Okay that was funny.

Well played, sir.

Pretty much !!!

Okay, so lets discuss what this article was about. A young man decided to conffront a Supreme Court Justice in a public forum and he didn't like the answer he got. Maybe because he didn't think it through or understand it by definition. Whether I agree with the justice or not, it is his learned, legally experienced opinion.

I was very pleased that Scalia was polite with me. I thought he was respectful with me, so I appreciate that, however, I disagree with the substance of his answer," Hosie said.

"If you’re making an argument to convince people, you don’t want to alienate people, and that’s what Scalia did with his language.

But remember to practice what you preach when it comes to making an argument. Not many people on here understand that!! I have been guilty as well.

TX,

Merry Christmas!

I think the problem here, was that he DID understand the answer, and it makes no sense. Now, I'm not saying Scalia isn't smart. In fact, I think he is. Smart enough to know that personal morality in legal opinions is not acceptable, so he came up with a bunk argument that even a first year law student can dismantle.

I don't think even HE believes that his argument holds weight, he just doesn't want to give up his personal bigotry on this issue.

Personal bigotry? Because the man has values and stands behind them? Because he knows that sodomy is sick disgusting perversion, no different from beastiality? I think you are bigoted against people who share his values, including me.

I'm with Sarah on this one...Personal bigotry or personal bias, it still gets away from the law.

I am pretty sure that homosexuality was not considered a constitutional right in the document when it was written. Of course, liberals can construe it as they please. And bigotry is a matter of opinion.

Merry Christmas Sarah,

You may be right, but if true, the argument would hold true for all of the supreme court or any judge for that matter. We all have some taught, experienced or learned morals, morays, etc.

I was more intreged by the young mans comment about arguments and trying to convince people. i.e. if you call me a morally backward, right wing idiot, I am probably less inclined to listen to what you are actually telling me!

Tobasco,

Yes, personal bigotry. Because he's using his unfounded personal belief, which is entitled to, in attempt to make law. He can have that personal belief, but he can't shove it into the law without a damn good reason.

So answer me this, would it be okay with you if the cops busted in your door and arrested you because they didn't like the type of consensual sex you were having?

Still working,

You want to know what is in the Constitution? Privacy. That's what this is about. Not homosexuality.

Scalia was not making a comparison between sodomy and beastiality (although God calls them both an abomination) but making the point that we can and do prohibit behavior on moral grounds.
His only response is concerning his feelings.To which I will continue the parallel of Scalia. Do we care about the feelings of those who have sex with animals or corpses or their next of kin or rapists or murderers. No your feelings dont enter into it. Man up silly sissies.
And to the vile person above Sarah,call it bigoty if you like but homosexuality is a filthy depraved thing and homosexuals spread disease and they molest kids and the doom nations.

Sorry Sarah, but based on your argument, the fact that murder is immoral is also a personal belief. And since legislation should not be based on personal beliefs (according to you), murder should not be illegal.

I believe that all legislation is based on society's collective morality, including prohibitions against murder, beastiality, and homosexuality. And I believe that is the point the Justice was making.

Tony,

You're wrong. We DON'T legislate morality. That's why NOT everything that's widely considered immoral is also illegal. Adultery, let's say. The majority of people think that it's immoral, why then isn't it illegal? Things that cross over from immoral into illegal, ALSO infringe on the rights of others. Theft? Infringes on the property rights of other citizens. Murder? Infringes on the lives of other citizens.

So, if Scalia is correct in his argument than I could say...

I feel that the Kardashians are reprehensible. There's nothing in the Constitution about Keeping Up With the Kardashians being an inalienable right. I mean, if we can't attach moral outrage to that which we find reprehensible, where does it stop?

Tabsco,

Sorry, but murder is illegal because it infringes on the rights of other citizens. It has victims. Same thing with theft. Same thing with rape.

Same thing with beastiality and pedophilia, seeing as they don't have the legal capacity to CONSENT. Unlike two adult, gay people.

So, I'll as you again...

Would it be okay with you if the cops busted in your door and arrested you because they didn't like the type of consensual sex you were having?

Because he knows that sodomy is sick disgusting perversion, no different from beastiality?

Wait a minute. You actually consider a BJ the same as bestiality? (nice spelling, btw)

You must have the most boring sex life in the world. I almost feel sorry for you... what a sad existence you must lead.

No, Sarah, you are wrong.

Government's ONLY business is the legislation of morality.

It has no other business.

Think about it.

No, John.

You make your case. How does the government legislate morality and how is that its only business?

No, John. Legislation of morality is not the government's only business and why does someone like you use the ironic screen name "JohnThinks"?

Is national defense somehow dealing with morality?

Is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only involved only with morality?

Whose morality are we talking about here? I think it is immoral to wrongly deny equal rights to our fellow citizens.

I thought about it. I decided you are wrong.

Marriage is a public institution. Its place in the community has nothing whatever to do with "privacy".

This truth is all the more shocking when the homosexual lobby takes their filth into the classroom and shoves it down everyone's throats beginning at age five. There is nothing whatsoever "private" about a public discussion about things that are morally wrong to so much as even name.

As things now stand, there is nothing whatsoever any longer "private" about the behavior in question. Our faces are being shoved into a toilet every time we step into the public space. And that is precisely what makes this whole agenda-driven discussion so completely foul-smelling and noxiously odious. The unrelenting sound of a monstrous evil LIE about a monstrously evil behavior that we shouldn't even be forced to hear about calling itself a "private" matter is in fact an arrogantly self-contradictory outrage that ought not to be tolerated.

(To supply the thinking that others are evidently incapable of it is sufficient to point out that the government cannot accomplish anything whatsoever except by creating laws. It is these laws that define the difference between behavior that is right and behavior that is wrong in the context of the state. Everything the government does is accomplished by writing laws that define what will be right if done or not done, and what will be wrong if done or not done. The government does nothing except by this means only.)

Marriage is a public institution. Its place in the community has nothing whatever to do with "privacy".

Oh really? So everyone has a say in everyone's marriage? When couples get a divorced we're all entitled to alimony? Damn, those kids are going to busy bouncing from one house to another, how many of us are there now?

Call me when someone forces you to be gay. I'll defend you too.

Sarah,

I guess it escaped you that you are asserting that infringing on others rights etc is morally wrong!?
Face it. God set the standards. Obey them and he will bless you -do not obey and he will curse you.

Tony,

Yes, I believe infringing on the rights of others is morally wrong. HOWEVER, irregardless of that, it is ILLEGAL. Not because I think it's immoral, but because society has a vested interest in applying the rule of law equally and protecting rights. If we don't, it leads to tyranny, torture, disenfranchisement, war...

And face it, your God is irrelevant to everything and everyone, except for you and your religion. Just like my morality is irrelevant.

Sarah - Looks like the loony bin unloaded on this thread tonight. I have never heard such a collection of crap in my life from these religious right-wing zealots. Do you ever feel like Don Quixote?

Kim,

To dream, the impossible dream..................

Some nights it takes a little longer to wash the crazy sauce off, but alas, such is the life of one who does everything in her power NOT to have to study.

God set the standards. Obey them and he will bless you -do not obey and he will curse you.

Which god? Yours? Mine? Sarah's? How do we choose?

Hell, you christians can not even get along with each other. You spend all day arguing over who is the "real" christian. So which christian god do we follow? The "god hate f**s" one? The one that supports slavery in leviticus? The one that loves everyone, including homosexuals? Which one?

Do you speak for god? Do you know what he thinks? That is awfully arrogant of you. But because you are the mouthpiece of god... answer this: Why does god support polygamy in the bible? Why does your god support slavery in the bible? Why does your god support marrying a women AND her slaves? Why does your god support laws that require a rape victim marry her rapist?

Do you speak for god? Do you know what he thinks? That is awfully arrogant of you. But because you are the mouthpiece of god... answer this: Why does god support polygamy in the bible? Why does your god support slavery in the bible? Why does your god support marrying a women AND her slaves? Why does your god support laws that require a rape victim marry her rapist?

Why did he create the platypus?

Hmmm, imagine if we fined for adultery? It's not exactly a victimless act when your spouse is doing it, you know? $500 for every offense would raise a lot of money.

JohnThinks should try reading the Constitution so he knows what the purpose of government is.

The comparison between Homosexuality and Bestiality is nothing new and not as absurd as it is being made out to be. Read about it.

The majority of the legal comparison of bestiality and homosexuality have to do with when the behaviors were made legal and illegal around the world. Most people, rightfully, are against bestiality. They say that humans can consent to homosexual sex, but, in some situations, so can animals - they don't always suffer. Further, what does animal consent matter? Animal abuse is a crime, but what defines animal abuse? Are the chickens being raised without the ability to walk so they grow nice and plump being abused? How about cows led to the slaughter for the next Whopper? Funny that consent doesn't matter much there.

Scalia is showing himself to be the outdated relic that he is...I'm certainly not betting on a 9-0 decision in any of the gay rights cases...his bigotry and unwillingness to grasp the arguments (even when they are squarely on point with issues of federalism) will ensure at least 1 vote against gay rights....He's been the most political member of the court the last 10 years, especially now that he is the longest serving on the court. Comparing sodomy to bestiality is completely absurd to the majority of people in America and itself is rarely seen as a moral issue anymore and its only an issue when gay people do it...but when straight people are butt screwing, its all good and moral.

His reductionist analysis is robotic at best and completely FAILS to understand the broader issue...if his theory of originalism is what we all should follow, why in the world do we need a court? Its already been spelled out for us bereft of the need for interpretation....again, robotic!! Yet, corporations are "people!!!?????" what???

There are people in America who don't believe in taking the life of an animal, particularly for consumption...is everybody forced to follow that line of morality? What is the morality of enshrining prohibitions of such things into law?

Now that the court has taken up two very big cases, Scalia's questions during oral arguments and dissent in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas will receive a lot of scrutiny and be seen as absolutely absurd...they are the same as the sky is falling arguments and fear mongering that flows from the wackiness of him and his ilk.

OK, first - I want to be clear that I'm not opposed to gay rights. Frankly, I don't even know why they are called 'gay rights', women didn't get "women's rights" during suffrage, and African-Americans didn't get "black rights" during emancipation - those were simply recognizing their pre-existing human rights.

However, that being said: I think that Mr Scalia's point was not necessarily that homosexuality and bestiality are equivalent, but rather that the argument that we shouldn't legislate things based on morality is a false argument. We have arbitrary morality laws all the time. It's rather arbitrary to say that people only should have one spouse, or that your spouse shouldn't be your sister or your son, or that your spouse shouldn't be 15 years old. In some countries, a 15 year old is considered (morally) legal and in our country it's considered (morally) wrong - but either way, these rules are rather arbitrary and are 'morality' based.

Again, don't get me wrong - I fully support gay rights (or human rights as I like to call them) - and I certainly am NOT equating an adult homosexual relationship to having sex with a 15 year old. What I am saying is that the laws making many things illegal - are already arbitrary, culture based, morality laws.

@Sarah - WRONG. We legislate morally based judgments about what is and is not legally acceptable behavior in the US. All legislation, and most obviously legislation defining crimes, by any government or group of people, are grounded in what they believe to be right and wrong behavior.

Some aboriginal groups in South America firmly and quite morally believed that murdering people from other groups and eating them was perfectly right and rational behavior. More ancient groups, Aztecs and Incas, in South America murdered people from their own populations and from other groups as sacrifices to their gods and deified leaders. Those behaviors were as codified in those populations as effectively as our method of codifying our moral beliefs in statutes. It wasn't until the arrival of Occidentals to South America that there was any change in the morality of murder, human sacrifice and canibalism.

If moral objections including outrage, have no relevance to legislation, then there will, effectively, be no legislation. This is the definition of total absolute anarchy and a total cessation of government. Note well that the reason governments come into being are to create social order and, ostensibly, create domestic tranquility. Justice is the governmental expression of social order and social morality. How well governments actually succeed depends very much on the form of government and the nature of the governing and governed.

One of the most egregious cases of a clash of morality based legislation and government behavior was Nazi Germany and Italy versus the rest of the Occidental countries. Nazi leadership had, for decades, promulgated their morality and, when political power came to them, they codified it and ran a government in accordance with it. The rest of the Occidental countries disagreed with Nazi morality with a morality of their own and put an end to it. Almost everything the Nazi leadership did in Nazi Germany was legal according to German law at the time including the worst of the genocidal murders. Occidental countries, however, brought a different law after the war and imprisoned and judicially killed those who their morality and law said should be imprisoned and judicially killed. Today, Occidentals are facing the same clash of morality and therefore what defines legality and justice with Islam and Middle Easterners. Sharia morality and law cannot and never will coexist with Occidental morality and law. War between the two groups is a near certain inevitability.

Although I would not have chosen Scalia's method of stating this, Scalia is fundamentally right about the principle of how morality is the most fundamental basis of all laws and justice. For the record, I DON'T share Scalia's position on homosexuality or the legal marriage between persons irrespective of their sex. That, by the way, is a moral position.

Jim,

While your post was an interesting philisophical read, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with our legal system. Nazi Germany, Occidental counties, Aboriginies??? Excellent distraction, though. Really.

None of that is relevant, and none of it is similar to our system of laws. I mean, not a damn thing you posted had to do with our legal system, its roots, how we operate it... Seriously, nothing. When our system is based off of the Aboriginees, than maybe you'll have a point. Until then...

If you were right, if Scalia's logic was right then...

I feel that the Kardashians are morally reprehensible. There's nothing in the Constitution about Keeping Up With the Kardashians being an inalienable right. I mean, if we can't attach moral outrage to that which we find reprehensible, where does it stop?

We became the most prosperous nation in the world there must be a reason. Our forefathers knew what they were doing.

It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington

We became the most prosperous nation in the world there must be a reason. Our forefathers knew what they were doing.

It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington

I suggest you read the 1st amendment of our constitution and it is THE FIRST amendment to our constitution. Our forefathers saw the dangers of Religion and said right off that the Church and State should be separate.

Quotes from the fore fathers aren't governing or legal documents. I mean, if they were that concerned about Christianity, the Bible, morality or God, don't you think they would have mentioned even ONE of those things in the document that's the supreme law of the land. You know, the Constitution.

ezas, none of your post is correct. The U.S. prospered AFTER WWII because every other industrialized nation was located in Europe and in shreds. The U.S. economy during the 1950s was rocky, the 1960s an economic boom but an anomaly that will never be seen in this or any other nation again. The U.S. had its moment, then began to falter in the 1970s.

FYI: GW was not well-respected for his orthodox views on religion or philosophy - that honor goes to agnostic Thomas Jefferson. GW was considered by the Founding Fathers to be a rather hyper religious fellow but a great general; he also had the smarts not to inflict himself and his personal beliefs on others.

That porcine Opus Dei Scalia (another messy but fabulously wealthy Reagan appointee) doesn't engage in sodomy is a loss for Mrs. Scalia. By now, she likely has many regrets. Also be aware that Scalia's son is a Roman Catholic priest; Scalia refused to accept Vatican II and adheres to the most conservative pre-1960s liturgy, part of which stems from the 1500s.

Tonykeywest: Really? By far, that is the most ignorant statement I've heard yet this week and trust me, you're in interesting company.

Here's a couple of other Washington gems:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause; and I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this kind."

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated."

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned."

Oh, and your quote is false:

• Washington is known to have made some official statements of public piety, but this is not one of them. Though this assertion is very widely reported to have been said in Washington's Farewell Address (17 September 1796), this is not actually the case, as any search of the documents would reveal. It has also been presented as having been part of his Proclamation on January 1, 1795 of February 19th, 1795 as a day of national Thanksgiving in this form:

It is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experienced. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to.

In the above paragraph the bolded portion appears to be entirely bogus, and there is no actual record of such a statement ever having been made by Washington.

Washington was also known to quote Voltaire: "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

@Ezra: Very dangerous to quote Washington with the intention of proving we are a nation built on religion or any one religion, since Washington -- a devoted Freemason -- was particularly eloquent in his defense of religious diversity. Much influenced by his Masonic principles, he wrote the celebrated and articulate letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport: "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.[..] while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

@littlechanges. Whereas I agree with your views, I don't think it is fair to denigrate Washington's opinions nor to accept Washington's over Jefferson's or vice verse. Both men were Christians in name only (if judged by today's fundamentalists) -- Jefferson might not have called himself a Christian at all -- but both men were solidly in favor of the separation of Church and State, as were almost all the Founding Fathers whose texts we still scan, searching for intent. Certainly it was Jefferson who promoted the Bill of Rights. But in any case, separation of Church and State has been the law of our land since the late 18th century. Some people STILL don't like it! But then, I think the Second Amendment was the biggest blunder Jefferson ever made. Neither one is getting repealed anytime soon.

Hey Ezas, I got a Founding Father quote for you, from Thomas Paine:

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man."

And another:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel "

but, in some situations, so can animals

Mike Jones... lololLOLlol

Animals are not capable of legal consent. They do not have the mental capacity, nor the legal standing of a person - much less an adult. That's the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.

Our laws are based on reason - not morality. Reason dictates what becomes law, and what is merely subjective bias. Moral things can become law, when reason substantiates them. One's sense of morality alone carries no legal weight whatsoever.



Nowhere in any government document does it say carnality or debachery is a right. However, legal contracts can infer cohabitation, which would also open up a wider range of issues. The road is wide, but the path is narrow. There is no such thing as a sexual minority. Special interest groups are seeking exemption and change of definition. P.S. Declaration of Independence and all the State constitutions mention God.

Sample of all fifty states: We,
the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our
constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our
government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee
equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this
constitution.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/god-constitutions.htm

We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution. I hope states rights are present in federal court. They should be by rule of law.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1849/full-text.htm

Maybe we can all stand under the Tree Flag of the United States of America and Appeal to Heaven for answers?

Christofascists like Bob would be happier living in a theocracy like Iran than a secular republic like America.

No wonder bigoted nutballs like Bob have consistently lost in court on the issue of gay rights.......they can't understand why their bible-babble is irrelevant to the court.

The Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of this country, Bob; the Constitution is. BTW, the DOI does not mention God; it mentions the "Creator" -- a deliberate use of that word so that each person could decide for him/herself who his/her "Creator" might be.

Moreover, the Constitution, which is THE governing document of this document, and supersedes ALL state constitutions, does not mention God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or deity. It also contains Article VI:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So you see, Bob, despite all those state constitutions in which the framers mention "God" so explicitly, they STILL must abide by the US Constitution, and keep religion out of government.

Not to mention, "God" could mean any number of deities. Holy @!$%#, Bob! What if Florida means the God Isis???

And you still haven't pointed out any in the document which supercedes all those state constitutions. You know, the one I originally asked Eza to find those words in.

skrekk: No where is it stated, sex is a right in law. Also aren't you leaving a lot of sexual practices in the closet that would theoretically be included in your supposed Gay rights? Christo the artist has wrapped up many things. Your insults and name calling reminds me of the the person running up to someone flailing there arms wildly, while barely causing injury. Since it didn't catch your attention, because you are to involved with your bigoted views on religion I will point out what is in post. I said it would be a contractual situation; not a constitutional one. You seek affirmation and absolution.

Many things can be unconstitutional. But what the Constitution DOESN'T do, is limit the rights of citizens. It limits the power of government. So I guess, technically, citizen's actions can be ILLEGAL, but not unconstitutional. And if the government wants to make a citizen's actions illegal, because THEY are limited by the Constitution, they have to follow both substantive and procedural rules. One of which, is to provide a damn good reason for limiting liberty.

They tried making citizen's behavior "unconstitutional" once and using it to limit liberty. It was called prohibition. How did that go over?

Also, it is impossible to enumerate everything you have a right to. If we did that, the Constitution would be a billion pages long and amended every five years or so. THAT'S what the 9th Amendment means. That just because something isn't specifically mentioned, that doesn't mean you don't have a right to it. Like privacy. You won't find the word "privacy" anywhere in the text, but the underlying concept of it can be interpreted to be included. And it has. MANY times.

Which means you DO have a right to privacy, and because of this the government needs a damn good reason to invade that privacy.

Perhaps you can answer my question (but more likely it will just be some cryptic, trying to hard to sound philosophical, mumbo jumbo), but let's try...

Would it be okay with you if the cops busted in your door and arrested you because they didn't like the type of consensual sex you were havin

State constitutions are irrelevant when they're trumped by the Federal Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.

Numerous SCOTUS cases have determined constitutional rights include the right to private consensual sexual relations.

Sara: Good Buddy; I made a statement you cannot accept. Why do I need to search for what has been said about an entirely different subject? Employing a new tactic of "just because it says that, it can mean this" is not worthy of your reputation as a liberal champion. Tree Flag superscedes 1775. A government endorsed banner, and a symbol of the new United States. P.S. If you need a deity I believe they have books on them you can pick one from. Florida as all other States were specific about theirs. "All Mighty God" That means the one and only, but you know this your as smart as a minority whip.

Employing a new tactic of "just because it says that, it can mean this"

Well, you know that is how the Judiciary Branch works. Interpreting the law, and all that. By the way, you want to look at Griswold v. Conetticut and Lawrence v. Texas.

I made a statement you cannot accept. Why do I need to search for what has been said about an entirely different subject?

Just answering your point about how "sex" is not listed as a right in the Constitution. Nice attempt at deflection.

"All Mighty God" That means the one and only,

Yes, the one and only Isis. Please show me in the FL Constitution, where it says the "Almighty God of Abraham".

P.S. A flag is not a governing document. You know what, do me a favor. Cite a "flag" as a legal authority in court. Please. Try to do this.

"All Mighty God"

Is a title given to numerous gods across numerous cultures. At no point is there evidence of this being the Christian god.

In addition, address my prior contention.

One other thing Homosexuality does not imply any specific style of sex. This is yet another form of deception that the anti-gay crowd uses to cloud the issue. Homosexuality means one and only one thing you are attracted to the same sex. How you express that attraction is quite varried and not defined by the term. Bob continues to try to win the argument using symantics instead of facts.

How you express that attraction is quite varried and not defined by the term.

Not to mention that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, can be totally abstinent or celibate.

On the contrary, what makes one a homosexual is the act. Otherwise they are just a friendly, gay person.

Where is that passage about sex in constitution? I am not suprised that you do not know God.

On the contrary, what makes one a homosexual is the act.

On the contrary, you are completely and utterly ignorant of reality. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Physical sex acts are not required.

P.S. You did pledge your allegiance to the flag of the United States of America didn't you? Have you any idea what that implies? All must do it to become citizens. I guess some on here hold themselves higher than than their country.

All: You are afraid and confused by the truth. Search your feelings, you know this to be true. Seperate the words to understand their meaning-Homo- human- Sexual-having to do with sex. I have heard all the arguments, but facts are facts.

P.S. You did pledge your allegiance to the flag of the United States of America didn't you?

Yep, using the original pledge, just like I swore into the military using the original oath.

Neither of which invoke a deity.

Seperate the words to understand their meaning-Homo- Human- Sexual-Having to do with sex.

Sexuality:

1. Capacity for sexual feelings.
2. A person's sexual orientation or preference.

Homosexual is a descriptor of an individual, which is derived from the full term homosexuality.

facts are facts

Of which you've provided none.

On the contrary, what makes one a homosexual is the act. Otherwise they are just a friendly, gay person.

That is completely wrong. The Catholic church in fact has recognized homosexuality for a very long time. Homosexuality is not considered a sin. It is specific acts that are considered sin. Homosexuality is defined by same sex attraction, nothing else. Again you use Orwellian logic to support your case by trying to redefine a term to your advantage.

You have made several deceptive statements and while you keep talking about God, you continue to break the 9'th commandment. That my friend is not only a sin, it is a sin specifically enumerated by God himself. God never spoke of homosexuality directly, neither did Jesus, but God did talk about deception. Deception is the tool of Satan not God and since you seem to keep using it in your arguments we must assume that while you may believe in God, God is not who you serve. You serve the deceiver.

We have been talking about contractual unions. Some believe they are being persecuted by religious fanaticism do to their inner prejudices. I could not have made it more simple for you, two words. You didn't question the first one Homo it is the second one you want so badly want to alter. Sexual! The meaning I told you is correct. Here is a reliable source to affirm that. P.S. Buddy, Sarah wanted enlightenment on flag; I obliged her. Sally you are in no position to cast stones.

sex·u·al
[ sékshoo əl ]

1. of sex: relating to sex, sexuality, or the sexual organs
2. relating to either sex: relating to the two sexes or to either of them
3. involving reproductive union: relating to the union of male and female gametes in reproduction

Synonyms: sensual, erotic, voluptuous, fleshly, carnal, sexy

of sex: relating to sex, sexuality, or the sexual organs

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. You just proved me right and you wrong.

bob -

@!$%# you and your @!$%#ing flag. I pledge allegiance to NO flag, nor to any God that was added as your parents were all in fear of those "Godless Commies." I don't give two wet rat farts whether or not you hold the flag as sacred. And, guess what? The Supreme Court agrees with me. Burning the flag is an act of Freedom of Expression, protected in the Constitution that has no mention of any god whatsoever, and the only mentions of religion are to restrict its influence from government and restrict government from influencing it.

And, I'm still a citizen, because I was BORN here, not because I recited a pledge that had no meaning to me when I was in elementary school. So no, people do NOT need to say the pledge of allegiance to become a citizen.

Finally, I point to the penumbra of protected rights held to be implied by the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, which give us the right to freedom of expression and conscience (so I don't have to believe in god or the eeeeeeeebil of homosexuality), the right to expect some privacy from the government without suspicion or proof of wrongdoing, the right to determine for myself what is okay to do with other consenting adults, freedom of association, the equal protection of the law regardless of political expression, etc.

And, since you want to paraphrase Star Wars (hey, you're learning, as that has had much more direct influence on me than the bible), well, strike down these privacy rulings, and we shall become more powerful than you could ever imagine.

P.S. You did pledge your allegiance to the flag of the United States of America didn't you? Have you any idea what that implies? All must do it to become citizens. I guess some on here hold themselves higher than than their country.

was born here so am a natural citizen and am not required to recite the pledge. I stopped saying it at school when I realized doing so was actually a violation of my religious beliefs against idolatry (I don't pledge allegiance to inanimate objects, not even as a symbol of my allegiance to my country).

Sorry Bob you're trying to redefine the term. Homosexuality is defined as sexual attraction to the same sex. It does not in ANY way define the method that such attraction is expressed.

Again if you can't be truthful with your definitions why should we consider your words? The only one you're going to convince is the choir, and they don't need convincing. When you play these transparent lawyer tricks, kind of like what Scalia did, you simply make yourself look foolish and dishonest and in fact only strengthen your opposition.

We can easily show the people who can be convinced that you are being intentionally and transparently deceptive. We can show that you continue to hypocritically violate your own religious doctrine. We can show that you hold others to a higher standard than yourself. So please continue because people like you are our most potent weapon against discrimination.

All: What I posted is correct. Having to do with sex. Jan: It is a pity so many like you have no love of their country. Saics: we established just the other day that you have no religious beliefs. You have read all of the sacred books and none equal your knowledge. Stally: There is not a new term for love, spiritual or otherwise. The moniker is imposed because of the act of carnality. P.S. Potent? Is that a joke? I have written in very basic speech without big words. I would not want to deprive you of a substantial response. I don't know whether you offend me or praise me with your religious denotations. I will let it pass though.

So all of the efforts and years of study put in by the medical and scientific communities have now been completely debunked and put in their collective place by...bob.

Let's just get rid of all the labs, think tanks, research centers, etc., and let bob decide what words mean, and what a "real" citizen is.

/s

Erin - apparently, according to Bob, knowledge is ignorance. He, like the GOP, absolutely rejects the reality-based community. It's only a matter of time before we hear that holding an opinion that runs contrary to his is an example of us violating his first amendment rights

They have made mistakes many, many times across the spectrum of scientific endeavors. Just recently they had to make use of Quantum mechanics to explain abnormalities. The continued search or reason for abnormalities will someday have the answer. But it is not this day. I have only offered my insight into the possibilities of abnormal behavior, activity performed or the acts of individuals.

Saics: I accept the compliment of you quoting me by saying "according to Bob", I didn't realize you held me in such high esteem.

All: What I posted is correct. Having to do with sex

Or sexuality.

By your own quoted definition.

You failed horribly.

Sexual is the word- Homosexual is the word. You need to add some letters to change meaning. This is the third time you have desperately tried to morph this word to fit your definition. If you persist in the Christian doctrine of people can love all their brothers and sisters without sexual thoughts, I will agree. Although the truth is self-evident on this word.

More Orwellian logic. You play with semantic instead of facts. It's clear you aren't actually interested in a rational discussion and that you have a bone to pick. What happened to you in July? Something seems to have ticked you off. Before then you couldn't care less about homosexuality. Then all of a sudden it seemed to become your mission. You had some good posts early on and now you just seem to be destroying your credibility with desperate semantic arguments hoping that you'll convince someone that the sky is green.

Here's the facts. Sexual attraction becomes fixed. Whether this is nurture or nature it doesn't matter. Once the mechanism kicks in it can't be undone. We call that homosexuality. That is the truth of the word and that's how it's used. Anything else is semantic masturbation. You add to the word to demonize it and slander a group of people which, my dear, does violate the 9'th commandment. So don't try to pretend you're a Christian when you purposely bend the truth and slander people.

There is no sex act that a homosexual couple can engage in that a heterosexual couple can't. In fact there are less sex acts available to a homosexual couple than a heterosexual couple. So this becomes a variable that gets canceled out. The only thing that is left is same sex attraction. That is the ONLY thing that different. You cannot include the morality of sodomy simply because it's not exclusively a homosexual act. You're applying a double standard. The question of sodomy has been legally answered and so has the question of same sex. Gay Marriage will not change any sexual behavior except to possibly make it more monogamous. It's astonishing to me that the right would actually try discourage monogamous behavior by denying marriage.

This is the third time you have desperately tried to morph this word to fit your definition.

No morph necessary.

You have been defeated by your own quoted definition.

You're a piss poor excuse for an Orwellian: the only person you're confusing is yourself.

bob -

Who said I don't love my country? I think the idea of a democratically-selected republic is probably the best idea that's come out yet. They still answer to the will of the people, but there's no mob justice, no mob control (at least theoretically), as the politicians are somewhat insulated. Moreover, I prefer the rule of law to a capricious monarch. One of my favorite parts in the Constitution, you know, that document that all citizens are supposed to uphold and that our entire military and diplomatic corps swear to defend? Yeah, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. Why do you hate the Constitution, bob? Are you *gasp* un-American? QUICK! Call HUAC!

Also, it's funny. You seem to describe "abnormalities" as "things I don't expect" or "things I disagree with." Well, homosexuality may be those, but it is not abnormal. It's seen in a range of animals across the spectrum. Whether it's evolutionarily advantageous or not, it's still part of nature. But, let me ask you this: if it is found that with proper hormone regulation during fetal development a baby's sexual orientation could be determined, what would that mean? Would all pregnant women be required to undergo such a treatment, in your eyes?

What if partly it is genetic, and the baby's proclivity towards homosexuality requires a different dosage, with some fetuses (maybe bisexuals, let's say) requiring less hormonal regulation while the Kinsey 6 fetuses need high levels of hormonal regulation. This could pose a significant risk to mother and child. Would the mother still be required to undergo the "therapy?"

What I hear on hear is a group filled with hatred against people who believe in god for no apparent reason, except to be vile and bigoted. I have not attacked your beliefs concerning your own sexual practices. I have questioned the illogical argument that sex is not the defining action which separates the groups. Never have I professed to represent Christians or any other but myself. It is my personal feeling that each time I post something that refutes homosexuality, I am attacked vigorously by members of a fairytale land. There is no scientific proof people are born gay. None. I think I will even give the definition:. an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse; Fairytale.

actually, bob, perhaps you should try on someone else's shoes and look at your posts and the responses objectively. what many people see is a group of people who believe in G-d and use that belief and a set of beliefs that come from certain religious denominations to show a vile obsessive hatred for gay people. You are so busy arguing your personal and religiously based problems with gay people and using those as an excuse why we should all deny gay people the same rights and protections that are supposed to be afforded to everyone under the 14th amendment. Those opposing you are pointing out that your beliefs (as just and correct as you believe them to be) are not justifiable or legitimate reasons to deny gay couples the same rights that straight couples have, especially since a state marriage license has absolutely nothing to do with the religious sacrament of marriage and SSM has no impact on your ability to adhere to your religion, no impact on your marriage (unless you fear that you and your wife are just bearding for each other and that once SSM is legal, your marriage will crumble because one or both of you would feel emboldened to get divorced and start searching for the same sex partner of your dreams). People can "refute" Christianity or any other religion and still allow those people to have the same rights as those who find those religions to be as false, unnatural and offensive as you feel homosexuality to be. You're just so busy attacking homosexuality that you're actually ignoring the issue at hand. You have every right to ignore and reject science, you have every right to practice your religion but the caveat is that your right to do those things is curtailed at the point in which it infringes on the rights of another to have and live according to their own beliefs.

Bob is quite laughable in his ability to defeat his own contentions.

What I hear on hear is a group filled with hatred against people who believe in god for no apparent reason, except to be vile and bigoted.

What an amazingly arrogant statement. My quarrel isn’t with people who believe in God. My quarrel is with your interpretation of God, which apparently you think is absolute and unquestionable. The problem is that only God can know the mind of God. In order for you to absolutely know what he knows you must be God, which I am pretty sure you aren’t. Therefore, you are committing a sin by indirectly claiming to be him.

I have questioned the illogical argument that sex is not the defining action which separates the groups

You’re arguments have been answered and you have replied with known logical fallacies. Sex does not separate the groups since both groups can and do engage in exactly the same acts. Therefore the variables cancel each other out.

There is no scientific proof people are born gay. None. I think I will even give the definition:. an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse; Fairytale.

There is mounting evidence and again this is a deceptive statement since science NEVER proves anything absolutely. What has been proven is that there are physical detectable differences in the brain between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Those differences appear to be immutable.

The fairytale is thinking that you can make an absolute statement about morality. The fairytale is thinking that you can speak for all people who believe in God. Note your first statement. The fairytale is thinking you can change minds with semantic arguments. The fairytale is thinking you are defending an entity that created homosexuality by persecuting his creations. The fairytale is thinking that you are serving God.

Saics: Here for awhile I thought you were perceptive. Not anymore. I insinuated religion, my argument has been and always ever will be the act is what defines sexual deviation. I defend the institutions built on morality as they are what made this country great. I oppose your insistence that all manner of copulation be regonized. I have said contractual unions should be the mode chosen. This is not acceptable to those who's only aim is to have future generations indoctrinated into a godless, sexually erotic society.

Godless as it pertains to morality. I have to explain these things so you do not believe me some type of prophet. I only use euphemisms to get a honest answer from the decievers, as Stally would say. It is quite funny how I have become a voice of reason in a tempest of malcontents.

P.S. Stally you have only talked at me. When you believe that projecting the statement I am wrong because you say so, that is not being very specific.

I thought I was straight forward on my responses, not like the ones I respond to that are almost always based on information gained from some warehouse of special knowledge devoid of common sense. I read this comment and I think, would I be offended by this statement? NAH! You are though aren't you?

my argument has been and always ever will be the act is what defines sexual deviation.

if it is the sexual act alone then I will, as others have, remind you that heterosexuals engage in similar acts of sexual immorality as a matter of routine and yet you limit your railing against homosexuality

I defend the institutions built on morality as they are what made this country great. I oppose your insistence that all manner of copulation be regonized.

again, heterosexual couples debase that institution of marriage with reckless abandon. nobody has asked, let alone insisted, that you recognize or approve of their copulation - not gay people, not straight people, not anyone except those with whom you copulate.

I have said contractual unions should be the mode chosen. This is not acceptable to those who's only aim is to have future generations indoctrinated into a godless, sexually erotic society.

unfortunately, the law does not allow for couples to contractually grant each all other the same rights that are given by the government when the state issues a valid marriage license. were that the case, there would be absolutely no need for the state to issue marriage licenses to anyone at all and all marriages could be the domain of individual churches/organizations.

The only reason sex is an issue is because zealots such as yourself, people who are convinced they are the only ones who truly understand morality and have the audacity to stand up as the arbiters of what is and is not moral & the conduit through which one can be moral insist on fixating on how people choose to have sex.

How would you know what I say about sexual assaults, sexual harassment or any other sexual related topic? All you ever do is pigeonhole people into little tiny boxes based on limited factual knowledge, preferring instead to be analytical and pompous. Deviate: look up the word. Again copulation when applied by law has a broad range, it not only includes those of the same sex, it opens the possibility for all groups equal rights. I know how much you guys like the literal meaning of things. Right! So what should happen is abolish the practice of government sponsored weddings and replace it with contractual law. That is what will be needed to appease all involved. Unless of course there is some other reason for the recognition of cohabitation arrangements? Which I believe there is by bantering back and forth with you for instance.

I don't think you even understand the problem, just hell bent on gaining open acceptance of any sexual lifestyle. I say again sexual is why it is a problem. The free'er that you are could not give two cents what anyone else thinks anyway, so why do you pretend. I might mention words like modesty, respect, temperance, and other words needed for a harmonious society, but you wouldn't understand as is evident of flamboyant displays of gay parades and challenging all institutions. Special rights that have not been earned nor deserved by any crafted speech by those here. To compare gay rights to womens sufferage or slavery is pushing the envelope to extremes. I guess you really do have to put words in my mouth, because most of the time you make remark and comment on that. TRUTH!

what do sexual assaults or sexual harassment have to do with this? I was referring to heterosexual couples who engage in the same acts of sodomy you rail against gays for engaging in; heterosexuals also engage in some pretty wild non-procreative kink that would make some of the folks you think are deviant cringe due to the level of sexual deviance and immorality. I'm not pigeonholing anyone; if you've been pigeonholed, you've done it to yourself by focusing on various acts of sex (some might even say your fixation on how others have sex rises to the level of deviance). I don't know what you have against being logical and using one's analytical skills but just because you are offended by my ability to think critically and respond to what you are saying doesn't mean I'm being pompous.

I don't think you even understand the problem, just hell bent on gaining open acceptance of any sexual lifestyle. I say again sexual is why it is a problem. The free'er that you are could not give two cents what anyone else thinks anyway, so why do you pretend. I might mention words like modesty, respect, temperance, and other words needed for a harmonious society, but you wouldn't understand as is evident of flamboyant displays of gay parades and challenging all institutions

I understand full well what the problem is and that's the pathological fixation on how others have sex. Seriously, the last thing I want to know about anyone (other than my husband) is the details of their sex life. I don't want to know about that from my straight friends or my gay friends. You, on the other hand, seem to turn a blind eye at the lack of modesty and temperance of straight people acting as if only gay people can be flamboyant or get rowdy. Of course none of this fits the narrative you've created and it certainly doesn't fulfill your desire to vilify people about whose sex lives you obsess. I'm not sure whether your obsession is a subconscious but voyeuristic way for you to get your rocks off or just a form of self-aggrandizement coupled with putting others down to handle whatever insecurities you have but I'd guess it's a little of both.

Now that is so far out in left field. I explain something as a deviation from the norm. You using so called skills imply I am fixated on the ACT. When the truth is the ACT in itself is why the term homosexual. I have not spoken of any specific ACT or sexual position, it is you that wants that stated so you may cry indignation. Not going to happen. I have used proper decorum on here without having felt the need to be descriptive nor imply what is done in ones own bedroom. Gay or straight. I am not under the impression religion has been government sponsored, I do feel the erosion of civility and societal harmony is being attacked to promote a secularist attitude to the detriment of benevolent considerations in government. If the government needs to evolve, it must do so in a way that is not transcendental, which is what we have now. What or where do you prefer the country to go, and with what values or morals? I would like to read again the charter of the new age. That I might respond to that also.

I explain something as a deviation from the norm.

Normal is irrelevant. Extraordinary is not normal. Einstein was not normal. Evolution constantly creates abnormalities that end up becoming dominant because they create an evolutionary advantage. Normal is not enough to determine if something is good or bad.

What or where do you prefer the country to go, and with what values or morals? I would like to read again the charter of the new age. That I might respond to that also.

Faith and belief by their definitions are things that cannot be proven. Faith and belief are personal choices I make to run my life. No one has a right to tell you what to believe or to alter your behavior unless they can demonstrate harm to society. Decisions cannot be made based on a single religious belief by a government that has to represent a variety of dogmas. We all are secular creatures and if you do believe in God you cannot deny the fact that he created a pretty complicated and discoverable universe. He has given us all the tools we need to discover the universe in a secular way. There was no reason for him to do that. When I create a computer simulation I don’t have to create DNA. If the only way you can justify your morality is through a book, then you haven’t looked hard enough or you’re wrong.

When you look at things from a secular level and even religious level, you need to make sure you have the problem right. Reality will not be coerced. If you fight it, it will kick your butt. So you have to be honest with your arguments and constantly question yourself as to whether or not your objectivity is clouded. Logic and Reason give us the checks we need to make sure we continue to walk a rational path in line with reality. HIV was deemed to be a gay disease and because of that the religious right did it’s best to hamper research and in doing so condemned many to death. The fact is that HIV transmission is not exclusive to homosexuality. Its transmission is caused by promiscuity. Assuming the latter endangers a huge part of our population who thinks they are safe because they are not engaging in homosexual sex. We will most likely find other sexuality transmitted diseases in the future and if we have learned the wrong lessons, they will decimate us. Gay marriage is a step in the right direction. It is an attempt to promote monogamy. Obviously it won’t be 100% successful, but it makes the point. It is in fact step closer towards morality not a step further.

Finally, I’m kind of surprised that you would fall for such a transparent trick. When a government or organization can’t solve problems, it creates witches to burn. It blames all its failures on the witches so that it can distract its population from the truth. You seem like a smart guy, I am surprised you would fall for such a ruse.

Ruse no; Standards yes. Do you object to a standard and if you do; what would the logical replacement be? Specifics please. To remake the idealogical ideals of a country the cessation of the first must end. I know what that implies. Will you give an accurate unvague description of this new mindset?

Do you object to a standard

If the standards are arbitrary and have no scientific basis then I object to them. Science and logic are universal mechanisms to discover the truth. If you cannot use them then you have no common way communicate your ideals. In a sense you're speaking a foreign language. If you start off with the premise that God exists and I don't believe in your God then your argument has already started off with an unsupportable premise.

what would the logical replacement be?

This is not a replacement, it really is how things are supposed to work. Standards should be understood, explainable and based on empirical evidence and logic. To forbid a specific act one must measure the act against the harm it does to society. If the act is detrimental to society and harm can be demonstrated through empirical evidence, then society has a right to enact laws against the behavior or to enact programs to change it.

Murder can be shown to have a detrimental effect on society. So can bestiality, pedophilia, rape and incest. We enact laws against them. Homosexuality cannot be show by itself to be detrimental. All arguments on the subject have failed. The only arguments left are religious, half truths, factual misrepresentations as well as blatant lies.

Promiscuity and unsafe sex are the primary mechanisms for the spread of STI's. Promiscuity and unsafe sex are prevalent in both the heterosexual and homosexual populations. Creating laws against them are nearly impossible. Your best bet is to try to change human behavior. One mechanism to do this is to create the institution of marriage. Marriage does nothing to promote or discourage homosexual behavior. All it does is to encourage monogomous behavior making society slightly safer.

If you look at the Bible and measure it based on the time it was written most of its laws could be explained using secular arguments. However, since times have changed and we are no longer have the society we did 2000 years ago many of the premises that fed those arguments no longer apply. We can eat pork and shellfish because we know how to manage the risk. At 7 billion people it's no longer necessary to be fruitful and multiply. Slavery is no longer necessary or acceptable.

Now that is so far out in left field. I explain something as a deviation from the norm. You using so called skills imply I am fixated on the ACT. When the truth is the ACT in itself is why the term homosexual. I have not spoken of any specific ACT or sexual position, it is you that wants that stated so you may cry indignation.

so, basically Bob, you find being "normal" and "moral" so important that you limit your scorn for sexual "deviation" and "sexual immorality" to gay people but give straight people a pass for any sexual deviation and immorality because they're straight. You're a funny (and all to typical) little hypocrite.

Well I offered a logical option, you still choose marriage. AGENDA!

Saics again you try to put words in my mouth so that what I explain coincides with your response. Deviate from sexual norm means all ACTS done involving sex. It is as I have foreseen; you cry indignation.

P.S. The constitutional collection of laws from that day til this had no reference to the golden rule or biblical scripture? Is that your contention? If so what is your new charter? The new Mayflower compact. I did not dispute practice only definition of practitioner. Yet it is so offensive to practitioners to admit to the ACT which defines their label.

The only arguments left are half truths, factual misrepresentations as well as blatant lies.

Well I offered a logical option, you still choose marriage. AGENDA!

Ummm, ultimately that's the point of this thread and you haven't actually offered any responses. You've just said "No it isn't"

End marriages...Contractual unions are you deaf? I wrote this 4 times I think. Agenda means personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias. Which you demonstrate time and again. Most talk at me or try to put words in my mouth to bolster their own viewpoints. I have also countered all of your type of arguments using non-religious answers. That is the truth, so who is lying in these discussions.

Agenda means personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias. Which you demonstrate time and again.

Everybody demonstrates that. You in particular. You have an Agenda that's obvious. I have an agenda as well, but mine directly affects me. You haven't demonstrated how it affects you. It seems that all you're doing is pandering to an ideology and to your God.

I have also countered all of your type of arguments using non-religious answers. That is the truth, so who is lying in these discussions.

Not really. All your arguments are based on religious morality. You're good at playing with words, you're not so good with the facts or the debate.

Golden rule-common sense. I have given many reasons, I guess the clouds and wind up there on your mountain makes it difficult to see and hear. A country without beliefs and direction cannot exist for long. Tell me of the new age of wisdom you know. I am very good with facts, they repudiate bias studies and hypothesis as fact. When a fact is presented I will yield. How does someone else's love life affect you?

Golden rule-common sense. I have given many reasons, I guess the clouds and wind up there on your mountain makes it difficult to see and hear.

I have heard it and I responded to it. I might be wrong, that's why I went into great detail explaining myself. I am still waiting for a reply and none has been given. A debate is not just a single person expressing an idea and then walking off. A debate is a discourse where both parties are participating in the discussion. Every time someone challenges your assertion you play the victim instead of discussing it. No sir, the arrogance is yours thinking I should accept what you say without challenge or question.

A country without beliefs and direction cannot exist for long.

We do have beliefs and direction. They are just different from yours and that seems to be the point of contention. It's fine to be frustrated that the country isn't going in the direction that you want but to suggest that it has no direction, beliefs or morals because of that is disingenuous.

Tell me of the new age of wisdom you know. I am very good with facts, they repudiate bias studies and hypothesis as fact. When a fact is presented I will yield.

You may be good with facts, but it's logic that elude you. Without logic facts are useless.

How does someone else's love life affect you?

It doesn't which is exactly why all of this should be a non-issue.

A long post of avoidance to idea of contractual unions instead of marriage. Why don't you enlighten me in words what those "morals" are and where they came from? Beliefs, I'll yield on that, it is subjective, but morals? I would like to hear this one. P.S. What other than contradictions have you said to warrant a rebuttal? Mayflower?

A long post of avoidance to idea of contractual unions instead of marriage.

Really I couldn't care less what they're called as long as they're treated equally under the law.

Why don't you enlighten me in words what those "morals" are and where they came from?

I did, you just didn't like the answer.

Beliefs, I'll yield on that, it is subjective, but morals?

Morals? Easy ... Mark 12:31 Love thy God and Love thy neighbor. There is no law greater than these

P.S. What other than contradictions have you said to warrant a rebuttal? Mayflower?

I've already stated them in previous posts. If you're going to disrespect me by not reading my posts, then I will return the favor by not repeating them.

End marriages...Contractual unions are you deaf?

No reason to: marriages are already contractual unions.

Why don't you enlighten me in words what those "morals" are and where they came from?

I have one for you: humanism.

Shorter bob -

"Dammit, I'm right, because I say I'm right. No, don't look at that over there, that's wrong. Why? Because I don't agree with it. History? What is this mythical realm you live in? I'll tell you REAL, MURIKAN history. And it's right. Because I say so. How do I know? We're here, right? And my explanation is the only thing that lines up with the 'facts' I give. No, don't research into them, I'm right and that's all you need to know. Dammit, I said I'm right, why do you keep asking questions? Are you a gay commie? Do you like pink and not have ovaries? This is moral, dammit! Why are you all laughing at me? Clearly, I have blown your minds with my superior analytical assessments. No? What is it then? I'm stupid? Can't be, because I say I'm not. See, I even type in sentences and don't continually use capslock. Oooooh, you called me a bad name for no reason. No, being a gay-bashing piece of excrement isn't a reason. Because I said so."

And on and on and on. It's like a Gish Gallop, only even dumber.

In real news, geneticists believe they have found the cause of sexual determination. Though it is related to genetics, they think the pattern fits more with epigenetics, and, oddly enough, is passed more often from father to daughter and mother to son than any other arrangement. Really interesting to those people on this thread not named "bob." Use some Google-fu and find it for yourselves. They haven't done the hardcore research yet, but now they have a better idea of where to look. Oh, and one more thing: this model shows that determination of sexual preference is linked to embryonic development, and is unaffected by any means once the child is past a certain stage.

Jan: When you gather up your facts and can articulate them in a coherent way I will gladly debate them. The world is not all there is and life exist in many forms. Genetics is in its infancy and the old adage is you only get back what you put into it and who organizes the results. I have followed Geo for at least twenty years and have a good understanding of the input of billions of genetic markers being interpreted by individuals depending on programs written by other individuals who may or may not have the correct information from real, actual, hard evidence. There seems to be no end to the people with delusions of grandeur who will relentlessly pursue recognition of their theories. Their called scientists, not the infallible.

P.S. Let us call them contractual unions.

P.S. Let us call them contractual unions.

I'm afraid marriage still fits.

Jan: When you gather up your facts and can articulate them in a coherent way I will gladly debate them.

LOL, Bob, you haven't debated the facts yet. You've simply made a statement and avoided responding to a rebuttal. You've repeated this over and over to avoid actually debating the issue. Orwell would be proud of you.

This is why conservatives are lossing the argument. They have developed so many ways to cheat that they've forgotten how to debate. It's no longer enough to say "You're a liberal so you suck!" You actually have to put facts together, tie them with logic and when someone challenges your response you respond to the challenge. Here's a hint, "YOU'RE WRONG!" is not a good response.

I'm afraid marriage still fits.

NO IT DOESN'T!

There Bob, I saved you the response.

Their (sic) called scientists, not the infallible.

That is the definition of Science. It's never 100%. Neither is religion even though it claims otherwise. You stated the obvious thinking it makes your point. It doesn't. Show some conflicting scientific data and reasons why Jan's statement might be incorrect and then you've actually said something important. Of course if you do then I will take my next move and show that it's not relevant to the argument. Debate is a game of chess, but you like to reset the pieces every time you realize you've been mated.

They haven't done the hardcore research yet" There ya go! Her own words. Why with all the need for cures of sickness and disease would any ethical researcher spend time on genetic disposition for homosexual behavior? Could it be someone with vested interest in validation of their practice of said actions? That would be a biased, and in all probability the results skewered to fit hypothesis. See first sentence. In my answer there were a billion if not more reasons to contradicte. Get back to me after you study what moves have been made and who cowers behind non-factual information. P.S. Since you have no idea what she is talking about, those studies began over two years ago. Seek and you shall find.

P.S.S. An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible. There is hope!

Again Bob write a lot but say little. You string a bunch of words together but they lack any coherent meaning. You still dodge the questions and haven't replied to any of the rebuttals. You have just constantly said over and over "No it isn't"

In my answer there were a billion

Yet if there were actually billions, I would have at least expected to see at least one great rebuttal.

Get back to me after you study what moves have been made and who cowers behind non-factual information.

Why on earth would I waste my time trying to find facts for you? In what universe do you think you're that important? If the information is non-factual then it's easily disputed but yet you post no rebuttal. Bob, you're good with language but poor with logic. Your purpose here is simply to provide an example to the generations to come on how one uses Orwellian logic to deceive.

We are now in a world where "Ahh Bach!" is not good enough. You need to try harder.

P.S.S. An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible. There is hope!

This just goes to show how little you know of the study of epigenetics.

Get back to me after you study what moves have been made and who cowers behind non-factual information.

Been there, done that, shown its you. Peer-reviewed and scientifically sound studies do not support any of your logic.

Allswell, that's "logic"???

Approximately 50% of marriages between heterosexual couples ends in divorce...and then they marry again, a few years later they divorce and marry again... If marriage is so sacred, then why is this legal? Oh we can't curb others freedom, right? Then, how can we deny same sex couples the same freedom to chose who they want to marry? Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples?

bob (and others) -

Firstly, not a woman. Got guy parts. Please refer to me as "he" from now on.

Secondly, wut? The study I saw claimed that an epigenetic problem occurs in the womb, and the fetus' ability to counter the mother's output of estrogen (for a boy) or testosterone (for a girl) was depleted, or incorrectly expressed. Of course, there could be a million reasons for that, but they claim the mathematics and heritability issues work. Now, the question is, when does this happen? If it's early in development, then you would not be able to provide the "cure" unless you force every woman to undergo amniocentesis to determine the sex of the baby, then force them to have the fetus injected with the proper levels of hormones. Somehow. We don't really have the technology for it, but it could be theoretically possible. The second option is that it occurs later in development (IMO, unlikely as the hormones would have less effect because much of the brain is already wired up at this point). Then you'd still have to force women to inject their fetuses with hormones. If we can find the right balance.

And that's if they're correct. A lot of people are saying that they probably aren't, mostly because they only have phenotypical patterns to work off of, and haven't done the genetic research. Of course, the question isn't who's going to do a meta-study on genetical make-ups of homosexuals versus heterosexuals, because just about any scientist would love to have that job. It's useful a lot outside even studies of humans because homosexuality seems to be a constant at least across mammals, and birds, and other species, orders, families of the animal kingdom. It would further our understanding of genetics and heritability, further our understanding of our own genome, etc. Your remark that nobody would bother with the research since there are still diseases to cure (aside: when will there not be?) is ludicrous. Particularly with your claim that "there is a cure!" down the road. I mean, seriously, do you ever listen to yourself? Or are you the only person you listen to?

Sarah

If the only reason the cops had for busting down my door was the consensual sex I was having, I would be at fault for not first ensuring my privacy and not causing the public to become a party to the sex act; closing the curtains.

Janstince,

You do realize that, while epigenetics may activate in the womb, the epigenetic modifiers predate insemination, right?

@ denver bill 2

Your political astuteness isn't at the level you seem to think it is if you don't get DB17's comment.

Laura,

I have never claimed to be politically astute. I understood the comment. I was merely poking fun at the narrow-mindedness behind it.

Missed that one entirely didn't you denver, how astute you must be

The usual democrat ideology of "think the way I do or I hate you and you're dumb". Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and equally as long as they think the way dems do.

actually G_Rock you seem to be using the word democrat where the word religious fundamentalist applies. We democrats don't care if you hate gay people or people who reject your Christianity and fundamentalist Christian views; we don't care if you want to eject those with whom you disagree out of your personal lives and hold them in low esteem. We do, however, care when you think your personal moral opinions should be permitted to infringe on the freedoms and well-being of others just because you don't like those others and disagree with their opinion on how to lead their lives. We'll defend your religious freedom of expression up to the point where your free exercise impinges on the religious freedom of others. We may think you're dumb and would rather you not be allowed to raise children to be like you but, unlike you, we don't demand the right to prevent you from doing so just because it offends our moral sensibilities.

DB whether you or others like you agree or not, the United States is full of christians that have a right to their "backward" way of thinking and life. Because you disagree does not make you right. The thought of rights and where they stop and start works both ways.

SAICS,

we don't demand the right to prevent you from doing so just because it offends our moral sensibilities.

That is just not true! Gets hidden behind things like "seperation of church and state."

Scalia has already made an opinion about an upcoming Supreme Court case and therefore he needs to either Resign from the bench, Be impeached (Which would had happened if this had happened in the 1970's) or recluse himself from ALL Gay issue rulings.

And thats my opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States and the upcoming Presidential appointments are as important to the future of the United States and the world as any other issue, PERIOD!

If you do not understand this, you are in dire need of an education.

SAICS, incredibly well said! You hit the nail on the head. I want to hug you. It takes a serious mental midget not to get the very basic fact that although we may disagree with one's opinions, life style choices, etc..., it's not at all the same thing as supporting folks like Scalia who would seek to deny people fundamental freedoms because he is Catholic and disagrees with their choices. It warms my heart to hear reasonable, rational people like you articulate the point so well. Sometimes, it's easy to feel that we are in the minority. But then I remember that Obama was reelected and I'm encouraged all over again. Maybe those with irrational arguments on such subjects as these are truly going the way of the dinosaurs.

All the criticism misses the point of Scalia's argument. Scalia isn't equating sodomy with beastiality, he's pointing out that a state in both cases has the right to legislate based on moral objections. It was a poorly chosen comparator, and I understand why some would (mistakenly) assume that he was equating one ACT with the other ACT, but those people just don't understand the legal analysis. He's equating one LAW with another LAW. The argument is not the same.

Full disclosure: I have no objection to homosexuality and disagree with the Texas law (which is a different debate than whether the law is constitutional).

Be wary of how you cast a vote, and agreed "Obama" does represent the people in some respects, he did post on the Whitehouse website just following election 08 that he is pro-gay, by claiming his administration would serve the community. HOWEVER-Bill Clinton is the reason DOMA exists, DOMA The Defense of Marriage Act was signed and made federal law by Clinton-prohibiting "gays" from marrying- he also was considered lame on DADT. I, at one time believed that Madonna had the best interest of the gay community at heart-not so. Not only have I never heard her loud mouth political rants attacking Clinton, she endorses him, and has swayed my opinion numerous times-and while she claims to support "Obama"-she raises money for Mitt Romney whom also railed against gay rights and marriage, I find her current tirades to be an intentional deterrent from whats really occurring with "them" in private meetings, if you do not think this is true, go to Wikipedia and look at/up Bain Capital and read about its acquisitions, Live Nation, Clear Channel and Warner Music Group are owned by Bain Capital, which means every time Madonna earns millions using gay people and artists to collect dime, she lines the pockets of Romney and the Mormon Church. Not only this but the Democratic tool also has an interesting website dedicated to her if one goes to Google and enters the words "Many Artists Madonna Stole From" it will pull a search result to a website which details copyright infringement suits and a long assortment of content showing side by side images of whom she ripped off over the course of the years-basically she uses the gay community and arts for self means, I know she loathes "hydrangea's" when she was captured insulting a fan for giving her flowers, and her brother was homeless last year. In short be wary of Democrats, they are great in theory-its unfortunately quite different it seems on paper. Obviously the predicament and loss of communities can be turned into a profit making scheme for those whom retain a sizable income from circumstances. Bill Clinton is also responsible for creating the monopoly in the music business when he altered anti-trust laws with radio ( The Telecommunications Act of 1996)

SAICS

I think i have to call BS on this one, for example

Gays suing to join the boy scouts,

Females suing to join the Citadel,

While I kind of understand what your trying to say, your acertation that; "we don't care if you want to eject those with whom you disagree out of your personal lives and hold them in low esteem."

So why do so many keep trying to inject themselves into other peoples lives? If an organization is openly frank about who (what type of people) they want as members then why does the left continually try to force them to accept people that they do not want?

and as for your ascertation that

"We'll defend your religious freedom of expression up to the point where your free exercise impinges on the religious freedom of others. We may think you're dumb and would rather you not be allowed to raise children to be like you but, unlike you, we don't demand the right to prevent you from doing so just because it offends our moral sensibilities."

Then please explain why the nativity scenes in some cities were blocked because of athiests, and why many athiests are conducting an outright war for the eradication of anything christian.

Overall your argument makes sense but to say that only Christians or right wingers do it is in fact false, both sides do it to each other on a whole host of issues. If we as a society total disregard our moral opinions, then where exactly do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

Cheers

Look no further than the comment made by IthinkObamasucks to see the level of mental midgetry that I was speaking of. She is so inarticulate that she can only post one word on the subject that she surely means to be an insult but the true insult is on her. She doesn't have the ability to even argue coherently, so she just calls names. (I'm assuming it's a male but I choose to refer to IthinkObamasucks as a female, because I'm guessing the mental midget would find that to be insulting!)

qmcs(ss)? Their stupid filters mad this lower case. Vine, military rates are upper case.

That is just not true! Gets hidden behind things like "seperation of church and state."

TXHorseman - did you not understand what I meant by "we don't demand the right to prevent you from doing so just because it offends our moral sensibilities." or are you seriously deluded into thinking the democrats/liberals prevent those in the religious right from getting married and raising their children as fundamentalist Christians? If you believe the latter, please show me evidence of attempts by heathen secularists and other non-Christians at legislation to ban Christians from marrying. adopting children and/or raising children.

Darren9 - I agree with you that he is making statement that a state has the right to legislate based on moral objections. That is definitely true. I also agree that he is not equating the acts of homosexual sodomy and beastiality. However, they can be equated. They are both sick disgusting perversion. And society has an obligation to rid itself of these perversions.

If same sex marriage is approved the world will not end. It will be an interesting experiment in equlity and social justice to follow.

By following the existing laws, most states will allow adults to marry children of the same sex as defined as those individuals under the age of 18.

e.g. In CA: The age of consent is eighteen. With parental consent, there are

no age limits regarding the minimum age for a "couple" to marry.

In DE: The age of consent is eighteen. Males can marry under the age of eighteen with parental consent.
In IL: The age of consent is eighteen. With parental consent, parties can marry at age sixteen. If parents refuse to consent,

judicial consent may be obtained on behalf of the parties.

These laws vary by state, which is a state's right, I suppose...unless the Supreme Court rules that they fall under a federal standard.

Maybe they will rule that the CA standard prevails in all states ?

Interestingly, many states allow "females" to marry at 14 or sixteen with parental or judge consent. That brings up a new issue of sexual designation or discrimination by sex doesn't it ?

I foresee "judge shopping" for a sympathetic hearing by some motivated same sex couples, even those with vastly disparate ages, don't you ?

Navy,

then where exactly do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

Thank you, well stated.

TabascoEd calls names with nothing to back up his ridiculous claims other than "it's my opinion". You know what they say about opinions Ed. And just why are you so preoccupied with what consenting adults do? Enough to log on here and spout your ignorant, backwards hate. Could it be that you are more intrigued and turned on by the idea of gay sex than you're willing to admit? That's really the only thing that makes sense. Look, whatever you get up to behind closed doors would no doubt repulse me and the majority of people, but have at it! And have fun as long as you're not forcing yourself on someone. The guy who protests to loudly and too often is always the one who we find out in the end is into some twisted, perverted stuff. You TabascoEd, are that guy!

See you in the airport bathroom, tabasco, you sound hot.

Well tabasco, numerous study have shown that the most virulent homophobes were in large part homosexuals who grew up in environments where they could only repress their urges.

I personally don't care if someone thing I'm gay, why should I ? I'm very confident in my sexuality and have no doubt about my sexual orientation. You have to be a very fragile individual to feel threatened to the point of "decking" someone who call into question your sexual orientation.

K.Drone:

HOWEVER-Bill Clinton is the reason DOMA exists, DOMA The Defense of Marriage Act was signed and made federal law by Clinton-prohibiting "gays" from marrying-

Let me remind you that it wouldn't make a difference for Clinton. DOMA passed with 2/3 of both houses, therefore he could not veto the law, even if he wanted.

Tabasco Ed, the ignorance in that statement is mind boggling. You are the only one that is calling names.

You clearly have no clue about what constitutes discrimination.

@DB17 - and so your superior intellect has you sitting on the Supreme Court instead of Scalia.

Just because you (and I) don't have the same morality as Scalia about homosexuality and legal marriage between person irrespective of their gender doesn't mean Scalia is wrong about how morality is the fundamental basis of all law, legislation, justice and court judgments. You and Scalia both have positions from different moralities. Scalia's morality is, at present, a lot more unpopular than yours. However, 50 years ago, the situation was totally reversed in this country and laws from that period mostly reflected the moral consensus at the time, just as they mostly do today.

Morality, including outrage, is the reason we consider murder nearly the most egregious crime in this country followed closely by rape, kidnapping, torture and other commonly held to be reprehensible and malevolent behavior. In other countries tribes and groups, though, morality, including outrage, is nearly non-existant for most of the behaviors just listed in certain circumstances, e.g. when done to people with whom the country is at war because they are considered to be morally acceptable methods of waging war.

Navy - sorry for the delayed response, I just saw your comment

Gays suing to join the boy scouts,

Females suing to join the Citadel,

While I kind of understand what your trying to say, your acertation that; "we don't care if you want to eject those with whom you disagree out of your personal lives and hold them in low esteem."

So why do so many keep trying to inject themselves into other peoples lives? If an organization is openly frank about who (what type of people) they want as members then why does the left continually try to force them to accept people that they do not want?

the boy scouts doesn't officially claim to be a religious organization and they do get some public funds (boy scouts have sued municipalities to provide them with public meeting space, sometimes at discounted rates, despite the organization's discriminatory policies being in violation of the municipalities policies/laws. What do females suing to enroll at military schools have to do with morality/religion?

"We'll defend your religious freedom of expression up to the point where your free exercise impinges on the religious freedom of others. We may think you're dumb and would rather you not be allowed to raise children to be like you but, unlike you, we don't demand the right to prevent you from doing so just because it offends our moral sensibilities."

Then please explain why the nativity scenes in some cities were blocked because of athiests, and why many athiests are conducting an outright war for the eradication of anything christian.

It's not just atheists who have a problem with overt religious symbols on public lands. There is no need nor is there a justifiable and legitimate purpose to have overt displays of religion on public land, the only purpose for "Christians" to demand them is to figuratively mark said public land as their territory. The government is not supposed to establish or endorse religion, a nativity on public land isn't just an establishment of religion, it lends the appearance of an overt endorsement of a particular religion and the notion of Jesus as divine, in particular. Demanding a display of a nativity on public land has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with posturing.

Overall your argument makes sense but to say that only Christians or right wingers do it is in fact false, both sides do it to each other on a whole host of issues. If we as a society total disregard our moral opinions, then where exactly do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

nobody is saying you can't have your moral opinions what they're saying is that you can't impose them or force others to partake of them (even passively) without their consent. The actions of atheists and other "secularists" (which include an awful lot of people of faith) are a reaction to the increasingly strong-arm tactics of the Christian orthodoxy and the arrogance of Christian privilege. Understand that your belief in Jesus as the lord and savior is as much a mockery of my beliefs as my rejection of Jesus as messiah

I should point this out- this is just one of many issues where Scalia, Alito, Thomas et al are either wrong, or have zero business thinking they have jurisdiction. Keep your personal (and especially nonsensical religious) beliefs out of the court room.

Scalia only thinks he's brilliant. His 'reduction to the absurd' argument doesn't stand in the sodomy case, an is merely an effort to deflect from the actual issue.

Aaron, how witty you are - at least in your mind. Scalia and you share something in common, namely you both come off as condescending narcissists blinded by the light of your own penumbra.

So where is the logic that it is wrong?

So, do you and Scalia also oppose "sodomy" between heterosexual adults?

Very good observation Severed, the hypocracy from the right is never ending!!!

Aaron shows his ignorance as many of the backward hardcore conservatives are doing. Is physical sex the only thing that defines your heterosexual relationship? Chances are not, and if it does then you are not living like the conservatives you are supposed to be. So if sex isn't the only thing that defines your relationship, why do you assume that sex is the only thing a gay couple has in theirs?

The logic is wrong, because he isn't considering a compelling government interest, or taking into effect the reasonings behind beastiality laws.

Beastiality is illegal because animals don't have the ability for informed consent. They can't say, "Yeah, let's do it". And because of that we have laws protecting them. Much like children. It's harmful to animals and society for us to go around screwing them. It's the same reason they can't get mortgages, or checking accounts, or enter into ANY type of contractual agreement.

Adults, with legal capacity for informed consent, also have more rights then those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Once of those rights is privacy, which the court has interpreted the 4th and 9th Amendments to protect. Put informed consent together with a right to privacy and government needs a compelling interest to intrude. There is none. Two men or two women, who give informed consent, can have sex all they want. It's nobody's business unless a crime where some harm is done, is committed.

Aaron,

At the risk of inviting creepy comments from creepy internet people....

You've never had a blow job?

that is the fundamental problem with the militants pushing the pro-homosexual agenda. tolerance of homosexuality by society is not enough, these militants demand society accept and validate their self-destructive lifestyle choice. its never going to happen and the sooner they come to grips with that the sooner they can move on with their lives albeit however morally bankrupt those lives are.

@Uncle - Nobody is forcing you to like, promote, participate in, or go out of your way to be extra nice to gay people.

We just want the country to give gay people equal rights, which includes the ability to have a consensual marriage to whom they choose (which is a right outlined in the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights").

Aaron - Great post.

No, UNCLE Henry-no one cares what you, a bigoted, religiously controlled living in a trailer sheep thinks-gays demand full equality-who cares what you or your ilk accept? and they will get full rights-even Roberts will vote for equality-watch and see, bigot

Sorry, Uncle Henry, but you're out of touch and completely wrong. Society is coming closer and closer to the realization that what two adults do in a relationship is of no concern to the rest of us and it's time for the government and religious based policies to reflect that. There's no more self desctruction in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual.

Your entire statement exposes you as totally in the dark.

obviously you do care NORMAN or you wouldnt be in such a tizzy right now. tissue?

Aaron and Johnny, the problem with Scalia's statement is that he claims to use an acceptable form of logic - reductio ad absurdum - but he is actually using a strawman, which is not an acceptable form of logic, it is a logical fallacy. In order for reductio ad absurdum to hold true there would have to be evidence that the absurd result (in this case, bestiality) does in fact follow from the acceptance of homosexuality. There is no proof for that, therefore the reference to bestiality becomes a strawman argument, as he is relying on his audience to not notice his inaccurate modification to the proposition.

mixedpie,

We just want the country to give gay people equal rights, which includes the ability to have a consensual marriage to whom they choose (which is a right outlined in the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights").

If marriage between two consenting adults is a right, then would you agree that we should also allow brother/sisters, mothers/sons, fathers/sons, etc. the ability to get married? Just because two people consent does not mean they should be given the 'right' to marry. Also who's to say that only two people can get married, why not three or more?

Holy crap Rumple, how many times must we respond to the same argument?! These same arguments were made when interracial marriages were legalized. Slippery slope is not a valid argument. (plus there are compelling governmental interests for not allowing incest, bestiality and polygamy).

Excellent point, Rumple. If we allow people of mixed races the right to marry, where might that slippery slope take us?

Rumple,

Why doesn't straight marriage lead to that?

There's your answer.

Toasty & Eng,

If we allow gay home ownership, what's to stop a toaster from buying a house?

Except that reading a book and deciding to live your life by the teachings in it that you think fit how everyone should live is your choice and not many others' choice. You don't want to do anything sexually that fits the term sodomy and that is fine. Lots...many, many heterosexual couple do and are quite happy with it, and yes, gays do, too. So are you really saying that if you take out your Bible teaching and your religious bias that you have solid facts to back up why sodomy is any worse than any other act if both partners can consent and are willing? The word is from Biblical reference, so how can you argue that it is horrendous and evil without using the Bible as a basis for your conclusions?

EngEsq, What are the compelling governmental interests for not allowing incest and polygamy? And bestiality is not an act between consenting humans so that has no place in this argument.

The point i was trying to make is that your whole argument for allowing gay marriage is based on the perceived right that two people who love each other should be able to get married regardless of gender. And if we use that argument, then why continue to make incestuous and polygamous marriages illegal?

Incest- 1) Almost always resulting from sever familial abuse leading to questions of consent, and 2) significant increase in genetic defects resulting from any progeny.

Polygamy- 1) The vast majority of these are between underage girls and older men, typically under extreme duress, again leading to issues of consent, and 2) our courts are not prepared to deal with these relationships, and more importantly, their eventual dissolution.

Solve these issues, and I have no qualms with these relationships becoming legal.

Secondly, "the perceived right that two people who love each other should be able to get married regardless of gender" is not the same as the "a person to getting married to more than one person", or the "a person getting married to their sister." They are no more related than "the right to marry someone of a different race/religion."

In fact a straight marriage is more of a stepping stone to brothers and sisters getting married than gay marriage is.

In any marriage, if consent is not mutual, then the legality of that union would be nullified. So if mutual consent does exist, then discrimination should not be present solely based on the fact that it is incestuous. Since homosexual marriage does not result in offspring between those that are married, who's to say that an incestuous marriage has to lead to offspring between the two partners? And if we deny them the right to marry based on the possible outcome of genetically defective offspring, then wouldn't we also have to deny marriage to older women because their offspring are also at a significant risk of genetic defects?

Once again you are introducing a question of consent into the equation. If it is established that all parties are consenting then there should be no problems in granting them the ability to marry. And should rights ever be denied based on the inability of a court to deal with them?

Scalia is a bigot who is using his gavel as a hammer. And he is not as smart as he thinks he is. How is this for logic...the framers of the Constitution did not mean for it to be a "written in granite" document because they not only designed the ability to change it, but immediately changed it themselves. After all, what is an "amendment" if not a change to a legal document. The "First Amendment" to the Constitution means the first legal "change" to the document. It was designed by the framers to be fluid. For Scalia and his ilk to want to stagnate the Constitution is un-American in the very ways that the original framers would have despised.

what should it matter what Scalia likes or dislikes? His job is to take a case and determine, though his legal knowledge if the decision was constitutional or not. If he doesn't like french fries, should potatoes be determined unconstitutional?

Scalia's a bigot and a not-so-brilliant a$$hole.

Men who are disgusted by gay couples are usually hypocrites.

While male on male sex "makes them sick" not one of them would turn away from two women getting it on.. as long as, at the end of the make out session, the two women turned their attention to a male for the finish.

As far as the sex act, nothing between two consenting adults should be the business of either law enforcement or religious establishments. If the adults enjoy it, consent to it, and it doesn't harm either one, it's no one else's business, including the Supreme Court.

I draw the line at the use of animals, as they cannot consent.

RumpleF,

The problem with your argument is that straight people cannot do any of the things you are proposing right now either, so gay people won't have those options. Gay people are not asking to have anything other than what opposite sex couples already have: the right for a gov't recognized contract of marriage. It's called Equal Protection. If opposite sex marriage hasn't already led to incestual or multi-person marriage, why would gay marriage necessarily do that? Marriage doesn't have to be defined as a man and woman as there isn't anything inherent about marriage that would require that. We don't require procreation and religious definitions don't matter. As has already been mentioned, if the property and benefit/abuse issues associated with polygamy and incest, respectively, can be figued out, why not let them get married? Is that honestly the best argument you have?

Aaron...Scalia is nothing more that an example of what stupid people think a brilliant person should be.

"uncle henry"...Anyone crying about "gay militants" should seek therapy for paranoia....but...for arguments sake, how many innocent people have been slaughtered by "gay militants" over the course of humanity? How many people have been slaughtered by "christian" militants? Start with some numbers from the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades and work your way up. Based on body count alone, "militant christains" seem to be the force of evil.

"rumple"...Several countries and several states have had legal gay marriage for a few years now. Please provide us with precise documentation where their incidents of incest and polygamy has risen as dramatically as you claim "will" happen. Has it happened? Where is your evidence? (...keep in mind, Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson are not credible sources in a conversation with normal humans).

Jed7,

The point i was making is that your argument for gay marriage is along the lines of "Why should consenting adults not be allowed the right to marry the person they love?". By redefining marriage to fit with this argument then you are inherently opening up marriage to all those who fit this description. Any further restrictions would contradict your whole basis for changing the definition. What you seem to desire would be known as a civil union or domestic partnership, not a marriage. I don't see how you can argue against incestuous or polygamous marriages based on property and benefit/abuse issues. If you think that abuse is only limited to these two then I would suggest you look through the news at many recent events.

Aaron,

At the risk of inviting creepy comments from creepy internet people....

You've never had a blow job?

No. He just hires Mexicans to walk around with that noisy blower.

Again...."rumple"....Provide us with the documented incidents that have increased in the countries and states that have legalized marriage equality for several years now. Please show us the statistics before marriage equality was legal, after marriage equality became legal and that the incidents you quote are the direct result of the legalization of marriage equality.

If you refuse to do so, then you are a fear mongering propagandist...and a liar.

Show statistics for what? My goal was never to say that legalizing gay marriage raises the incidence of incest and polygamy. But rather to show that that by arguing for gay marriage, you also are justifying incest and polygamy.

The fact that you equate what I have been saying with 'fear mongering' just shows that you do not truly believe in marriage equality. If what you want is marriage equality, what is there to fear about people in consensual incestuous or polygamous relationships?

Aaron the problem is that Scalia made a judgement and opinion about an upcoming case before it was even heard by the Court. Therefore Judicial Activist Scalia must either resign, recluse himself. The Congress, if it functioned properly should had impeached him long ago

And thats my opinion

Rumple,

You've already been answered, twice:

EngEsq

Incest- 1) Almost always resulting from sever familial abuse leading to questions of consent, and 2) significant increase in genetic defects resulting from any progeny.

Polygamy- 1) The vast majority of these are between underage girls and older men, typically under extreme duress, again leading to issues of consent, and 2) our courts are not prepared to deal with these relationships, and more importantly, their eventual dissolution.

Solve these issues, and I have no qualms with these relationships becoming legal.

Jed

As has already been mentioned, if the property and benefit/abuse issues associated with polygamy and incest, respectively, can be figured out, why not let them get married?

So, essentially, until you can figure out the benefit/abuse issues, these will remain illegal.

Stop beating a dead horse you "masochistic, necrophilic zoophile." -denver bill 2

Sarah, I'm still laughing at your first comment on this thread. Sometimes the truth is hilarious. That was a good one.

@Sarah,

Once again, in an appauling display of sophistic nonsense, you seem to think that the louder you are, the more your voice will be heard, and regardless of volumn, you're still wrong!

Beastiality is illegal because animals don't have the ability for informed consent. They can't say, "Yeah, let's do it". And because of that we have laws protecting them.

Fact: Bestiality is legal in Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and the District of Columbia. Also, animals can be conditioned to perticipate in any kind of behavior. Although, I guess dolpins consider jumping through hoops, five shows a day, at sea world, animal cruelty?

It's harmful to animals and society for us to go around screwing them.

That has little baring on the mind of the purpatrator, ergo no baring on the story being spun to the general public. According to Kinsey, even children reach orgasm.

It's the same reason they can't get mortgages, or checking accounts, or enter into ANY type of contractual agreement.

Actually, they can enter into an agreement, it's just not legally enforcable.

Once of those rights is privacy, which the court has interpreted the 4th and 9th Amendments to protect.

The right for a militia to bear arms, the right to trial by jury, and the right to protection against unlawful search and seizure are all guaranteed by the constitution, but nowhere specifically is the so-called "Right to privacy" More to the point, there's really no right to sexual privacy.

Put informed consent together with a right to privacy and government needs a compelling interest to intrude. There is none. Two men or two women, who give informed consent, can have sex all they want.

Not in conneticut, they have a law forbiding any knd of private sexual behavior among consenting Adults. If they're in Alabama, they better not use any sex toys, cause that's illegal. In california, they better not reach climax before the other during foreplay, that's illegal. Better hope they're not unmarried in Georgia, cause that's illegal. Better hope they're not in Indiana, cause oral sex is banned there. Two gay guys are really in trouble in Cincinnati, cause anal is banned there.

In all reality I have a feeling that there will be no major ruling on either two cases. There is a good possibility that both appeals will be thrown out for "Lack of Standing" as neither of the two groups really have any compelling reason to push the appeals. In other words neither the Republicans or the Prop 8 backers will be materially affected if either law is upheld or overturned. Oh and being pissed or morally offended does not constitute "materially affected".

Second, no Supreme court in the past half century or so has ever ruled big on a first time civil rights issue. They tend to let the public somewhat sort it out first and then land the big ruling, so a lack of standings ruling would play into that pattern and allow them to kick this can down the road.

..."rumple"...

Please stop trying to be coy. You're "argument" has been used to exhaustion by fascist evangelicals for years now. It is disingenuous of you to use the same argument and pretend that you are making a new one.

Allowing gay people to marry has absolutely nothing to do with incest or polygamy. Since you are so obsessed with incest and polygamy (do you have 2 sisters?) why don't you find an article concerning those two subjects that you can comment on.

The fact that you are making your argument here is shows that you are a propagandist attempting to lump all three subjects into one.

No one else is going to believe you until you can stop lying to yourself.

Shockedanddisgusted,

Do you have an argument for legalizing gay marriage that doesn't also apply to incest and polygamy?

People like you go around advocating for marriage equality while also decrying the other minorities that also want marriage legalized.

Rumple, you were answered when it was stated that legalizing gay marriage doesn't lead to laws about incest etc. any more than straight marriage leads to the same. They both beg the question. So people should be asking this question in relation to straight marriage right now!

Adding legal gay marriage to our scoiety does not, in logical fact, add more or less to the question of incest or polygamy. It is a non argument. Once gay marriage is legal, the question about incest and polygamy is still an open question. Get rid of gay marriage and the question about incest and polygamy is still open.

If you cannot see the logic in this, then I cannot help you. In fact, IMO, the "logic" you use exposes a prejudice to gays that isn't based on strictly logical rules. You're entitled to your own feelings about gays; that I cannot argue with. But if you want to argue logically, you enter a different strata of discussion that has rules beyond feelings..

To add to what I was saying above. Gay marriage should be legalized. Once the government decided that marriage consisted of specific (govermental) laws, then the government is obliged to make that government defined marriage open to everyone.

In fact, given the governments involvement, anyone not agreeing with gay behaviour is free to not recognize gay marriage in their own mind. And if this is for religious reasons, then don't worry, God'll sort them out!

In fact, as I understand it, this is the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses (I could be wrong about this, its been a long time since I hung out with any). They decry homosexuality, but do not get involved in the politics of it, taking Jesus example of non political involvement. Render to Ceasar and something about God establishing all earthly powers and being separate from the world. Of course, the Government has done a good job of er, "marrying itself" if you will, to religion so that many religious folks think our government is more than nominally religious.

This leads to a desire for religion on earth, which, as I read the bible, is the opposite of Jesus message. He seemed to say that things will take care of themselves, God will be the judge and you just get your own act together and worry about your own soul and loving others regardless of their actions (turn the other cheek, love you enemy etc). God will fix what's wrong in the end..

This gets lost in the drum beating of the Old Testament and its slaughtering and stoning of people of which THAT God serves as the ultimate role model..

Fact: Bestiality is legal in Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and the District of Columbia. Also, animals can be conditioned to perticipate in any kind of behavior. Although, I guess dolpins consider jumping through hoops, five shows a day, at sea world, animal cruelty?

Well great, then you don't have to worry about gay marriage leading to it, huh? However, name one state where an animal has legal capacity for informed consent. You just shot your own foot off, if they have to be CONDITIONED, that means they aren't CONSENTING. They aren't choosing to engage because they want to and understand the natural and legal consequences, they're engaging because we've rewired their brains too.

That has little baring on the mind of the purpatrator, ergo no baring on the story being spun to the general public. According to Kinsey, even children reach orgasm.

Ahhh, so? Are you saying that having sex with kids and animals should be legal and isn't harmful because they can reach orgasm? Now who's leading to pedophilia?

But seriously, thanks for making my point. Because it means little to the perp, we outlaw it. If it meant something to the perp, we wouldn't have to, now would we?

By the way, what does that have to do with informed consent?

Actually, they can enter into an agreement, it's just not legally enforcable.

And legally enforceable is one of the elements that must be meant to have a CONTRACT, i.e. MARRIAGE, ergo thank you again for making my point.

The right for a militia to bear arms, the right to trial by jury, and the right to protection against unlawful search and seizure are all guaranteed by the constitution, but nowhere specifically is the so-called "Right to privacy" More to the point, there's really no right to sexual privacy.

Did you stop reading at amendment eight? The ninth says, in a nut shell, that just because something isn't enumerated as a right, that doesn't necessarily mean you DON'T have that right.

Go ahead at take a look at Griswold v. Connecticut and LAWRENCE v. TEXAS for that.

Not in conneticut, they have a law forbiding any knd of private sexual behavior among consenting Adults. If they're in Alabama, they better not use any sex toys, cause that's illegal. In california, they better not reach climax before the other during foreplay, that's illegal. Better hope they're not unmarried in Georgia, cause that's illegal. Better hope they're not in Indiana, cause oral sex is banned there. Two gay guys are really in trouble in Cincinnati, cause anal is banned there.

You don't understand legal hierarchy do you? Since all those are state and local laws, the SCOTUS rulings mentioned above make them null and void.

Seriously, you are a glutton for punishment. You'd think that you'd be tired of the embarrassment by now.

GodIsFake,

Since gay marriage is currently not universally legalized, the question that still must be answered is "what is the basis on which we should we legalize it?". If it is simply because that it is the right thing to do, then it would also be necessary to legalize incest and polygamy. There is no logical argument that you can make for legalizing gay marriage that wouldn't also make you legalize the other two. The only valid argument you could make against their legalization would be to use a morality, which would result in the negation of gay marriage.

For those who state that incestuous/polygamous marriages should be illegal due to concerns of abuse, both heterosexual and homosexual relationships have a few instances of abuse as well, so do we outlaw them? And as was earlier pointed out, procreation is not used in the definition of marriage, so the issue of birth defects arising from incest would not be valid under the definition.

"rumple" can not step outside of his/her obsession with incest and polygamy to have a normal conversation about legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians.

It's too bad that when a brain is washed, it's usually replaced with something perverse and sinister.

Shockedanddisgusted,

I have still not heard any reason for why we need to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians....

And yet you still refer to incest and polygamy as 'perverse and sinister' while trying to advocate for marriage equality. If you truly believe in equality, shouldn't you be advocating for any persons that wish to be married?

Rumple, it is a sad fact that you cannot recognize why incest and polygamy are illegal. There are medical reasons, as well as consent issues, that ensure that incest will remain illegal for the foreseeable future. And there are the same consent issues, as well as the fact that the current laws are set up limiting marriage to TWO people, that ensure that polygamy will also remain illegal. Homosexuality is and has always been legal, and homosexuals are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country who are entitled to the equal protection of its laws.

That is why such slippery-slope fallacies are doomed to fail. Furthermore, you fail to recognize that opposite-sex marriage would be more likely to lead to such situations than same-sex marriage would.

The bottom line is that your arguments are the same dumb arguments the dumb bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in the 1960s, and they are still just as dumb -- and just as unsuccessful. Another thing you fail to recognize; perhaps that's why you and your ilk keep LOSING in the courts.

The reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage have been outlined in a great deal of detail in the Prop H8 case; read Judge Walker's ruling sometime. He lists the arguments and findings of fact presented in the case, as well as his rulings on each one. Don't expect everyone else to do your research for you -- if you want to know something, look it up. It's not up to us to prove anything to you.

Rumfle, you haven't addressed my question at all. In fact you've just reiterated what you stated before. I cannot reduce the logic any further.

You keep saying that allowing gay marriage leads to a consideration of incest/poygamy. I'm saying that that question is already begged in straight marriage. Please get this, er, "straight" and respond to this.

As far as the basis for allowing gay marriage, its the same basis for allowing straight marriage. Again, any questions that are to be addressed because of this are to be addressed regardless of the legality of gay marriage. And again, this is as far back as I can logically go.

And again, because you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, you use that as your basis for the challenge of incest and polygamy, completely ignoring that this challenge is as worthy for heterosexual marriage.

What this comes down to is: Lets get everyone on the same level, the same rights. Those other things will still be there for debate. They are NOT introduced viz a viz gay marriage.

The idea if I have to spell it out is that there should be a question of straight marriage in relation to the legality of incest and polygamy. No one to my knowledge has brought this up in relation to the acceptance (legality?) of straight marriage. According to your own logic, you should bring this up yourself. You don't because your feelings aren't the same.

You, a priori, have decided against gay marriage and therefore do not use the same judgement you use for consideration of straight marriage. In layman terms, this is called (logical?) hypocrisy.

And on that note, because, as I had mentioned, that the kind of marriage we are talking about is government defined, it is up to you and others to state why gay marriage is bad. In doing so, any arguments must be unique to being gay. In other words for your argument to be valid it cannot also apply to straight people. This is logical and, as such, cannot be otherwise..

So, if you are going to respond, please have the courtesy to not repeat what you had said, but explain why somehow gay marriage effects the (legal) question of incest and not straight marriage. If you cannot and are going to repeat the same illogical stuff, then perhaps consider a class in logic so that you understand the prepositions involved and how to order them to make sense, outside of your feelings and convictions.

This won't necessairly change your feelings or convictions, but it will at least give you the proper tools to argue to perhaps an impasse.

Otherwise, in this light, I'd prefer someone with a completely viceral reaction against gays. At least that's honest.

Well put, GodIsFake. Thank you.

If "rumple" is incapable of making the distinction between gay, incestuous and polygamous, then there is no use attempting an intelligent conversation.

Shocked and God,

It is amazing how many different ways we can come up with to explain it though, isn't it. It's almost like a game now. Who can reiterate the concept of informed consent in the most creative way?

"Shocked and God" has an interesting ring to it!!

Sarah - It seems that as soon as we come to acceptance, as a society, someone has to change the name to make it bad again...

Sigh....

ErinNJ,

The medical reasons that you speak of (increased genetic mutations of progeny) is also a common problem among older women (substantial increases in mutations after 35). But since nowhere in the definition of marriage is procreation a requirement, this should have no impact on the consideration for incestuous marriage to be legalized. As for consent, research has shown that up to 50% of siblings that were separated very early in life later report sexual attraction towards their sibling once introduced. In regards to polygamy, those of the mormon faith believe it is natural to share your husband with multiple wives/ or have multiple wives. So there are people out in the world that make an informed decision to consent. As far as the law being set up limiting marriage to TWO people, federal law also dictates that it be between one man and one woman. Laws can be changed which is why you (and others like you) are trying to remove the man/woman clause. Same can be done with laws regarding only 'TWO' people. Contrary to your assertion that homosexuality is and always was legal, i would suggest you look through supreme court rulings like you suggested I do. Homosexual acts were not fully legalized till the ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003. Also those practicing incest on polygamy pay the same taxes you or I do, so by your reasoning they should also be protected by the law.

The reason that the debate over same-sex marriage leads to the discussion of legalizing the other two is due to the fact that you are changing the definition of marriage that is in place. By opening up the law for change based on equality, you inherently destroy the previous perception of marriage.

Bans on interracial marriage were originally put in place due to those in power believing that blacks were an inferior species and that interbreeding amongst the two was unnatural. Unbiased science never supported such a stance. So the arguments I am using now are in no way similar to the arguments against the legalization of interracial marriage.

Judge walker himself was gay which goes against having an unbiased perception on matters brought before a court.

Bans on interracial marriage were originally put in place due to those in power believing that blacks were an inferior species and that interbreeding amongst the two was unnatural. Unbiased science never supported such a stance. So the arguments I am using now are in no way similar to the arguments against the legalization of interracial marriage.

Actually, the bans against SSM are religiously based, and unbiased science has never supported such a stance. So your arguments are worse, since they begin with an unconstitutional premise.

Judge walker himself was gay which goes against having an unbiased perception on matters brought before a court.

So you're suggesting only a straight judge could be unbiased about this matter?

So you're suggesting only a straight judge could be unbiased about this matter?

Or that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from ruling on affirmative action, because he's black?

Sarah, it's the cavalier attitude like yours that has been a barrier to the Constitutional rights of Appliance-Americans everywhere.

Appliance-Americans

I tried to picture that and my brain said "no".

What can I say?? I'm entitled to my opinion that blenders are abominations and don't even get me started about the fridge agenda. I'm so sick of them shoving it down my throat.

never knew there were so many lawyers on msnbc. i thought you were all banking experts.

never knew there were so many lawyers on msnbc. i thought you were all banking experts.

Lawyers or not, there are many good points being made here. If you have nothing to say that addresses the story, why not just keep your mouth shut?

“Unless you give [the laws] the meaning of those who enacted them, you’re destroying democracy.”

So where is there evidence that the Founding Fathers were against homosexuality?

Isn't it strange that Scalia has this opinion on this subject but not on the 2nd Amendment? If he did, like Bill Maher has pointed out, Americans can have all the flint-locks and muskets they want, but no modern weaponry in private hands.

Scalia's rigid, fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution means he doesn't give much credence to case law, which evolves over time. Sad.

Interesting point, isn't it. I always thought that one of the main purposes of the Supreme Court was to interpret the Constitution. Scalia's own definition of rigid interpretation makes his own job obsolete.

"never knew there were so many lawyers on msnbc. i thought you were all banking experts."
And here I thought they were all Democrat :P

I think "slippery slope" is more what he was looking for.

Agreed, reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument, but only when applied correctly. Bestiality is not an extreme of homosexuality any more than it is an extreme of heterosexuality. Ergo, the logical argument fails.

EngEsq - Bestiality is not an extreme of homosexuality any more than it is an extreme of heterosexuality. Ergo, the logical argument fails.

In fact Scalia's losing argument in Lawrence v Texas was that it was OK for a state to allow sodomy for straight folks but prohibit it for gays. The elderly bigot has never understood what equal protection is, much less agreed with it.

skrekk, why is it that your type, liberal, always calls people that don't agree with you bigot, or some other negative name. Is is because you have such low self esteem of your values that you just have to strike out.

@unreal

Why do you think that liberals are calling people bigots solely because they are being disagreed with?

unreal-3070801 - skrekk, why is it that your type, liberal, always calls people that don't agree with you bigot, or some other negative name

I'm calling Scalia a bigot because he plainly is one, by definition. He thinks some Americans deserve special rights and others should be 2nd-class citizens who are denied equal protection. He's no different from a white supremacist of the Jim Crow south.

haha, witty

Aaron-822126,

You do realize that oral sex is sodomy, right?

Aaron...it seems that you spend a lot of your time obsessing over how gay people have sex. Why is that?

Aaron,

I've heard that removing a couple of ribs gives you an ability to autofellate. So there is a hope for you.