[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

You are kidding right? How about this direct quote.... All men are created equal.

I'm not kidding. Tell me where this is found in the Constitution.

[JAM3S]

I think he means the Declaration of Independence....

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by jeff4598

It's as abnormal as being blonde or left handed I suppose!

Actually, much more so. Since you want to play games--about 25% of the population has medium brown to blonde hair and something less than 10% are left handed. Since homosexuals comprise about (give or take) 1% of the general population (who really knows or cares?) I'd say they qualify as abnormal. Your agreement or disagreement of course assumes you are willing to aknolwedge the biological nature of man, hard-wired to procreate, Tab A goes into Slot B, etc. Since homosexuals are not interested in the opposite sex or natural methods of procreation, I'd say that's abnormal. To argue with the notion that heterosexuality is normal is just silly and probably political.

But my main point was--live your life as you chose as long as you don't hurt me or others, just quit trying to convince me that it's ok.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by JAM3S

I think he means the Declaration of Independence....

Yeah, you are right...

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Actually, much more so. Since you want to play games--about 25% of the population has medium brown to blonde hair and something less than 10% are left handed. Since homosexuals comprise about (give or take) 1% of the general population (who really knows or cares?) I'd say they qualify as abnormal. Your agreement or disagreement of course assumes you are willing to aknolwedge the biological nature of man, hard-wired to procreate, Tab A goes into Slot B, etc. Since homosexuals are not interested in the opposite sex or natural methods of procreation, I'd say that's abnormal. To argue with the notion that heterosexuality is normal is just silly and probably political.

But my main point was--live your life as you chose as long as you don't hurt me or others, just quit trying to convince me that it's ok.

I respected your comment up until the last sentence. In the end you are just another homophobe, and bigot... just quit trying to convince me that it's ok.

[jeff4598]

So if it's percentile (and BTW estimates on homosexuality are 3-10%) then I guess my IQ is "abnormal" LOL and if you are over ...I dunno 6'4" your height is abnormal? Huh? It's not political is POLITE-ICAL-abnormal is just rude, a rude way to say 'not particularly frequent". I don't judge what you do with your tabs and slots- I don't even think about it-why the level of interest that requires comment on your part?

If I said you can practice (as if it's my place to OK it!) any religion but then went on to say (just for fun let us say you are in the "abnormal" position of being Jewish) that my God didn't make us to wear funny little hats on our heads and rest on SATURDAY and that it's NORMAL to pray on SUNDAY and make believe wafers and wine are flesh and blood of God's son. If I went on to say that would you feel that my saying your religion was OK with me was somehow negated or compromised?

[jeff4598]

Not a lawyer let alone a constitutional one but read the document and the amendments just now- it seems as if amendments 15 and 19 are saying that race and sex no longer take away from the equality of the rights of citizens so whether it' is implicit or explicit, it seems that equal rights is a bedrock concept in constitutional law.

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by jeff4598

Not a lawyer let alone a constitutional one but read the document and the amendments just now- it seems as if amendments 15 and 19 are saying that race and sex no longer take away from the equality of the rights of citizens so whether it' is implicit or explicit, it seems that equal rights is a bedrock concept in constitutional law.

Good, you now have read the Constitution and realize that the phrase you claimed to be in it is nowhere to be found. That's a start.

The 15th amendment directly and explicitly addresses slavery: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"

The 19th amendment directly addresses women's right to vote: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The explicitness of both amendments is critical; they address very defined issues in a very defined manner. They do not address the issue you are discussing, period.

I don't disagree with your premise regarding equality, but I disagree in how you are trying to infer phrases that do not exist in the Constitution or legal premises in the amendments you referenced.

I believe the Equal Protection Clause (14th amendment) makes the most sense in this context.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

I respected your comment up until the last sentence. In the end you are just another homophobe, and bigot... just quit trying to convince me that it's ok.

Hmmm, score? I guess this is the point where I should start stuttering and defending myself. Interweb protocol is such a dicey thing. And there are so many people out there whose opinion truly matters. Bye.

[jeff4598]

I have no gripe with any person- but ideas CAN hurt people so I don't apologize for calling out rudeness! Peace.

[jeff4598]

I think post#96 involves a bit of misdirection- The 15th and 19th amendments- as I read them give general rights to specific groups of people they do not give "racial" or "gender" rights to all people. So to imply that there is no "homosexual right" is misleading. When people of all races and both genders are given equal rights in these amendments they are presumed to be granted all rights as a citizen. To argue that homosexuals need a specific amendment to be assured they have the rights of other citizens raises the question of where the parsing stops- Is it OK to deny the short, stout or stuttering their general rights until the constitution specifies that they have them?

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Hmmm, score? I guess this is the point where I should start stuttering and defending myself. Interweb protocol is such a dicey thing. And there are so many people out there whose opinion truly matters. Bye.

No need to defend your feeling or ideas, I never do that myself... I simply disagree with you, and buy calling you a homophobe and a bigot I simply go by the actual definition based on your statements, and is not meant as an insult.

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by jeff4598

I think post#96 involves a bit of misdirection- The 15th and 19th amendments- as I read them give general rights to specific groups of people they do not give "racial" or "gender" rights to all people. So to imply that there is no "homosexual right" is misleading. When people of all races and both genders are given equal rights in these amendments they are presumed to be granted all rights as a citizen. To argue that homosexuals need a specific amendment to be assured they have the rights of other citizens raises the question of where the parsing stops- Is it OK to deny the short, stout or stuttering their general rights until the constitution specifies that they have them?

The amendments are very explicit about who and what they address - no parsing needed. People who try to infer more to those amendments than is contained are wrong. It's that simple.

Nowhere have I written that "homosexuals need a specific amendment".

What I have written is that the 14th amendment appears to most directly address the issue in existing law.

And with that, I'm done.

[andrew777]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

No need to defend your feeling or ideas, I never do that myself... I simply disagree with you, and buy calling you a homophobe and a bigot I simply go by the actual definition based on your statements, and is not meant as an insult.

Strong spelling and grammar.

Let me start by saying that gays can get married. It has never been illegal for gays to marry, it just has to be to someone of the opposite sex, since that is part of the definition of marriage, not only according to generations of tradition, but also by our government.

It is also worth noting that marriage, like driving, is not a right, but a privilege. The same way in which only those who are supposedly capable and competent are allowed to drive, only those who are capable and competent of being married are allowed to get married. Being blind will instantly mean you do not qualify for the privilege of driving and being gay will similarly instantly disqualify you from having the privilege of marriage.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by andrew777

Strong spelling and grammar.

Let me start by saying that gays can get married. It has never been illegal for gays to marry, it just has to be to someone of the opposite sex, since that is part of the definition of marriage, not only according to generations of tradition, but also by our government.

It is also worth noting that marriage, like driving, is not a right, but a privilege. The same way in which only those who are supposedly capable and competent are allowed to drive, only those who are capable and competent of being married are allowed to get married. Being blind will instantly mean you do not qualify for the privilege of driving and being gay will similarly instantly disqualify you from having the privilege of marriage.

Blind people cannot drive because they pose a threat to others if they do. Gay people aren't about to go run over some folks if they get married.

If society always operated on "generations of tradition" then we'd all be running around with multiple wives and farm animals. In fact the ancient cultures upon which modern society is founded were accepting and sometimes even encouraging of homosexuality if you really want to take your argument full-circle. Society needs to change with the ebb and flow of the cultural zeitgeist. Being progressive is all about progressing.

Would you support a civil union granting the gay couple all of the same benefits as a marriage, provided that the term "marriage" was reserved only for heterosexual couples?

[andrew777]

I don't really mention any specific tradition, but in the Christian tradition, which is much more rooted in our history than others, marriage has always been between a man and a woman and has for centuries been considered sacred.

Originally Posted by PINeely

Would you support a civil union granting the gay couple all of the same benefits as a marriage, provided that the term "marriage" was reserved only for heterosexual couples?

Yes, but as I see it the issue isn't about gays getting equal rights from the government, since most aren't happy with civil unions. They all want to be "married" and that is a direct insult to all normal people who are in a traditional marriage. It would be as if I walk-around all day in black-face saying and doing stereo-typical things all because "I also have the right to be black... you know... it doesn't do any harm to anyone...I'm not about to go run some folks over"

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by andrew777

Strong spelling and grammar.

Let me start by saying that gays can get married. It has never been illegal for gays to marry, it just has to be to someone of the opposite sex, since that is part of the definition of marriage, not only according to generations of tradition, but also by our government.

It is also worth noting that marriage, like driving, is not a right, but a privilege. The same way in which only those who are supposedly capable and competent are allowed to drive, only those who are capable and competent of being married are allowed to get married. Being blind will instantly mean you do not qualify for the privilege of driving and being gay will similarly instantly disqualify you from having the privilege of marriage.

Should I rewrite it in German? I also wrote it quickly on my iPhone... a device that creates random spelling erkors.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by andrew777

I don't really mention any specific tradition, but in the Christian tradition, which is much more rooted in our history than others, marriage has always been between a man and a woman and has for centuries been considered sacred.
...blah blah blah...

The word DOWRY strongly disagrees with your opinion that western civilization has considered marriage sacred for centuries.

[JAM3S]

Is this board very liberal leaning?

From the babble of some of these posts and the thread criticizing Obama that got deleted im guessing so.....

Anyways, just thinking out loud.... or through my keyboard. Carry on.

[Id]

Originally Posted by andrew777

Yes, but as I see it the issue isn't about gays getting equal rights from the government, since most aren't happy with civil unions. They all want to be "married" and that is a direct insult to all normal people who are in a traditional marriage. It would be as if I walk-around all day in black-face saying and doing stereo-typical things all because "I also have the right to be black... you know... it doesn't do any harm to anyone...I'm not about to go run some folks over"

That makes absolutely no sense.

How is it in any way an insult? Taking that logic, I'm insulted by religious people taking the concept of the winter solstice and turning it into a fairy story about some blue eyed middle eastern dude who spoke about peace, love and forgiveness.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by JAM3S

Is this board very liberal leaning?

From the babble of some of these posts and the thread criticizing Obama that got deleted im guessing so.....

Anyways, just thinking out loud.... or through my keyboard. Carry on.

There is a difference between criticizing Obama and making veiled racists remarks. The forum's policy is pretty clear about that. Here is a good test before hitting reply... if you think it might be racist, it probably is.

[JAM3S]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

There is a difference between criticizing Obama and making veiled racists remarks. The forum's policy is pretty clear about that. Here is a good test before hitting reply... if you think it might be racist, it probably is.

For the record I never made a racist remark but I think I know the post you are talking about. If thats why it got deleted then fine. I think the individual post could have been deleted instead of doing away with the entire conversation but thats just my opinion.

Some people jump at the chance to be offended and name call because they cant intelligently defend their position though.

But if you preach tolerance... shouldnt you tolerate intolerance??

lol jk.