Uh Oh

[jimnyc]

Because if we start discussing drugs or prostitution eventually people will start discussing whether they actually ARE harmful to society and thus muddle this thread up even more. So why not keep THIS thread about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans and have another thread about the constitutionality of making prostitution illegal so each can be discussed properly and in understandable threads?

I made a very clear reference, regarding THIS topic, as to why certain things have been deemed "no go" by society, even though they don't harm others, or children, and I find them to be constitutional - as do the courts. Demanding over and over that a new thread be created, separating my argument from THIS debate, does nothing, other than allow my debate to disappear. No thanks. Based on YOUR thinking and logic, these other laws should be unconstitutional, or they would need to harm others - and both myself and the courts disagree.

[ConHog]

Well because the constitution and issues are broader and narrower than your pet topics?

no because I'd like to give each topic its own due diligence.

[Nell's Room]

And if that were the case, and they were CHOOSING a certain lifestyle, then there goes the "born this way" bullshit AND then I would stand my ground even more stating they don't deserve jack shit as far as "rights". One doesn't get to choose to go down a certain path in life and then demand rights to meet that choice.

Don't most people choose to go down the 'straight path' of life, though? And they demand rights to meet that choice?

[jimnyc]

Don't most people choose to go down the 'straight path' of life, though? And they demand rights to meet that choice?

I believe it's also a learned behavior of sorts, one that encompasses likely over 90-95%+ of the nation. And the rights were created over a long, long, long time, based on those lifestyles. Then someone skips along many years later, chooses a lifestyle outside of the requirements to be granted such benefits, but then wants the rules changed to meet their choice.

Also like I said earlier, government has created lots of things where there is a 'qualifier' before one qualifies for benefits and/or protection, and IMO, this one is no different - unless the SC states otherwise, then I will respect such a decision, but I won't accept the lifestyle.

[fj1200]

I believe it's also a learned behavior of sorts, one that encompasses likely over 90-95%+ of the nation. And the rights were created over a long, long, long time, based on those lifestyles. Then someone skips along many years later, chooses a lifestyle outside of the requirements to be granted such benefits, but then wants the rules changed to meet their choice.

Also like I said earlier, government has created lots of things where there is a 'qualifier' before one qualifies for benefits and/or protection, and IMO, this one is no different - unless the SC states otherwise, then I will respect such a decision, but I won't accept the lifestyle.

Can we at least agree that they are not Rights? And just because I'm spacing this morning, what are those other qualifiers? Not to rehash anything because I think all arguments have been made.

[ConHog]

I believe it's also a learned behavior of sorts, one that encompasses likely over 90-95%+ of the nation. And the rights were created over a long, long, long time, based on those lifestyles. Then someone skips along many years later, chooses a lifestyle outside of the requirements to be granted such benefits, but then wants the rules changed to meet their choice.

Also like I said earlier, government has created lots of things where there is a 'qualifier' before one qualifies for benefits and/or protection, and IMO, this one is no different - unless the SC states otherwise, then I will respect such a decision, but I won't accept the lifestyle.

That's the entire point Jim. No one is saying that if gay marriage is legalized YOU have to accept anything. No skin off your nose if two gay dudes want to be "married", no skin makes it none of your business.

[jimnyc]

Can we at least agree that they are not Rights? And just because I'm spacing this morning, what are those other qualifiers? Not to rehash anything because I think all arguments have been made.

Yes, I've been brainwashed by the queers into thinking they were "rights" when they are merely privileges.

And I'm referring to scholarships for blacks, affirmative action, age based discrimination for employment, age of consent laws... <---- All sort of discriminate against others, but it's legal discrimination.

[jimnyc]

That's the entire point Jim. No one is saying that if gay marriage is legalized YOU have to accept anything. No skin off your nose if two gay dudes want to be "married", no skin makes it none of your business.

Sure it's my business, unless the marriage certificate is fake. As a member of society, I feel it's my business to protect society, and that's by not accepting the abnormal as normal, and not extending rights/privileges to people that are outside the scope of what these privileges have been made for. Just because YOU don't have an issue with it doesn't mean you can unilaterally tell others it is none of their business. What affects society as a whole is the business of all of society. Society has a duty, IMO, to protect itself and it's citizens, and to "police" itself for the greater good. It's always been that way, as I've stated many times already. I'll fight for what I think is best for society as a whole until the ultimate law says otherwise. And if that happens, then I'll back off of my arguments, revert to solely protecting my family, and not be accepting of it anyway.

[fj1200]

Yes, I've been brainwashed by the queers into thinking they were "rights" when they are merely privileges.

And I'm referring to scholarships for blacks, affirmative action, age based discrimination for employment, age of consent laws... <---- All sort of discriminate against others, but it's legal discrimination.

Ah, I remember now. Age of consent, drugs, prostitution, etc. are equally applied to all; drug dealers may not appreciate the application of the law but it is consistent. Discrimination, etc. are to correct past wrongs; not sure those are an equal correlation though, might need some thought on that.

[ConHog]

Sure it's my business, unless the marriage certificate is fake. As a member of society, I feel it's my business to protect society, and that's by not accepting the abnormal as normal, and not extending rights/privileges to people that are outside the scope of what these privileges have been made for. Just because YOU don't have an issue with it doesn't mean you can unilaterally tell others it is none of their business. What affects society as a whole is the business of all of society. Society has a duty, IMO, to protect itself and it's citizens, and to "police" itself for the greater good. It's always been that way, as I've stated many times already. I'll fight for what I think is best for society as a whole until the ultimate law says otherwise. And if that happens, then I'll back off of my arguments, revert to solely protecting my family, and not be accepting of it anyway.

You're entire argument is "I am protecting society from gay marriage" fine then, please 30 pages later post ONE way that gay marriage is bad for society.

[jimnyc]

You're entire argument is "I am protecting society from gay marriage" fine then, please 30 pages later post ONE way that gay marriage is bad for society.

I've done so, you just disagree, no point me rehashing it.

[jimnyc]

Ah, I remember now. Age of consent, drugs, prostitution, etc. are equally applied to all; drug dealers may not appreciate the application of the law but it is consistent. Discrimination, etc. are to correct past wrongs; not sure those are an equal correlation though, might need some thought on that.

Prostitution is equally applied to all? Depends on how you look at it, but it would seem to me that the ladies feel discriminated against, when they aren't harming anyone. Just as younger people feel discriminated against both in the workplace and for consent. There are many more similar restrictions as well where one must fit a certain criteria in order to qualify for benefits and such, and sometimes it's easier for some to qualify than others. It all always "seems" equally applied in these examples, until you're being the one "denied" something.

[ConHog]

I've done so, you just disagree, no point me rehashing it.

No you haven't Jim.

For example, if you ask me how is marijuana bad for society, I will point to examples such as the lady who was stoned and left her baby on top of her car as she drove off to point out how MJ affects people other than those who smoke it.

Now I ask you again, how SPECIFICALLY is gay marriage harmful to society.

[fj1200]

Prostitution is equally applied to all? Depends on how you look at it, but it would seem to me that the ladies feel discriminated against, when they aren't harming anyone. Just as younger people feel discriminated against both in the workplace and for consent. There are many more similar restrictions as well where one must fit a certain criteria in order to qualify for benefits and such, and sometimes it's easier for some to qualify than others. It all always "seems" equally applied in these examples, until you're being the one "denied" something.

I really don't follow prostitution laws but I'd say yes. You might have different penalties for Johns versus hookers but the application is likely equal. We may agree on much of the discrimination laws and effects but I don't see gay marriage as being equal. For that I guess you'd have to explain how you are being denied something or how gay marriage would be harmful to society.

[jimnyc]

No you haven't Jim.

For example, if you ask me how is marijuana bad for society, I will point to examples such as the lady who was stoned and left her baby on top of her car as she drove off to point out how MJ affects people other than those who smoke it.

Now I ask you again, how SPECIFICALLY is gay marriage harmful to society.

Yes, I have. You continue to ignore what I say, for 26 pages apparently. It's destructive in all forms unless you're interested in the perversion. Furthermore, we've already discussed "burdens", and you bailed back then and told me to start another thread, remember? Society deems many things 'bad for society', and have subsequent bans/laws, and its not a burden to prove what you're asking. The ONLY way that would be the case would be if they were "due" any type of equal protection, which has never even been established.