Marriage: A victory today for those who love liberty.

I guess that would depend upon your ethics

 

He is saying it is wrong without using ethics at all. Id like to know how this is done.

 

Yet when it comes up for a vote its usually defeated. I dont trust polls i used to do them for a living and you can get just about any answer you want. Most people now just dont give a flying crap about much of anything their too busy living in fantasy land. As long as their ok who cares.

 

Why is homosexuality the only sexual perversion we are supposed to accept? Personally i would rather poke a female sheep than another guy. At least the sheep wont tell anyone

 

In practical terms, yes. Over time, however, the Court has reversed certain rulings.

 

I doubt the cow would even be bothered.

 

It's hard to say, although I guess it would be less bothered by that than being killed.

 

You can (*)(*)(*)(*) your dog all you want. But you can't marry your dog because your dog can not give consent. Nor can your toaster or your Corvette. But hey, why don't you go (*)(*)(*)(*) that toaster and tell us how it works out for you?

 

1. There are theories that assert that the reason it is no longer considered a mental illness in the West is due to the lobbying efforts of homosexuals/ liberals.

2. If being exclusively attracted to children or animals implies that there is something wrong in the brain of the one who holds these feeling, then why can't the same be said for those who are attracted to the same sex? And that's when the excuses come in. People stop caring about reality and start basing their beliefs on mere emotion.

But there is a fine line between believing (or disbelieving) in something and looking at things in a certain perspective because of the way things are wired in a person's brain. It's not as if nature dictated that humans worship Jesus. But nature certainly dictated that humans be attracted to and procreate with the opposite sex.

One is biological, the other is psychological.

Well, by "mental illness," I don't mean that homosexuals can't live a normal and productive life. But pedophiles too can live a normal and productive life.

But love is not a sexual-orientation disorder. Being attracted to the same sex is. Thus, your analogy is inherently flawed.

But there is nothing biologically wrong in you wanting to grab a girl's ass. However, it would be biologically wrong if you wanted grab a man's ass.

Well, it's not like humans were biologically engineered to not feel sexual pleasure.

Sure, and if you disagree with the pedophiles who advance their own excuses, they will undoubtedly regard you as some sort of totalitarian.

- - - Updated - - -

Interestingly, this group's base of operations is located in San Francisco. Here we go again?

- - - Updated - - -

It's biologically and scientifically wrong, just like being born with one eye is biologically and scientifically wrong.

 

Why would i need a dogs consent or a toasters?

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like upholding slavery?

 

I agree that being gay is biological. I agree that being born with one eye is a birth defect and wrong. Why is being gay a birth defect like one eye? What makes it wrong as opposed to different?

 

Any binding legal agreement requires consent. If you don't understand that most basic concept in law, I can't help you.

 

I have always believed government had no roll in marriage. That love should be the deciding factor. I was surprised it was only a 5-4 decision, I thought it would be at least 6-3. But now just like straights, gays will come to know what D I V O R C E means. Equal opportunity for one and all.

 

This is one of the best USSC rulings for America, ever!!

 

I don't put to much stock in how these things are written...

Did Prop 8 Voters Know What They Were Voting For?
A new study shows that confusion in the voting booth may have skewed results.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...-8-voters-know-what-they-were-voting-for.html

Also..most people don't care and not because of they're living in fantasy land as you suggest, but rather because they realize that it does not affect their lives in any negative way when other couples marry who they choose to. Heterosexual marriages can be comprised of two lunatics and who cares or has the right to object, if their lunacy is not infringing on anyone else's life. Live and let live.

 

Does my dog care if its legal or not? Can I leave it something in my will? Also I bet if they could they would consent.

- - - Updated - - -

Polls are better? Again i used to do them for a living. If we didnt get the answers we wanted we simply tweaked the questions until we did.

No their too busy texting or doing something else on their devices. Few are educated or care about politics or have a clue as to whats really going on

 

Because humans are meant to be attracted to and procreate with the opposite sex, just like humans are meant to see with two eyes.

 

Why is consent so particularly important when it comes to sex? Do pet owners get consent from their dogs when they want to serve them a particular type of food?

Perhaps the dog doesn't like tuna. Where is the freedom to choose between tuna and ham?

 

Well seeing with two eyes is definitely better for the function of sight. That is what makes one eye wrong right? Human site is maximized with both eyes.

So why is it wrong when humans are attracted to the same sex? You say because we are "meant" to be attracted to the same sex and to procreate. Would that be how you see the function of sex maximized? Procreation? Why?

 

Well aren't you clever?

 

Well, since the topic of this thread is lawful marriage you're going to need consent. You can do whatever you want to your dog except legally marry it.

 

A victory for license over liberty and those with the inability to tell the difference.

 

You should have learned this stuff in kindergarten. Do your research and get back to me.

 

A victory for same sex marriage, but they should be married only by a justice of the peace. Not in a church of God. IMO

 

Yes, it's called paranoia.

Quite the contrary, the more that people try to analogize these things, the more often their defenses become emotional or religious.

Logically, a desire to be with another adult of the same sex makes more sense than trying to be with a child or animal. Two adults can relate on a very deep level regardless of gender. An adult and a child can't reach that same level unless the adult is mentally impaired (or the child has a genius intellect). An adult and an animal can certainly be close in a parental-like relationship, but it doesn't really evolve into a lover relationship unless the adult has some very unusual mental characteristics. As I mentioned before, it's easier to argue in favor of legalized bestiality than pedophilia, since animal rights are hard to firmly define.

Well, several parallels have been drawn between people who have schizophrenia and people who are especially devout, so there is clearly some biological connection with piety for some people.

In either case, some people are wired to be attracted to people of the same sex. If intimacy only existed for the sake of having children, then we'd prohibit infertile people from marrying.

Sure, pedophiles can, but the difference between the two is, again, consent. I know you don't like the consent argument, but it applies to more than just sex.

Consent is the very basis of freedom of choice. We allow people to control their own lives, and we usually restrict them from controlling the lives of others (which usually involves someone trying to inhibit another person's consent for one choice or another).

You don't have the freedom to take advantage of a child, but you do have the freedom to be intimate with another adult who consents. It's that simple.

It's interesting you should say that. Plenty of people love someone of the same sex. So, I guess you'll have to contradict yourself in one direction or another.

It would be biologically abnormal, but whether or not it is abnormal is irrelevant to its legality.

I'm sure they will, but consent is the reason why their arguments are generally ignored.