Rainbow Cocksuckers

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That's horseshit.

The restrictions or burdens imposed by a license are minute. They are intended to ensure you don't marry a close relative and that you are not already married to someone else.

Voting rights come with restrictions, too. You are required to be 18, to live in the district in which you are voting, to be a citizen, to not be a convicted felon, and to not vote more than once.

Do those restrictions mean that voting is not a civil right, but a privilege?

The restrictions imposed on voting, like the restrictions on marriage, are designed to protect and strengthen the institution.

But if discriminatory restrictions are imposed for not valid reason, then you are denying someone equal rights.

Saying someone must live in Texas to vote for Texas governor is not a discriminatory restriction. Saying someone must be white to vote in Texas obviously IS.

Marriage has always has been a "right" for heterosexuals. It was simply denied to not good reason to homosexuals.

And all the justifications for excluding homosexuals turned out to be bullshit.

Procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage. We let old people and sterile people get married, so long as they are opposite sex. Why not same sex also?

Marriage confers rights to both spouses that merely shacking up does not, like inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, health plan membership, tenants rights, and many others. Heterosexuals enjoy those protections by the mere fact of getting married - there is no requirement that they seek legal help to draw up special will provisions or make civil union contracts

There is NO rational basis why same sex couples should be denied those protections that opposite sex couples enjoy without even thinking about it.

Denial of those equal protections of the law are based on nothing more than good old fashioned Old Testament bigotry.

+1,000,000

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Marriage is NOT a civil right. Since you have to get a license it is a privilege.






.

You just got your ass handed to you, son.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That's horseshit.

The restrictions or burdens imposed by a license are minute. They are intended to ensure you don't marry a close relative and that you are not already married to someone else.

Voting rights come with restrictions, too. You are required to be 18, to live in the district in which you are voting, to be a citizen, to not be a convicted felon, and to not vote more than once.

Do those restrictions mean that voting is not a civil right, but a privilege?

The restrictions imposed on voting, like the restrictions on marriage, are designed to protect and strengthen the institution.

But if discriminatory restrictions are imposed for not valid reason, then you are denying someone equal rights.

Saying someone must live in Texas to vote for Texas governor is not a discriminatory restriction. Saying someone must be white to vote in Texas obviously IS.

Marriage has always has been a "right" for heterosexuals. It was simply denied to not good reason to homosexuals.

And all the justifications for excluding homosexuals turned out to be bullshit.

Procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage. We let old people and sterile people get married, so long as they are opposite sex. Why not same sex also?

Marriage confers rights to both spouses that merely shacking up does not, like inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, health plan membership, tenants rights, and many others. Heterosexuals enjoy those protections by the mere fact of getting married - there is no requirement that they seek legal help to draw up special will provisions or make civil union contracts

There is NO rational basis why same sex couples should be denied those protections that opposite sex couples enjoy without even thinking about it.

Denial of those equal protections of the law are based on nothing more than good old fashioned Old Testament bigotry.

Just like divorce is NOT a civil right... http://billofrightsinstitute.org/fou...ill-of-rights/

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Just like divorce is NOT a right... http://billofrightsinstitute.org/fou...ill-of-rights/

This post is doubly ignorant.

First, the Bill of Rights is a floor not a ceiling. It is NOT an exhaustive list of the rights of Americans. It was a minimum list. For instance, it makes NO mention of privacy rights, which is a widely recognized right - especially dear to conservatives and small government opponents. Someone who spends so much time talking about Ozombies ought to know that.

Second, it lists only the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. So, you carefully stopped short of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the equal protections of the law and the rights of American citizens - which have been held to include a wide array of rights, including privacy rights and marital rights.

Want to try again?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That's horseshit.

The restrictions or burdens imposed by a license are minute. They are intended to ensure you don't marry a close relative and that you are not already married to someone else.

Voting rights come with restrictions, too. You are required to be 18, to live in the district in which you are voting, to be a citizen, to not be a convicted felon, and to not vote more than once.

Do those restrictions mean that voting is not a civil right, but a privilege?

The restrictions imposed on voting, like the restrictions on marriage, are designed to protect and strengthen the institution.

But if discriminatory restrictions are imposed for no valid reason, then you are denying someone equal rights.

Saying someone must live in Texas to vote for Texas governor is not a discriminatory restriction. Saying someone must be white to vote in Texas obviously IS.

Marriage has always has been a "right" for heterosexuals.

It was simply denied for no good reason to homosexuals. All the justifications for excluding homosexuals turned out to be bullshit.

Procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage. We let old people and sterile people get married, so long as they are opposite sex. Why not same sex also?

Marriage confers rights to both spouses that merely shacking up does not, like inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, health plan membership, tenants rights, and many others. Heterosexuals enjoy those protections by the mere fact of getting married - there is no requirement that they seek legal help to draw up special will provisions or make civil union contracts.

There is NO rational basis why same sex couples should be denied those protections that opposite sex couples enjoy without even thinking about it.

Denial of those equal protections of the law are based on nothing more than good old fashioned Old Testament bigotry.

According to this article. Marriage is considered a privilege, not a right.

Jim


http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/...s/201312280011

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

According to this article. Marriage is considered a privilege, not a right.
Jim
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/...s/201312280011

Seriously? That's a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by some guy named Jonath**an Doh**anic from Monaca PA.

I suppose we now know IFFY's real name. But what kind of authority is that exactly? And it rehashes all of the discredited arguments that marriage is intended for procreative purposes.

Here is another "article" that says marriage is a right:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

According to this article. Marriage is considered a privilege, not a right.

Jim


http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/...s/201312280011

Two ass handings in one night. Couldn't have happened to two better turds.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

This post is doubly ignorant.

First, the Bill of Rights is a floor not a ceiling. It is NOT an exhaustive list of the rights of Americans. It was a minimum list. For instance, it makes NO mention of privacy rights, which is a widely recognized right - especially dear to conservatives and small government opponents. Someone who spends to much time talking about Ozombies ought to know that.

Second, it lists only the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. So, you carefully stopped short of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the equal protections of the law and the rights of American citizens - which has been held to include a wide array of rights, including privacy rights and marital rights.

Want to try again?

They stop short of anything resembling common sense.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Seriously? That's a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by some guy named Jonath**an Doh**anic from Monaca PA.

I suppose we now know IFFY's real name. But what kind of authority is that exactly? And it rehashes all of the discredited arguments that marriage is intended for procreative purposes.

Here is another "article" that says marriage is a right:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf

You don't have to get nasty but driving a car is NOT a civil right , either...

[timpage]

This pretty much covers it.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Why?

Look, I'm conservative and I don't get the supposedly great offense.

First off, this isn't even flag desecration because the flag doesn't even appear in the image. It has been replaced by the rainbow flag.

Second, it is a common practice in political propaganda, protest, or satire to take a well known image and to modify it to make a political point - either for or against something.

Would it be "desecration" to modify or replace the American flag in this image with the rainbow flag? Or the Confederate flag? Or a Tea Party flag? Or the pinko "hammer and sickle" flag.



What about this image?



I don't see how gays celebrating their newly minted civil rights are desecrating the flag by adapting an historic image of an American victory.

It's one thing to say you disagree with gay marriage.

It is another thing to say that any signs of celebration by gay marriage proponents is de facto un-American and a desecration of all things American.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You don't have to get nasty but driving a car is NOT a civil right , either...

And your point is?

If they denied the "privilege" of driving to gays, you think that would be OK?

What about no black drivers? No equal protection problem there for you?

The more you get hung up on the word "license", the worse your arguments get.

What if - way back when - they had called them "marriage certificates" or "marriage writs" or "marriage deeds" some other legalish sounding term. Would we even be having this inane discussion?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by timpage

This pretty much covers it.

I bet you got the bumper sticker.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Seriously? That's a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by some guy named Jonath**an Doh**anic from Monaca PA.

I suppose we now know IFFY's real name. But what kind of authority is that exactly? And it rehashes all of the discredited arguments that marriage is intended for procreative purposes.

Here is another "article" that says marriage is a right:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf

They just moved the Goal Post so gays could get married that's all that is. Anything that requires a license also makes it a privilege. There maybe some rights involved but there is also privileges associated with it also.

Jim

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And your point is?

If they denied the "privilege" of driving to gays, you think that would be OK?

What about no black drivers? No equal protection problem there for you?

The more you get hung up on the word "license", the worse your arguments get.

What if - way back when - they had called them "marriage certificates" or "marriage writs" or "marriage deeds" some other legalish sounding term. Would we even be having this inane discussion?

Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

They just moved the Goal Post so gays could get married that's all that is. Anything that requires a license also makes it a privilege. There maybe some rights involved but there is also privileges associated with it also.

And your point is?

EVEN IF MARRIAGE IS A PRIVILEGE, the government cannot violate the equal protection of the law by withholding the privilege from one group of people without a damn good reason.

And there IS NO GOOD REASON to deny it to gays. Thinking that gays are icky is NOT a good reason.