Lesbian ‘Gender Non-Conforming’ Couple Tries to Force Son to Have ‘Queer’ Gender Rela

Can you explain why homosexuality needs more protection than other sexualities ?

Perhaps because no one is beating up anyone for being
Heterosexual / Betterosexual ?

 

from what I've seen, the past few stories of "homophobia" were all false

Please spare us the unsubstantiated drama

 

Yes, oh most laudible sexpert on all such matters.

 

In reality they should not be. But for most of our country's history, folks saw fit to discriminate against them because they felt it was a sin.
They've been beaten, killed, ridiculed to suicide. Denied jobs and other rights.
Why did folks seem fit to denigrate those people?
That is why they ended up a protected class. The fact you need to ask is troubling. You don't know the history of the people.

 

There are plenty of groups who fit that description. Again, what makes them special?

Denigrate? So now its denigration for someone to follow their religion?

I know slaves faced 100 times the denigration humiliation and murder of homosexuals. And how were they freed? Though an amendment.

So again, why is homosexuality so special it cannot follow the same federal process that abolished slavery?

 

Oh, so you place the blame not on Bullies that prey on weaker children, but on the victims themselves ?
You do not have to make any mistakes in school to be Bullied, however, there should be zero tollerance for Bully behavior against any child.

 

Society

How the heck did you get that out of what I said?
Unless you're saying religious folks have a right to denigrate people even if it's none of their business.
What would give religious folks the right to denigrate anyone? Christians are not suppose to do that to anyone. They should be like Jesus.


I know slaves faced 100 times the denigration humiliation and murder of homosexuals. And how were they freed? Though an amendment.

How do you know that? Were you a slave, a LGBT person?
Wow, nothing is being abolished with LGBTs. Just acceptance. And no one is forced to accept. Unless you break some law.
I truly feel sorry for your demented view of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

You know. It's the woman's fault for getting raped. She was asking for it afterall.
The mindset of some people.

 

Not a reason for law. If society truely believed the way you do an ammendment would have been easy to get. But we both know society doesn't support it large enough to get it done the legal Constitutional way.

The very next line you say below is the reason why.

What would give religious folks the right to denigrate anyone? Christians are not suppose to do that to anyone.[/quote]

And this is where you aren't making sense. Simply objecting to what some consider a sin is not denigrating anyone.

Read the passage Render to Caesar.


I know slaves faced 100 times the denigration humiliation and murder of homosexuals. And how were they freed? Though an amendment.

No way. You did not POSSIBLY equate SLAVERY with homosexual marriage. Please tell me you didn't just make such a colossal mistake. I'll give you a chance to correct yourself.

In the meantime you still haven't answered my question. Third time. Why was an amendment the proper way to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote but gay marriage is somehow except from thats same process? Try answering the question this time if you can.

 

An ammendment for what? Why?

What would give religious folks the right to denigrate anyone? Christians are not suppose to do that to anyone.[/quote]

Objecting isn't a problem. It's when morons act on those objections, like killing, beating, and denigrating. Object all you want. But don't impose your objections on others constitutional rights.

LGBTs are looking to be freed from anything.

No I didn't. I don't know if you comprehend very well. You are the one who brought slavery into this, not me.
LGBTs just want the same treatment as hetero folks.

For the 3rd time, what is the ammendment for LGBT for?
You aren't making a lick of sense.

This is getting so far off track, I see no reason to continue.

 

Are you kidding? For new rights not specified in the Constitution. I actually had to say that?

What you call denigration is not denigration.

verb (used with object), denigrated, denigrating.
1.
to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame:

Their belief is the act is sinful. Who are you to say that judgement in their religion is denigration?

LOL Nothing in what you just laid out is anyone defending nor is it what this case is about. Now get a hold of your emotions and focus on the case. This is not about any kind of physical abuse.

Freed from law as well? When you make pie in the sky general statements you get nowhere. You know very well we are talking about why homosexuals in your mind are so special they don't need an ammenmdent as the Constitution requires for new law.

Please don't be dishonest. When I brought up slavery you made a direct equal comparison of slavery to homosexuality and their struggles. Denying it now doesn't help you.

Then submit for an amendment as women did to vote and slaves did for freedom. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Gay Marriage. The ability to not be able to discriminate against any homosexual in any setting for any reason. Everything you are asking for. How do you not know your own argument?

Says the person who cannot understand what the amendment process is for.

I understand. Its difficult when you cannot justify why your pet social project is so different and special it gets to circumvent the rules when so many others who faced FAR worse went though the very amendment process you cant even bring yourself to address.

 

No amendments were required as legal precedent could be utilized. SCOTUS ruled the issue was resolved within the confines of current law, no additional laws were justified. Religious representatives and legal orginizations pushed this issue to the SCOTUS believing they could not lose, then called for a referendum; looking at current polling (even extremely conservative polls) the end result would be the same.
But you can grasp onto that hopefully fallacy that maybe, just maybe, over half the nation sides with you and it was judicial tyranny.

Religious people are free to believe whatever they want, they can eventually expect resistance when they codify those beliefs into legal principal to disenfranchise other groups.

You demand others specifically address every single point you make yet run from entire threads when you have no rebuttal. Typical of the class of individuals claiming moral superiority.

 

There is no pet social project. That is why there is no reason to continue. Sad there are still degenerates who think like you.

 

Where does that belief come from, certainly not from correct bible translations .. constructed, changed to fit dogma and bias bible translations probably.

When the bible is read in it's correct translation there is no mention of homosexuality being a sin, in fact it isn't mentioned at all.

 

I met Nancy Bittle of AWARE, Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment.
I used to help train women to defend themselves with guns.

Susan B. Anthony said;

"Woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself.”.