lowboy wrote:

Is pedophilia and beastiality there own business ? do you consider gay marriage normal behaviour. can two male gays copulate and procreate by making a child.

Is it normal behaviour for one male to use his wenie to penetrate the anus of another,

is the aids virus really caused by the invention of diet coke? afterall they both appeared on the scene at the same time.

you miss my point. I dont wont the in your face attitude these people have toward those of us who are straight.

live that lifestyle if you wish but dont try to make me accept it as normal behviour.

johnheadYou continue to draw this nonsensical parallel between homosexuality and child abuse. Let’s be clear on our definitions, pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children. When someone who has this disorder acts upon it we call that child abuse or rape of a child.

PLEASE STOP BEING WILLFULLY STUPID. The difference between gay marriage and pedophilia is clear, one involves two consenting adults and the other does not.

Do I consider gay marriage normal behavior? Sure, why not?

Is it normal behavior for one male to use his weenie to penetrate the anus of another? If your gay then it is absolutely normal. If you were doing it then it would be abnormal, because you’re not gay.

All I can do is speak for myself and say it isn’t my cup of tea. The question is where do you get off telling anyone else what they may and may not do in private? Where do you get off dictating what another man does with “weenie”? We already know you think you can tell a woman what to do with her uterus so I guess it only makes sense.

Can a male gay couple make a child? No, but that is that not relevant to marriage. If you were impotent and unable to impregnate your wife would it be right to deny your right to marry her? No, you married your wife because you loved each other and wanted to dedicate yourselves to each other, not because you needed a baby making machine.

I’ve met a hand full of gay people in my life and none of them have been in my face about their sexuality. What you probably mean by in your face is their unwillingness to keep quite about being second class citizens and the denial of their pursuit of happiness and their call for equal rights, yea that’s totally putting their lifestyle in your face.

You don’t have to accept them as normal. You can sit at home or church and talk about how abnormal you think they are until the cows come home. It’s like racism, you can think black people are inferior if you like, hold meetings in white outfits with pointy hats, burn crosses every week it make you feel better; but the law will afford equal protection regardless of skin color and soon it will afford equal protection regardless of sexual orientation.

lowboy wrote:

ok sir i am back. i read it. where is the word marriage and dont call it a civil right. that battle is yet to be fought.if it had said among these rights are the pursuit of happiness ,well maybe but that is another document anf where do it say you have the right to be happy.
do you know of any case where the court has overturned a local or state election where there were no irregularities and the majority of the people expressed thier right.?
from what i hear most legal scholars were surprised they even took it. they could have refused and that goofy lower courts ruling would have been law.
they got enough protection under current state and federal law.

johnheadEqual protection under the law is a Civil Right, that battle was won on July 9, 1868.  I did not say you have a right to be happy.  You have the right to PURSUE happiness. So it was in another document, so what?  The constitution does not GRANT RIGHTS, it only establishes the government and defines its powers.  We don’t have freedom of speech because of the first amendment, the first amendment is a specific prohibition on government power. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident and exist prior to any constitution. Marriage is one the “Blessings of Liberty” mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution if you are worried about seeing it written down.  It doesn’t matter if the local or state election were held without irregularities and the majority of people voted for something, civil rights are not subject to majority opinion. The majority has no “right” to discriminate and deny equal protection to the minority.  The Supreme Court takes up cases which have seen differing opinions across the country so as to set the record for the entire country.  They entitled to more than “enough protection”. They are entitled to equal protection under state and federal law.

lowboy wrote:

ok knucklehead . that amendment was to make the blacks citizens as a result of the dred scott case.some courts have used it for other situations.most of them a stretch.

here is what the justices will havr to decide; If same sex marriage is a fourtenth amendment right, then it will be extremely difficult to forbid other types of marriage that are clearly deterimental to society,such as polygamy and yes pedophilia.

if i want to marry my dog is that a 14th amendment right. if i want 15 wifes, is that a 14th amendment right?

states presntly govern marriage and i think you are going to find it will remain that way.

the us constitution does not guarantee you the right to be happy.

Maybe jefferson was focused so much on religion he forgot that. he also never envisioned that a small foolish,and mentally ill minority would be cast upon us by evil.

johnheadCivil Rights being denied to black citizens might have been the origin of the 14th Amendment but you are ignoring that it was not about black people it was about CIVIL RIGHTS BEING DENIED to black people.

Marriage is a civil (as well as religious) institution; married couples benefit from more than 1000 benefits under federal law. Equal protection requires equal access to civil benefits of marriage. Denying equal access to the benefits of marriage is a denial of civil rights and a violation of equal protection.

Nobody is advocating for polygamy. Nobody is advocating for pedophilia. Those two things are entirely separate and distinct from two consenting adults agreeing to care for one another. Your argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Tell us how gay marriage and GAY MARRIAGE ALONE is a determent to society. How would two men or two women being granted the privileges of a married couple harm you or anyone else? I submit that there IS NO HARM, and therefore NO REASON to discriminate against them.

A dog cannot consent to a marriage. A child cannot consent to a marriage. Those examples are vapid.

Correct, the US Constitution does not guarantee you the right to be happy. I never said it did, so now you can stop acting like I said that. The preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The pursuit of Happiness is one of the “blessings of liberty” and your religiously motivated disdain of gay people drives you to deny them their pursuit of happiness, to deny them equal protection, thus denying them their civil rights.

Nothing is being “cast upon you”. You just hate that your religious edicts, which have been forced upon other people that your religion deems worth of execution, are now being cast off as the ignorant remnants of our superstitious ancestors. Equal rights for gays is another nail in the coffin of religious ignorance and bigotry. The age of reason is coming and appeals to godly authority as a justification for the mistreatment of others is loosing more power every year.