Gay Marriage

Provisions against having sex with children are not based on moral grounds any more then is my provision of not smashing my thumb with a hammer: It can cause real harm.What is it with secondary characters in moralist arguments being treated as props? “Boo hoo! Poor Job, his wife and children were taken from him.” “Screw Job. What about his poor, dead wife and children?”Why are you again neglecting that the child has a self-determination interest of its own? At lease this time you’re only acting to get them buggared. The last time you wanted to gun them down. In the words of FliesOnly:

quote:

---

Age of consent... age of consent... age of consent.

---

The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes them. That is the point of the 9^th amendment. “ . Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinefs.” is from the Declaration of independence and has no force in law. Whether we have a Constitutional right to them is a whole ”nother kettle of fish. It has been decided, as has been mentioned previously, that marriage, a contract preceding the Constitution, is very much one of those protected “pursuits of Happinefs”. Polygamy can be rejected on “Compelling Interest” grounds. Bestiality can be rejected on “Capacity to Consent” grounds. Adultery is legal. Are the sisters hot? Gay girl incest is so cool.Edited by lyx2no, : Change header.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Okay, got it. You're not equating (equivocating?) homosexuality with pedophilia but a moral relativist might. Therefore, homosexual marriages should receive a full measure of scrutiny before being allowed. But might not a moral relativist also equate heterosexuality with pedophilia? After all, that is what they do: equate stuff. So shouldn't there also be a full measure of scrutiny given to straight marriages before we allow any more? Who knows when moral relativists are going to rise up and start throwing their weight around. And if we've allow people a bit of self-determination today then what argument would we have against the hackneyed arguments of the moral relativists tomorrow. How would we be able to resist them? What else would they want to equate?I would allow incest. I would allow prostitution. They both have something in common with homosexual marriage. They are all none of my business. The sexual abuse of others, including children is. I have a mutual protection compact of sorts with my fellow man. I expect them to come to my aid whenever I'm being buggered against my will, and, in return, have a duty to go to theirs. Take notice of the "against my will" clause. I'm hoping the moral relativist do.And to show I'm not just a shill for GLAD, I herein vow to fight any attempts by the Gay Lobby to mandate gay marriage amongst straight people.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

The word "eating" was also being used by "Hetros" (I capitalized it for you.); should Homos find another word, say "geating". But there are gay words too. You'll have to start using strabulous for fabulous, and strinema for cinema.Is this really all a semantics game to you? I've not noticed your usage of the English language to be quite, or do I have to use strite, so exacting as to believe your only interest in this matter is the integrity of our beloved language.One problem is you're not going far enough. You have set the standard as Gays have the same right to marry as you. But you're defining the right to marring as to "the opposite sex". But whence comes the generality of the definition. Seems if we're going to stringently meet "same rights as you", and you only have the right to marry a woman, then all people should only be allowed to marry women. Hey, if you're going to allow a little generality . in for a penny, in for a pound.Edited by lyx2no, : To change that horrible heading.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

No, I wouldn't. Self-determination is an absolute right of all men. I must, if I am to demand it for myself (and I do), protect it for all other comers. It's not my place to determine their lives by accepting arbitrary restrictions to mollify the irrational fears of stagnant minds.New ways make most folks uncomfortable. Once folks discover that they aren't required to do anything differently themselves they get over it quickly enough. Do you know how hard it is getting over having committed suicide in the 10^th grade because you were a homosexual? Speaking of, how much gay porn do you watch to be so up on the differences between straight and gay sexual practices. I stick to lesbian porn. Then I don't have to see the naked guys at all. Ick.By the bye, your posts are great. No, really, I envy you, dude. I work so hard to make my posts verge upon the absurd and you get all the way there with such seeming ease.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Would someone please explain the joke to me? It has been going on too long and through too many hands to be an error. What am I missing?AbE: Thanks, kjsimoms (post #94), but why is NemJug continuing to use it too?
AbE: Sorry, Taz (post #96). Sticking my foot in it is how I roll.
AbE: Hey, I got Taz's joke (post #104) without being told, and the new guy didn't. (Hi, new guy.)Edited by lyx2no, : Too not waste posts.Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling.Edited by lyx2no, : Saving space for dessert.Edited by lyx2no, : Catharsis.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

The simplest thing to do is butt out. If nothing is done whatsoever, except allow Gays to marry, it will all be done.What complications do you see? The objection you've come up with, "being personally involved if it's in the law because laws are 'by the people'." cannot be expected to give you some form of veto else it would have to apply equally to everyone with every law. Wa'da'ya bet I can find folks who would use their veto to nix murder laws. That 's simple alright.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

There certainly would have been an easier way to make that argument ” like saying so. But you could have saves yourself the effort. It is not in evidence that anyone on the pro self-determination side of this argument thinks any of those situations should be illegal.

• Incest: The possibility of increased birth defects could give cause for incest to be kept illegal; though, I know a woman who has a defective gene of some sort who keeps having kids (six) without clavicles and severe brain disorders. No one dares suggest she stop having kids. I'd put the burden on the government to sustain its ban.
  ​
• Prostitution: Who hasn't heard the arguments for legalizing prostitution a zillion times. Where it has been legalized little harm seems to have come from it.
  ​
• Adultery: It's legal; and in large part due to the government figuring out it has no business involving itself with the peaceful activities of consenting adults.
  ​
• Assisted suicide: This has gone back and forth a few times in the last twenty years with "mind your own beeswax" as its clarion call.

It clearly can not be assumed that all, plus gay marriage, are not covered by the "Consenting Adult" umbrella.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Just because one believes that stupidity is a natural human right does not mean one is not allowed to recognize nor criticize it as stupid. It would be hypocritical to grant stupidity the status of a natural human right and ban it. Maladjustment is a natural human right. Else we’d be able to go around adjusting people.I, too, think prostitution is a blight on civilization; wherein, the purveyors, practitioners and patrons are a despicable lot. However, the purveyors, practitioners and patrons, naturally, see it differently. What I can’t see is where this difference of opinion should be settled within the legal system. By all means ” not literally of course ” fence it off and leave a lovely, innocent world for the decent folk to inhabit, but let the seedy folk plant their seed. There is a world of difference between something being a cause of action and being illegal. A person who cant find the bath tub will also be on the short end of the divorce stick. An important consideration had you anyone arguing that it was. Self-determination, the starting point for human rights, isn’t even an end-all-be-all argument. It can be overruled by lack of consent for example. I’ve got a strange sense that you’ve put the cart before the horse, but I can’t quite put my finger on it ” yet. I don’t think anyone was saying you thought homosexuals deviant interests bleed over into forcibly sodomizing dead, underaged, same-sex animals any more then the rest of us. But that to in any way equivocate the peaceful activities of Gay folk with any activities other than the peaceful activities of straight folk for determining their treatment under the law is a flawed argument to say the least. Here, to equivocate, does not mean to say they are alike in all ways, but that they have some similarity which can be used to treat them in a like fashion. It’s not fair. [qs]In the final analysis, if you [one] consider[s] yourself [himself]a homosexual and want[s] to marry someone of the opposite [same ” I would think] sex, I won't stop you [him]. I'm just offering a scenario on why we might not want to leap in to it. You may think that everything will turn out just fine, and that may very well be the case. For your sake, I hope you are right. Its not like I want to be cynical about it, its just that I am cynical about it.[/qs]Justice delayed is justice denied. It is not so much that I think everything will turn out fine ” which I do ” but that we have gained a maturity as a society that we must accept that the burden of proof is now upon our shoulders to show that we are defending something vital from true harm if we are going to deny anyone their individual right to self-determination for even a minute more. Everyone deserves to live in peace.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

I immediately jump to necrophilia when when thinking of having sex with someone of the same sex except I want to be the one who's dead.Please, Hoot Mon, making jokes that make a point is one thing, but making jokes to avoid a point is a waste of everyones time. Would you answer the questions or admit you've not had anything valuable to say in the last 400 posts.Edited by lyx2no, : Wrong word.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar; twice.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

You have two legs. If you do not want to be cured of the that condition do you consider your having two legs by choice or was it an act of mother Nature?

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

And yet you were unable to answer it.You seem to be unable to answer anything.You seem to be unable to recognize that government has interests in marriage as contract law. The government has no interest or involvement in the consecration of marriage as demanded by the First Amendment. Do you intend that government no longer answer the call to arbitrate contract disputes? You have no argument there.You seem to be unable to recognize that codifying John & Mary's opinion into laws that repress the self-determination of millions of Americans is no longer opinion. Chuck & Larry's opinion of how best to live their lives is an opinion protected by the Constitution, while John & Mary's opinion of how best to run Chuck & Larry's lives is of no consequence. You have no argument there.You seem to be unable to recognize that Americans have a Constitutional right to self-determination regardless of the incentive for that determination. Choice is a legitimate motive for self-determination under the Constitution. You have no argument there.You seem unable to recognize that your arguments for blocking baby buggers, corpse cuddlers, dog diddlers, social security swindlers, and other officious offenders would by necessity apply to all human social contact. You have no argument there.You seem unable to recognize that you are a bigot who advocates actions that lead to the repression of millions of peaceful Americans merely to entertain a prejudice. You have no argument there.You seem unable to recognize that you have no argument anywhere.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

The enumeration in post 230, of certain errors, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others committed by Hoot Mon.You seem to be unable to recognize that separate is immediately unequal. Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison. And they didn't mention you having input. You have no argument there. Your reasoning as to why the state should get out of the marriage business has been to be wanting. American's have a right to request the government arbitrate contract dissolution. Are you going to deny Americans that right?I'm thinking Rrhain might have had a question or two you've ignored also.Edited by lyx2no, : Submit Now rather then Preview

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

The First Amendment takes the government out of the consecration business, not the marriage business. "Civil union" is otherwise a synonym (euphemism) for "marriage" to appease the desperately stupid.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Do you really not understand the difference between a reason and a rationalization, or do you think that we don't? Either way . you're a moron.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

So, you don't know the difference? You choose sides by sticking up for the rights of your fellow Americans and not for a supposed consistency in the meaning of a word. "Marriage" is a word. Homosexuals are humans. Sacrifice the word to the humans.Edited by lyx2no, : [qa]?

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.