Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

No, states don't have to recognize vermonts laws... if one state deems it illegal and another not, it does not effect one another until the Federal Government rules on it (the actual purpose of the Feds..)

For instance... in Oregon you can get a permit to grow weed for medical purposes... but if I go to Nevada its a felony.. or states have different driving license requirements ets..

While I believe banning gay marriage is unconstitutional in its self, states do not have to recognize other state laws... that's why they are called State Laws.. not Federal

Originally posted by schrodingers dog


Mmm, women driving is illegal in SA ...

In other countries women are put to death for getting gang raped ...

Prostitution is legal in Thailand ...

You suggest I'm talking about women. How about a 13 year old boy marrying a 25 year old woman and providing her many childern before the age of 18?

Are human rights

You are impling that I included human right issues too, and I didn't, so your examples are rather moot.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

You suggest I'm talking about women.

Not at all, they were random examples I used to show you the capricious nature of what different societies consider "normal" ... the fact that I used women for examples is purely coincidental.

And you are missing the point ...

You are extrapolating "normal" from an extremely narrow, simplistic, and archaic set of variables. In fact only one variable: What you have been conditioned to believe is "normal."

[edit on 1 Sep 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Strange I did not know I suffered from a Fetish? And I'm a little confused as to why you only spoke about males? Do lesbians not exist in your closed minded little world?

And no we do not recruit. Only a simpleton things that the gays are out to change everybody to gay. We are who we are, we only ask that you folks unti the knot in your panties and learn to live with it.

~Keeper

Sorry about that....leasbians included too. Happy now?

I'm not a simpleton, the gays own agenda speeks for itself. I guess you havene't read any of their banners when they have their marches. The Gays chant their recruiting statement as follows:

10 percent is not enough, we want rights to your children and if you don't like it TUFF!

As far as calling me a simpleton, please keep personal attacks out of your commentary.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I understand that you probably don't understand, so it's scary for you. Perhaps you are inclined towards one or more of these things and feel a need to demonize them in order to keep yourself grounded.

And that is the standard comeback isn't it. "its so scary to me"

As I said I just find it hypocritical...

Lol... ok you made me laugh.... so putting, let’s say, polygamist and homosexuals in the same sentence I am demonizing homosexuals?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

OK, that post made me laugh! I've been married, so I know better than to make that mistake twice. But you forgot that those who chose to will also have the right to be their mates next of kin when something bad happens, they will have the right to inherit their mates estate when they die, they will have the right to... You get the point!

I can appreciate your sentiments, as I am all for gay rights. No person’s sexuality engaged in consensual relationships with emotionally healthy adults should ever be questioned by others in my humble opinion.

I realize the unexpected in life happens sometimes for those cases were there wasn’t a will made up before an untimely or unexpected passing, but even as a heterosexual I can more or less stipulate a next of kin in a legally binding contract of my choosing as well as give anyone I stipulate limited or full Power of Attorney on my behalf.

I can appreciate aspects like Social Security Death Benefits as being a valid reason for gays to seek legal marriage.
I can appreciate the desire for legitimacy in the eyes of the law, yet both our current President and former President here in the United States are and were respectively considered to still be illegitimate by some based on how an individual wants to interpret the law or disagree with the law.

Ultimately validation in life really only comes when you agree with and condone how you are living your life, regardless of what others might say or think.

This is a conspiracy website by the way and I point that out because the actual marriage laws as they apply to heterosexuals have some sinister aspects to them when you examine how and why the corporate government began licensing marriages in the first place.

I don’t advocate the current legal institution of marriage in its present form for anyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

You are right that some legal privileges and protections are afforded by it, but so are many more legal obligations and burdens. I personally don’t believe the former outweigh the latter in any circumstance though I do concur people of all sexual orientations should have the right to enter in to a legal union if they be so inclined.

I just personally advise against a legal union to anyone and everyone if they be so inclined! Take a Vegas vacation hire an escort, get inebriated, see a good mental health specialist, get some electric shock treatments but don’t get married!

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
I also thought that as a country we were beyond the fear of change, but we are not.

It's not the fear of change, it's the fear of the disease it spreads, fear for our childrens safety, fear this paraphilic lifestyle is going to get rammed down our childrens throats, etc. Those are legitimate fears and concerns.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

And you are missing the point ...

You are extrapolating "normal" from an extremely narrow, simplistic, and archaic set of variables. In fact only one variable: What you have been conditioned to believe is "normal."

Well all your human rights examples were about women....

Maybe I am....

But in all those countries you mentioned that see human right issues as normal also view homosexuality as normal too.


What you call "conditioned" many would call “traditions” and what creates traditions is what the majority of society believes, and so if we are going to throw traditions out that is based on cultural and religious practices of the majority than lets open the door all the way and not just a crack for the homosexuals to slip through.


[edit on 1-9-2009 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by John Matrix

It's not the fear of change, it's the fear of the disease it spreads, fear for our childrens safety, fear this paraphilic lifestyle is going to get rammed down our childrens throats, etc. Those are legitimate fears and concerns.

Please, enough with the hysterical "oh will somebody think of the children" disinfo.

The DSM provides clinical criteria for these paraphilias:

Exhibitionism: the recurrent urge or behavior to expose one's genitals to an unsuspecting person. (Can also be the recurrent urge or behavior to perform sexual acts in a public place, or in view of unsuspecting persons.)

Fetishism: the use of inanimate objects to gain sexual excitement. Partialism refers to fetishes specifically involving nonsexual parts of the body.

Frotteurism: the recurrent urges of behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person.

Paedophilia: a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children,[22] or has engaged in child sexual abuse.[23][24][25]

Sexual Masochism: the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer for sexual pleasure.

Sexual Sadism: the recurrent urge or behavior involving acts in which the pain or humiliation of a person is sexually exciting.

Transvestic fetishism: arousal from "clothing associated with members of the opposite sex."[6][26]

Voyeurism: the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing or engaging in sexual activities, or activities which may not be sexual in nature at all. *

Not that the DSM is the ultimate authority mind you, but if they exclude homosexuality, perhaps you should consider relinquishing this disingenuous "slippery slope" argument.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by stevegmu

 

Your whole argument is moot because state law can not supersede federal law.

Hmmm.

Federal law states marijuana is illegal, and yet we have states legalizing marijuana.

Federal law states people crossing the international border into the U.S. without permission is illegal, and yet we have sanctuary cities.

The state law decriminalizing marijuana in states like California doesn't hold up in federal court. The DEA still gets convictions.
It is not the responsibility of the states to enforce federal immigration laws.

Originally posted by John Matrix
The Gays chant their recruiting statement as follows:

10 percent is not enough, we want rights to your children and if you don't like it TUFF!

Care to give a source on that one? I've been to many marches and parades, and have yet to see anything even remotely along those lines!

As far as calling me a simpleton, please keep personal attacks out of your commentary.

This coming from someone who posts snarky little snipes like "Oh, I forgot to add all the extra work Gays provide for surgeons that do hemorrhoid surgeries. OUCH!!". You want respect, start acting in a respectful manner!

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Not that the DSM is the ultimate authority mind you, but if they exclude homosexuality, perhaps you should consider relinquishing this disingenuous "slippery slope" argument.

Well it was there a few decades ago right in alphabetical order, and so the question is why is it not there anymore? The official answer is that just being homosexual is not considered a harmful behavior. The fact that many homosexuals are also well established professionals throughout the professionals arenas I’m sure had little influence on this decision to remove it….

[edit on 1-9-2009 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by John Matrix
The Gays chant their recruiting statement as follows:

10 percent is not enough, we want rights to your children and if you don't like it TUFF!

Care to give a source on that one? I've been to many marches and parades, and have yet to see anything even remotely along those lines!

As far as calling me a simpleton, please keep personal attacks out of your commentary.

This coming from someone who posts snarky little snipes like "Oh, I forgot to add all the extra work Gays provide for surgeons that do hemorrhoid surgeries. OUCH!!". You want respect, start acting in a respectful manner!

There was nothing disrespectful at all in my post. You are too sensitive. I never directed my commentary at you personally. There is a difference.
I was not being snarky....I was simply informing with the truth. It's funny how as soon as I bring to light the down side of anal sex that I get attacked. Gay sex is what it is and does what it does....and physical damage is a real serious problem whether you accept the fact or not.

Aaaanyhoot .... my apologies for being baited into changing the subject.

Which in this case isn't what any of us believe about the "normalcy" of gay marriage but rather on the constitutional and civil enforcement issues as they relate to the Federal vs. State context.

Any further remarks from me, will focus solely on the above stated premise.

[edit on 1 Sep 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by John Matrix


If you are going to state that something is a fact, then SOURCE it!!! Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and thus hearsay! This is ATS, the online equivalent of Missouri, it's the SHOW ME SITE!

And personal or general, it was snarky, and you know it! Don't expect respect when you are disrespectful, whether in general, or directly.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
This coming from someone who posts snarky little snipes like "Oh, I forgot to add all the extra work Gays provide for surgeons that do hemorrhoid surgeries. OUCH!!". You want respect, start acting in a respectful manner!

I just looked at your signature and realized that snarky and snipes better describes yourself than it does me.....

Your signature is deeply insulting and offensive to millions of Americans:

The Christian Right: America's version of the Taliban!

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by John Matrix

 

If you are going to state that something is a fact, then SOURCE it!!! Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and thus hearsay! This is ATS, the online equivalent of Missouri, it's the SHOW ME SITE!

And personal or general, it was snarky, and you know it! Don't expect respect when you are disrespectful, whether in general, or directly.

Are you saying you require proof that anal sex causes hemorrhoids? You must be joking. If you want to prove my facts as being wrong, go ahead, be my guest. But don't start barking orders at me pal. Do your own research. If you were not so snarky and sniping at me I would have given you some research and background info.

reply to post by John Matrix

Myth: Anal sex can create hemorrhoids

Anal sex does not create hemorrhoids, although it can certainly irritate existing ones. *

Argh ... you made me break my word.

[edit on 1 Sep 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by John Matrix

 

Myth: Anal sex can create hemorrhoids

Anal sex does not create hemorrhoids, although it can certainly irritate existing ones. *

Argh ... you made me break my word.

[edit on 1 Sep 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Do you think I would say it without knowing what I am talking about? Yep...you think I am that stupid....and that my friend is disrespectful....click here and read number 10 for yourself. www.hemroidshemorrhoids.com...

Numnber 10 from that page reads as follows:

Anal sex is another cause of hemorrhoids. No matter how much lubricant it’s used; keep in mind that the anus wasn’t designed for this function. If we remember that just wiping the area with toilet paper is considered a risk, you will get the picture yourself of how much problems can cause this type of sexual intercourse.

I know it's off topic, but I was asked for a source, so there it is. Next time you or Jaxon Roberts doubts me, think twice so you don't end up looking stupid.


[edit on 1/9/09 by John Matrix]

[edit on 1/9/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by John Matrix

snark·y (snär'kē)
adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang

1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide.

Source. (You should try this sometime!)

Having an opinion does not qualify as 'snarky', it is the expression of such opinion that can be. Since I have yet to read a post of yours that was not both insulting and offensive (and I have yet to see you ever source anything) I'll wear that like a badge of honor! And if you find me to be so, feel free to click the 'ignore' link below my avatar!