Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

WHICH is SOMETHING we DO all the TIME. interracial BEHAVIOR isn't a "protected right" according to you either.

of course there is. just ike there is constitutional protection for racial preference.

which is unconstitutional. we don't let the majority vote on civil rights.

will of the voter is irrelevant.

you keep throwing out this strawman. nobody is making that argument. abeing attracted to the same sex is no more a "behavior" than being born with green eyes.

 

So, using your logic, Colorado should not be required to do that. So why are they?

 

More emotion-based nonsense.

There is no "civil right" of genital preference, and your continued LIES otherwise do not alter that fact, no matter how desperately your "feelings" tell you otherwise.

"The will of the voter is irrelevant" = Welcome to Leftworld, where the Left's Miltiant Gay Agenda will be FORCED UPON AMERICANS, whether they want it, or not.

 

the supreme court called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on that.

thats how it's been done for almost 300 years of this countries existence.

 

New York ,and Washington DC should be required to honor my concealed carry permit..why aren't they?

Unlike your position, that involves an ACTUAL, CONSTUTIONAL RIGHT, not an "emotional need".

- - - Updated - - -

Oh..really? Since I have the "right to be married" who can I sue if I am NOT MARRIED, thus being DENIED my "rights", according to you?

NO it hasn't. The Majority has expanded rights as we went along. That DOES NOT include genital preference.

Only the fascist Left tries to IMPOSE its agenda on everyone else.

 

You have already said you stand to lose nothing if homos can marry. Yet you still want to deny them the legal right to marry anyway. What emotional need is motivating that?

 

You keep trying to fall back on the same old Straw Man. What I "lose" is the RIGHT to have a voice in defining the society in which I , my family, and my neighbors live.


Most Americans DO NOT WANT Castro District in their neighborhood, and they have EVERY RIGHT TO NOT WANT IT.

Guess what? Contrary to Leftmyth, people who OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE have just as much "right" to "be offended" as do gays.

There is NO "right", or Constitutional protection, for GENITAL PREFERENCE, despite your ongoing attempts to pretend otherwise.

 

That is incorrect. You still have the same voice you always had. The fact that you do not necessarily get your way does not mean you have no voice. It just means the majority overruled you.

What exactly led you to believe that you have a right to get your way regardless of what the majority thinks?

Including hetero preference.

 

When my voice,and that of the electorate is NULLIFIED by appointed gay activist judges, my VOICE has been taken from me.

And , as has been amply demonstrated on this very thread, the Gay Guevaras have NO REGARD for the will of the voters, and have no problem with FORCING their lifestyle upon society, regardless of the wishes of others.

Once again, despite your obvious emotional desire otherwise, there is NO "right" to genital preference, that is Constitutionally protected.

 

1. Allowing homosexuals to marry does not take away your voice.
2. Morality is not determined by majority opinion--tyranny of the majority is a violation of basic liberties.
3. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.


Question: Since you seem to care so much about what the majority says, if the majority of Americans voted to allow gay marriage, would you support gay marriage?

 

1. FORCING me to allow homosexuals to marry DOES, most definitely "take away my choice". It is my "choice" to legally oppose it, at the ballot box.

2. Morality is not determined by what YOU want. It most DEFINITELY is determined by the MAJORITY of a society.

3. Homosexuality is a genital preference, for which there is NO "right" to be protected.

No, I would not...but I would recognize its legality. A MEDIA POLL, is not a 'vote".

 

1. No it doesn't. You can still choose not to marry someone of the same sex. You can still try to opposite it all you want. You aren't forced to do anything.
2. Morality is not determined by what I want or by what the majority wants. If the majority of a society were to say killing an innocent child is ok, would that make it moral?
3. Ok...so like I said, homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

Strawman. I never said a media poll was a vote.

 

I don't believe that in a NY second, veneral disease has increased in the homosexual community to epidemic proportions.

 

you keep cherry picking your data. that is dishonest.

every post

cherry picking

sam
e arguments being used against gays were used against interracial marriage. didn't work then either.

not equal for all. same sex couples can't marry.

all of it is wrong.

I will call you on cherry picking every time I See it.

yes, you do have to cherry pick in order to make gay=bad.

strawman

 

marriage is a basic civil right. the 14th amendment precludes discrimination based on race, religion and GENDER.

majority vote does not apply to civil rights. sorry

 

do you think strawmen somehow help your arguments? they are as helpfull as cap locks

 

They are appointed by elected officials. Why are you electing people that are appointing homo friendly judges?

When have I claimed that there was? Why do you keep bringing back that strawman?

I agree with you that heterosexual marriage is not a constitutional right.

 

You know what this reminds me of? When people were opposing interracial marriage.

Morality and culture are two completely different things. The fact you believe you need our morals pushed down onto other people show how truly awful of an individual you are.

Heterosexuals have their rights protected when they wish to have their 5th divorce. Heterosexuals couples have their rights protected to adopt, and heterosexuals have their rights constantly protected. The fact you wish to discriminate based on the gender of one of the spouses to be is violating the 14th amendment.

 

for the love of all that is decent

since this thread has morphed into yet another gay marriage thread please put it out of its misery and move it to the gay subsection with the hundreds of other gay marriage threads

 

nobody is forcing you to allow it. you are free to not marry someone of the same sex.

majority rule can not effect civil rights.

then heterosexuality is also a genital preference, for which there is NO "right" to be protected.

 

yes, but thats just gay

 

Do you mean that you wanted a right to choose something other than a penis?

I thought that we were talking about a person having the same rights as the next person. Your preference never crossed my mind.

 

One is a national issue because of federal tax breaks and benefits. The other is strictly a "states rights" issue which people like you rant about until you do not like what a state is doing.

Since I have the "right to be married" who can I sue if I am NOT MARRIED, thus being DENIED my "rights", according to you?

Well, if you are gay, you can sue the state and/or the Federal Government, just like people could sue against restrictions on interracial marriages. If you are just a loser, tough luck.

 

Thank goodness. I do not like your "voice".

 

please move this thread as it has gone way off topic and morphed into another gay marriage thread