...isn't about...YOU?

Wow, you can keep spouting that crap but it doesn't change the fact that it is one of the most intimate moments and choices of a persons life.

It is very much about the individuals involved.

And please keep trying to say that incestual marriage is on par with marriage between two consenting unrelated adults. Its only pokes more holes in your argument, showing that its entirely based on only one thing...an aversion to gays having equal rights.

 

Read the posts and YOU stay on topic. You are imagining incest arguments. We are talking about guidelines.

 

YES, YES, YES!!! Indeed!!

 

No, that is not necessarily true. It's a wonderful sounding but specious mantra.

Government functions are necessary and they must be effective; that will not ALWAYS mean "small" or 'reduced'. That means it should be the of the proper size and influence to perform the 'function'.

For example, if a neighborhood needs 5 firemen and 10 cops to get the job done... that is what there should be. If the population increases or other circumstances are added, those numbers may need to be increased (and likely will be).

I don't see the population of this nation decreasing significantly anytime soon... so some things are going to have to likely grow.

Those who run around defaulted to the notion that 'government' is 'bad' and necessarily too large... are generally misguided, IMO.

 

Yes, and you ignored the rest of my post. I imagined nothing. You brought up brothers and sisters getting married. Stop lying, or would you like me to quote your post again?

 

Quote the post above it first. Then quote my post. Your friend said that only gays couldn't get married. I responded that brothers and sisters couldn't get married. They don't fit the GUIDELINES. Two men (in some states) DON'T FIT THE GUIDE LINES. We aren't talking about incest. We are talking about marriage GUIDELINES.