Sweeping Federal LGBT Rights Bill Will Be Introduced This Week

Well, I am an eternally optimistic and trusting fellow, who hopes that people will come through in the end and be reasonable and rational in their arguments.

The old adage about wishing into one hand and (*)(*)(*)(*)ting into the other comes to mind...

 

How could gay people be denied marriage rights when they always had the exact same rights?

 

Honestly, I can see where you're coming from here. I don't agree 100%, but I don't disagree enough to bother thinking up a counterargument either.

 

This raises an old philosophical question. Do people have rights, which the government restricts, sometimes unreasonably? Or are rights granted by government, and nobody has any rights until government permits them?

In practice, this is like arguing about whether the glass is half full or half empty. They amount to the same thing.

 

Exactly. They choose to deny themselves a traditional marriage, by choosing homosexuality instead; and then they claim someone else is denying it to them. It is like a high school dropout complaining about not being given a high school diploma.

 

You have been corrected several times for this error. To get rights, you must meet the qualifications. The idea is, equality occurs when people who meet the same set of qualifications are treated equally with respect to the right the qualifications apply to. For example, rights to veterans benefits apply to all veterans, not just those we like.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's like a high school student meeting all the requirements for graduation, and being denied a diploma for reasons having nothing to do with school. You know, like for "choosing" to be too tall.

 

So you believe homosexuals are genetically inferior to the average person?

 

You are arguing against yourself. One of the qualifications for marriage is one man and one woman, and gays choose not to meet that qualification. No one is denying them marriage, they are denying it to themselves. That is their problem, no one else's.

And you're wrong again on school. In the same way a high school dropout chooses not to meet the qualifications for a high school diploma, so do gays dropout of the qualifications needed for marriage. Gays are their own worst enemy, just as high school dropouts are their own worst enemy.

 

It could be argued that alcoholism is genetically linked, but that doesn't make alcoholism equivalent to sobriety. Neither would it make homosexuality equivalent to a traditional marriage.

 

Ahem. If they are left handed, I regard them as superior to the average person.

 

?? This is incoherent. A genetic basis does not have anything to say about civil rights. Same sex marrriage bears the same relationship to opposite sex marriage as women having the right to drive has to men having the right to drive. It's not a genetic thing. I'm not aware of any genetic barriers to marriage beyond the possibility of inbreeding.

 

Homosexuals can't reproduce naturally? The one thing successful life does.

Are you sure you're not saying they are genetically inferior?

 

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.
Homosexuals can and do reproduce just fine. Just not with people of the same sex. However, EVEN IF they choose (as I chose, as a heterosexual) never to reproduce, this will do nothing to eliminate them from occurring naturally, as frequently as ever.

And as I tried to explain earlier, it seems that homosexuality generally tends to run in families with high fertility rates. This is a small statistical trend, and probably irrelevant to whatever you are asking. If anything, people electing not to reproduce is a Good Thing in a crowded world.

 

Since over 10,000 same sex couples have legally married in the States, obviously they DO meet the qualifications for marriage. The fact that you don't choose to
acknowledge it doesn't mean squat.

 

well since you agreed (kinda, sorta, almost, maybe, some) with me there is no reason to "think up" a counterargument...

I see from many of your posts you just love to argue for the sake of arguing, but get crazy, try something wild, just agree for once... it won't hurt, I promise, well okay I don't really promise for liability reasons in case you do have a medical condition that causes pain from agreement... its okay to agree... its like talking animals, everyone loves them, some say they don't, but secretly inside they do...

[video=youtube;ulg_7GxzbzA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulg_7GxzbzA[/video]

night time... day time... night time... day time...

 

Common sense is always incoherent to a liberal mind; and if a genetic basis does not have anything to say about civil rights, then you shouldn't introduce it as an argument for gay marriage.

Alcoholics have the right to drive, if they choose to drive sober; just as gays have the right to marry, if they choose the opposite sex.

 

The gender identity parts needs to come out.

That is nothing more than the establishment of class of people with special privileges not afforded to others, or not equality.

 

If they live in the US, they also have the right to marry the same sex. And straight males can marry straight males - just to keep things equal. And if you're going
to ask why a straight male would want to marry a straight male, then just think how asinine it is to say a gay male can marry a woman -

Yet you do it, over and over and over and over ...

 

Do you acknowledge the law of 30 or more states that define marriage as between a man and woman only? Obviously not. Gay marriage is not the law of the land, it is an attack on the law of the land.

 

I didn't. I merely answered a question about a genetic basis. By the way, there's a neat show on TV called "Little Women" featuring married dwarfs (not called that anymore). Genetics is irrelevant to their marriage as well.

AND if they choose the same sex. Isn't equality great?

- - - Updated - - -

Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, and are no longer the law in any state. Were you truly not aware of this?

 

Not according to the law in 30 or more states. But of course gay fascism has no regard for the law; only for the advancement of the gay agenda.

 

So sorry, but when States petitioned to enter the union, they agreed to abide by Federal Law. So until, or unless, Congress and the States pass a Constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court changes it's mind - then marriage cannot be denied same sex couples.

So again - your opinion in this matter is just your opinion. Nothing else.

 

It is no longer the law in ANY state. Try arguing honestly.

 

1. Let's hope the dwarfs have more commonsense than the homosexuals; I'm confident they do.

2. Choosing the same sex is equivalent to homosexuality, not to a legal marriage.

3. I am aware of the First and Tenth Amendments, and the law in 30 or more states. I know the gay fascists are aware of them also, but they choose to place themselves above the law instead; and in so doing they become the violators of the law.

 

States have a long history of acting illegally - especially in civil rights cases.

Suggesting it is fascist to insist on 14th amendment rights seems more than a little nutty to me, by the way.