Uh Oh

[jimnyc]

You are aware that AIDS is more prevalent among heterosexuals, right?

Then again, maybe you don't know.

I hate to make you look like a fool but..............................



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei.../incidence.htm

I was about to reply when I saw your link to the stats. What is the percentage of gays in America? And they create way more than double of the total new incidents of HIV? It appears that aids is NOT more prevalent amongst Heteros.

Nell, being SO off target, I gotta ask - WHERE do you get your information from?

[jimnyc]

Equal rights are not special rights.

Man cannot marry man.
Woman cannot marry woman.
Man can marry woman.
Woman can marry man.

Those "rights" are equal to 100% of US citizens.

Besides, many state this is outside the constitution and out of the governments hands, so how is it a "rights" issue? Are we now saying it is in fact covered by the constitution?

[jimnyc]

Considering your background with your father you won't mind if I consider your judgement tainted, right?

Not cool at all. DS72 has shared information with us, and not shoved it down our throats. I think it's inappropriate to use his father in the midst of ANY argument, whether respectfully or not.

[jimnyc]

Can you show me where individuals who choose to have cancer or some other bodily or mental defect are denied any rights? Obviously it is not genetics.

VERY easily proven that they were born with defects and defects are continually worked on for improvement and they are granted medical help.

[jimnyc]

show me where in the 14th straight marriage is addressed you idiot.

I don't think it's there either, but MANY gays think it does and think their "rights" to marry are based on the amendment.

[jimnyc]

Marriage is NOT mentioned in the COTUS, religious freedom however IS. Telling someone that what THEIR religion calls marriage is illegal is in fact unconstitutional (assuming that we are talking about consenting adults of course.)

Where is this 1st amendment violation occurring? What religion is being told what they call marriage is illegal?

[jimnyc]

On this particular topic OCA, and to a lesser extent YOU, are certainly doing that.

Marriage is a religious institution PERIOD. You can NOT argue that point.

The point you would have to argue is that gays shouldn't be allowed to have civil contracts with each other, and in fact OCA flat said he would like as much, and THAT would be in violation of the 14th amendment.

Regulating MARRIAGE however is a violation of the first amendment, regardless of who's marriage the government is regulating.

Say what you will, but it IS being controlled by our government right now. You can't say they shouldn't and then base your argument on something that doesn't exist. When government bows out, we can revisit your argument. Until such time, we have little alternative but to argue what we are faced with. So I CAN argue your point. While I think it should be solely a religious institution, fact is, it's NOT right now. And based on our laws and constitution, no one is being constitutionally violated.

[jimnyc]

Who the hell said that? Neither will EVER be accepted as the norm, however the first amendment does not only apply to the norm.

If you are FOR allowing deviancy - then by default you are stating it's not a problem that they are now a part of society. And what does the 1st amendment have to do with whether or not polygamy is lawful or not?

[jimnyc]

Myself I believe the bisexual people who switch back and forth like you or I would change socks destroys the entire "they were born that way" argument. However, it is irrelevant to THIS discussion. You have a right to do such things if you so choose.

Where is this "right" and where is it based from?

[ConHog]

Say what you will, but it IS being controlled by our government right now. You can't say they shouldn't and then base your argument on something that doesn't exist. When government bows out, we can revisit your argument. Until such time, we have little alternative but to argue what we are faced with. So I CAN argue your point. While I think it should be solely a religious institution, fact is, it's NOT right now. And based on our laws and constitution, no one is being constitutionally violated.

You're correct, and that is ENTIRELY what I am arguing. That the current law is wrong and that the government should bow out of marriage altogether.

That way, no one "loses" gays can get "married" if they wish and you don't have to recognize that marriage as equal to your own if you don't want to, and the radicals on either side (not putting you in this group) can be told to shut up.

This country has more serious problems to deal with than gay marriage which the government shouldn't be involved with anyway. It's time to do what we can to put this to bed and move on to serious business.

[ConHog]

Where is this "right" and where is it based from?

Pursuit of happiness . If having gay sex makes you happy, you have that right, again provided it is with consenting adults.

If you don't believe that is true, then your argument should be to make gay sex illegal , not gay marriage. Unless of course you don't believe gays participate in extramarital sex.

[ConHog]

If you are FOR allowing deviancy - then by default you are stating it's not a problem that they are now a part of society. And what does the 1st amendment have to do with whether or not polygamy is lawful or not?

I'm for you not telling me what I can and can not do in my bedroom and me not telling you what you can and can not do in YOUR bedroom.

[jimnyc]

You're correct, and that is ENTIRELY what I am arguing. That the current law is wrong and that the government should bow out of marriage altogether.

That way, no one "loses" gays can get "married" if they wish and you don't have to recognize that marriage as equal to your own if you don't want to, and the radicals on either side (not putting you in this group) can be told to shut up.

This country has more serious problems to deal with than gay marriage which the government shouldn't be involved with anyway. It's time to do what we can to put this to bed and move on to serious business.

The point is, if you feel the law is wrong, work to have it legally repealed. But back to OCA's original point - the 14th, has nothing to do with this. You feeling the law is wrong and the law being unconstitutional are 2 different things, and many gay marriage supporters use the 14th to show this unconstitutionality.

[jimnyc]

Pursuit of happiness . If having gay sex makes you happy, you have that right, again provided it is with consenting adults.

If you don't believe that is true, then your argument should be to make gay sex illegal , not gay marriage. Unless of course you don't believe gays participate in extramarital sex.

You have the right to pursuit, but that HARDLY means you have a right to the things you are pursuing. Gay marriage or even being gay - have NOTHING to do with the "pursuit of happiness"

[jimnyc]

I'm for you not telling me what I can and can not do in my bedroom and me not telling you what you can and can not do in YOUR bedroom.

Allowing polygamy is a LOT more than just someone's sexual desires in the bedroom. If 1 man wants 10 women in their bedroom, more power to him. But it crosses the line, IMO, when we allow him to MARRY all of those women, and then have children raised in such an environment.