In a state oriented system, which we're supposed to have, you're welcome to move somewhere that's more accommodating to your personal beliefs.No, questions of morality that don't impact others aren't the gov'ts business.
In a state oriented system, which we're supposed to have, you're welcome to move somewhere that's more accommodating to your personal beliefs.No, questions of morality that don't impact others aren't the gov'ts business.
So, to take this example to the extreme, you believe states should have the rights to condone slavery?In a state oriented system, which we're supposed to have, you're welcome to move somewhere that's more accommodating to your personal beliefs.
You're confused about true issues of civil rights. Behavioral or choice-oriented issues are not issues of civil rights.So, to take this example to the extreme, you believe states should have the rights to condone slavery?
This is almost as bad as the "derr what's next? everyone marrying their lawn mower????" argument.Just like those who "get their game on" by having sex with someone of the same gender can marry someone of the opposite gender to get "married" benefits. Both options are sub optimal for those involved, but the benefits are there to be had if they are willing to do what it takes.
Nobody chooses to be gay.You're confused about true issues of civil rights. Behavioral or choice-oriented issues are not issues of civil rights.
Ahh, so you have proof that all homosexuals are gay by choice? I suspect the human genome project would love to see your data.You're confused about true issues of civil rights. Behavioral or choice-oriented issues are not issues of civil rights.
LOL...you're totally obsessed with the enslavement of other humans. Behavioral aberrations may be prohibited, but I haven't seen anyone arguing that anyone should be enslaved. Feel free to interject Hitler and Nazis next if you like.Ahh, so you have proof that all homosexuals are gay by choice? I suspect the human genome project would love to see your data.
Regardless, assuming it is behavioral, should states have the right to allow the enslavement of homosexuals?
No, I'm simply arguing the extreme example of state's rights vs universal human rights.LOL...you're totally obsessed with the enslavement of other humans. Behavioral aberrations may be prohibited, but I haven't seen anyone arguing that anyone should be enslaved. Feel free to interject Hitler and Nazis next if you like.
Let me go run and tell my cousin that he'll no longer be shunned by half our family, denied certain government benefits, and condemned to hell on a constant basis if he just simply flips off his 'gay switch' and starts being sexually attracted to women. Man, if he had only not chosen to be gay back in grade school (when he didn't even know what the word 'gay' meant)!Okay...I'm totally convinced.
You're welcome. And I appreciate your objectivity.Let me go run and tell my cousin that he'll no longer be shunned by half our family, denied certain government benefits, and condemned to hell on a constant basis if he just simply flips off his 'gay switch' and starts being sexually attracted to women. Man, if he had only not chosen to be gay back in grade school (when he didn't even know what the word 'gay' meant)!
Thanks dude.
My roommate in college was one of the best friends I ever had we man whored it up back in the day heterosexually. We went our separate ways for a while I went off to California he stayed here. When I came back a common friend saw me and let me know that some things weren't the same mainly this good friend of mine coming out of the closet.Nobody chooses to be gay.
I agree it's a federal issue -- but it's not a civil rights issue....because anyone can get married. What is wanted is a change in the legal definition of marriage -- and that either will require a Gay Rights Amendment to the Constitution (because there were many things not covered in the Civil Rights Acts important to the Gay Community) --That's the point - this is a federal issue, civil rights.
I don't buy that. If it is about equal treatment under the law, then a legal civil union would satisfy that without redefining marriage. At issue is whether a gay couple can have the same rights as a straight couple not whether we call it marriage.Because if you don't let it be "marriage" then they will continue to argue that their situation is separate but equal -- and that won't fly.
I'm afraid the answer will come down to -- the elimination of marriage......and we'll all have civil unions......
That tends to be the tactics employed by progressives.
no we don'tDon't we all choose whom we love?
"he explained he would never be the guy he was pretending to be all the while"Apparently that's quite possible...note the story posted above.
borg jesus assimilates all contradiction"he explained he would never be the guy he was pretending to be all the while"
I note that it contradicts your belief.