Poll shows Utah evenly split on gay marriage rights-

If you're following the discussion, the problem so far is entirely semantic. He equates sexual orientation with reproduction. He speaks of "heterosexual sex" as though the orientation cannot be decoupled from the behavior. He may as well speak of "brunette sex" or "registered voter sex". So I've been trying to get across that sex comes in a variety of forms, and orientations come in a variety of directions, and that all forms of sex are engaged in by those of all orientations. There is nothing close to a one-for-one equivalence between sex acts and sexual preference.

Consider the case of oral sex. Would that be "heterosexual" or "homosexual" sex? I think every sexually active person of any orientation enjoys it frequently.

 

No, I was following. I got you. But anyone who calls insemination with a turkey baster "heterosexual sex" has issues.

 

He didn't say that. But according to his classification scheme, that's where it would have to fall.

 

Damn... Another fetish i have to remove from my list...

 

Why do you keep responding to me with non sequiturs? I simply pointed out that what Utah has VOTED for bears no resemblance whatsoever to the claim made in the OP's poll.

Where in the Constitution is marriage even addressed?

 

I think that was supposed to be the point. That public attitudes have been changing dramatically, as people (even UTAH people) set aside their kneejerks and start thinking about what they're jerking about. An earlier vote was solidly against same-sex marriage. A more recent poll shows the split to be 50-50. Come back in 6 months or a year, and the numbers will continue in that same direction.

Uh, under equal protection of the law? Due process? Did you expect the writers of the constitution to enumerate every possible way in which classes of people could be discriminated against, indefinitely into the future?

 

You continue to bloviate on a sidebar. I posted because I laughed at Sadanie's ignorance to her harpoon of the argument of the OP. She proudly proclaimed an example of a poll which clearly turned out to be inaccurate while stupidly thinking she was protecting the point made by the OP, when her statement undermined it. I find polls incredibly easily to manipulate to the desired outcome, don't you? A word here, a twist or ambiguous meaning there, and you can collect whatever result you're looking for.

A simple 'no' would have sufficed. The fact is that your claim is not self-evident. If it were, there wouldn't be a HOST of laws which preclude a particular group's participation. Your statement is utterly juvenile, and easily defeated - in this case merely arguing that equal protection for marriage simply means that as a man, you can go marry a woman, just like any other man.

 

Agreed. Tell me who funded the poll, and I'll tell you what it found.

And been incorrect.

Again, I agree. Nor was it self-evident that inter-racial marriage was protected. It had to be adjudicated.

But of course, there was a whole host of laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage as well.

Talk about juvenile! We're talking about whether marriage is a protected constitutional right. It's assumed (by adults) that the parties DESIRE to marry. So, should they be permitted to marry? If not, on what basis?

And here is where I agree that it's not self-evident. We have two schools of thought here. One says that if two consenting adults wish to declare a long-term commitment, there is no reason to deny them. Whether they are different sex, the same sex, elderly, sterile, or even Martian (let's say Martians have no sex and reproduce by budding). Marriage isn't about sex, it's about equality under the law and about love and commitment.

And the other school of thought says that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman, period. If two people wish to commit to one another in legal marriage and for any reason they don't fit this particular mold, then hard cheeze, suckers, you get to suffer.

What IS evident to me is that government is deeply involved in marriage. If it were not, if there were no legal, financial, and other administrative ramifications of marriage, none of this would really matter. Two people would make a private commitment and do their best to keep it. So what we're talking about here is a legal condition. That condition, for better or for worse, bestows a very large number of advantages, protocols, and protections. And because of that, the government needs a VERY compelling reason why that condition should be denied to any two consenting adults. So far, no such reason has ever been proposed.

 

A minute ago you were demanding your 'protections' under the Constitution. It is not facts in evidence, nor is race equatable with gender or sexual preference - though liberals try try try try.

Discriminating minds can draw clear and critical distinctions.

On the same basis all sorts of parties aren't allowed to marry. Don't worry: your degenerate peers are convincing an increasingly degenerate public; you'll win your way, even though you shouldn't. This shouldn't even be within the power of Government to grant regardless.

I didn't even want to talk about this topic; I'm sick of it. I simply wanted to make the point I made.

No longer interested.

 

Of course they can be equated. In both cases we have a minority. In both cases they desire to marry. In both cases, there were laws against it. In both cases, courts found no merit to the laws.

Of course they can. The question is, what is most important to the constitution - the similarities or the differences? So the adjudication is currently in progress.

Ah, the pain of granting legal equality to degenerates. How you must suffer.

You made a point? Too bad you're just not interested enough to complete whatever your thought might have been.

 

Fun exercise for simpletons: let's name a minority group which we could claim would like to marry as well, so that this ridiculous claim of 'equatable' can be met - just so we can illustrate said simpleton's inability to logically claim equation.

No, the process is liberal viral infection.

You're either a degenerate, or one battling it. I know on which side you stand.

Yeah, I made a point. Too bad you were too stupidly obsessed with making a different one; one I could now give a shT about, liberal.

 

Is the idea of equality under the law so baffling to you, that anyone who understands even what the words mean is a simpleton?

That's as compelling a logical argument for discrimination as I've seen yet.

I stand against blind bigotry and hatred. You clearly champion those wonderful human attributes. Equality is a viral infection, it's degenerate, discrimination and hatred are Good Things. We GOT it already.

Ah. Well argued, excellent marshaling of evidence, application of logic, dispassionate thinking. I suggest you stick with your viral infection. It becomes you, know what I mean?

 

You aren't arguing equality; it's obvious that gays want to abuse the definition of the word marriage, as it has described the union of a man and woman.

And next, you gays will try to co-opt the word 'intercourse'. That's different that what you're doing too, but you'll try to deny it. You, therefore, aren't engaging in anything equal; you're engaging in a pathetic and disgusting COPY of a sacrament which is glorified by God.

What you're supporting isn't - and this Constitution wasn't meant for degenerates like you. You enjoy your time smearing your feces over this document and what it means; your time will be short.

I no longer see a reason for you to ever appear on my screen again. Begone, liberal.

 

No, they simply wish to marry.

Behind every bigot, you find a bible.

Praise Jeezus!

Well, at last we get to the bottom of it. We have the forces of religious bigotry against the forces of equality and tolerance, and bigotry has been losing lately. And the bigots HATE it, an emotion they have a lot of practice with.

 

Anyone smell that? It's like liberal fart in here. I even heard a tiny squeak.

 

Praise Jeezus!

 

So you lost, and you're just gonna take your ball and go home? BTW, I don;t know why you think this is liberal vs conservative. Tons of conservatives support same sex marriage:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/31091/republican-support-for-gay-marriage-jumps-to-52-percent

Ouch- that's gotta sting.

 

Uh...why not? If people want to get married, why not? It doesn't hurt anybody, it's the two of them that are agreeing after all, no one else has anything to do with it.

You are exactly the kind of backwards person I'm talking about, who is putting your own opinions on something that doesn't affect you ahead of other people's happiness.

 

Try reading my post. I had no interest in the thread, other than to laugh at liberals who take one side of the argument lauding polls while the other side bashes their reliability. I find the homosexual lifestyle disgusting, and any arguments attempting to equate a sexual lifestyle with a race or gender - as though they could ever be considered equal - laughable.

Enjoy your time. It will be short.

 

Nah- we'll be fine. This is the USA, the land of the free. I'm sorry you hate it so much.

Perhaps Russia would be more to your liking?

And was that last little comment a threat?

And in addition, here in the USA, we don't make laws against people based on what you find disgusting. Too bad for you. But thank you for admitting what you are. At least you're honest.

 

The challenges and bigotry both experience are the same though. And again, you might want to talk to some gay black people about that.

Except that gay people are not trying to pass laws against you.

 

Heterosexual sex is common terminology.

Where are you getting this from? What study proves anything you are saying? And most importantly, why would someone who claims to be homosexual engage in heterosexual sex?

You need to read more carefully. I said their by their very nature they cannot procreate.

If you still deny this please explain how homosexual sex can bring about procreation.

That's theory not fact and the very idea you would admit its possible negates your claim that homosexuality is natural or genetic.

LOL What? Vaginal sex IS Heterosexual sex! Why do you continue to deny the terms found in any dictionary anywhere?

What's misleading is dancing around the term heterosexual sex calling everything from sex or vaginal sex. It demonstrates an inability to address the most basic form of sexual reproduction for humans.

Honestly I cannot believe you are claiming this. Its so painfully easy to prove.

Dictionary:

Sexual Intercourse
The act in which the external male reproductive organ—penis—enters the external/accessible female reproductive tract—vagina
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

sexual intercourse
n.
1. Coitus between humans.
2. Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Heterosexual+sex

Why are you doing this? This isn't rocket science and the dictionary proves it.

Of course heterosexual sex exists. Its asinine for you to pretend it doesn't exist when its so easy to prove it does.

Which of course you do not name.

No that isn't the question. This is about the basic defintion of words you refuse to accept even when the dictionary is put right in front of you. Heterosexual sex is the only way to naturally procreate. You cannot deny this fact. You also have to admit that the only way for homosexuals to procreate naturally is to engage in heterosexual sex which goes against the very definition of what it means to be homosexual.

You still aren't getting it. This is about the definition of the terms you are using. Homosexual sex cannot lead to procreation. Ever. So if homosexuality is natural as you claim they have to perform a completely unnatural act in order to procreate which is heterosexual sex. Heterosexual sex is a requirement in natural procreation proving heterosexuality is genetic since it is the only sex that leads to reproduction. Homosexual sex has no basis in nature or genetics since the very act cannot lead to procreation. Those are the cold hard facts of reality.

 

I have and I've given you black leaders from the civil rights movement who say they aren't even close to being the same struggle.

Where homosexuals brought over as slaves for hundreds of years? Were they sold off as cattle? Did they have separate drinking fountains? Can a black man walk down the street and tell people he's white like a homosexual can any day of the week? There is no comparison whatsoever.

Of course they are. They already have in some states where it is illegal for someone with a religious objection to homosexual marriage to refuse service.

You really ought to read more.

 

And I have answered this for you several times. The bigotry we experience is the same. And you did not give me examples of gay black people. Try again.

Wait a minute- you post this right after you posted what you did above? Are you kidding me? So, there should be separate businesses for gay people? Wow. You can't see the forest for the trees. You really outta read your own posts more. If you own a business open to the public, you serve the public.

And where in the Bible does it say you can't sell things to gay people?

 

No, it really isn't. And the way you are using the term is highly misleading.

So let's try to start from the top. Is oral sex "homosexual" sex or is it "heterosexual sex"? You understand, it's performed all the time by people of all orientations.