David Hartung FAILS Yet Again with Equal Civil Rights for Gay People
(too old to reply)
2018-05-11 14:00:59 UTC
DO the mentally ill have a right to
defy the societies norms?
Yes. They can only be confined when they are a danger to themselves
or others.
Otherwise they can refuse treatment or shelter and be as a strange
as they are
driven to be.
True, but society has no duty to enable such behavior.
Actually the government is responsible for protecting civil rights.
So how two women or two men getting married endanger themselves or
others? Do
you remember your side was given multiple opportunities in courts
to prove this?
They failed.
Same sex "marriage" has been outside the norms of society for
So how does two women or two men getting married endanger themselves
or others?
Where in this thread have I suggested that same sex marriage "harms"
society? I merely suggested that same sex marriage is outside the norms
of human culture, and that we have no obligation to statutorily sanction
such relationships.
It endangers children....

it endangers the bond that society has put on marriage as an institution
to raise children and tries to redefine marriage as an institution for
love. Which is NOT really true as marriage in the past was often for
status and power and money and children.... the children created a bond
that was unbreakable. A childless marriage was NOT a good thing.
Children were the main point even when it was a marriage for power and

A gay marriage is a childless marriage..... they can't produce any bond
by their genetic progeny, so they can never gain that bond that marriage
was set up to achieve. NOT that it was always successful but that was
the goal, now marriage has no goal and no useful purpose. Marriage no
longer helps society achieve any goals so as a societal ritual, marriage
has now become useless. You can do the same thing without the structure
of marriage. When you make something all inclusive you destroy the
reasons for making it exclusive and if everyone can be included then
there is no gain for being included by doing it and that makes the
intrinsic value nothing.

Marriage is as useless as a tail on a human. Liberals and Obama might
say that Society has "evolved" past the point of marriage.
That's Karma
2018-05-12 10:59:44 UTC
I just gave an example above where it did (there are others as well).
Relations with children of the marriage, inheritance, inheritance
tax, joint
income tax filings, other financials, hospital visits, jail visits,
medical decisions for a spouse, marriage property.
So you equate freedom with benefits,
And what's really bad is that he attacks the rest of the people rather
than the benefit that is the actual cause of the inequality.... if the
government is doing something unequal it should be stopped NOT used to
force others give up their rights.

When a tax credit is NOT as advantageous to gays as Heterosexuals you
don't change marriage, you declare the tax law to be unconstitutional.

Instead the government blames the private person rather than the laws
that the Government created from thin air in the first place. When in
reality it's the Government stealing the RIGHTS of WE THE PEOPLE and
giving new powers to the government to force people to give up freedom
so the government can have unequal Jim Crow laws that exist liker the
Marriage clause for a spouse to get a tax break. That tax law was an
obvious unequal tax law that benefited the group that got married.
Marriage needn't change but the tax laws that came after marriage were
the ones discriminating. The same for all other laws that made Marriage
a way to get any benefits. Marriage wasn't unequal it was the government
laws that gave benefits and perks for marriage that were discriminating
and that discrimination against single people (which will be groups like
the elderly) and some religions and priests.... and Nuns, and it's
illegal to discriminate by religion.

Marriage wasn't the problem or the solution, government is the problem
and the solution was for us to get rid of the laws that gave government
Affirmative Action for married persons. Because Affirmative Action by
it's definition is discrimination against the persons NOT receiving the
Affirmative Action.
That's Karma
2018-05-13 15:25:13 UTC
Homosexuality is a choice.
Religion is a choice, not homosexuality.
When homosexuality is properly defined as one who engages in sexual
activity with members of the same sex, yes it absolutely is a choice.
Why does "choice," in your warped view, apply only to gays and not heterosexuals?
It's a choice for heterosexuals isn't it....? Neither gay or any others
has the RIGHT of their sexual identity. Sexual identity is as
meaningless as your taste for Chocolate ice cream opposed to having a
taste for vanilla ice cream.

People orgasm for a multitude of reasons.... having an orgasm isn't a
sexual identity, some women fantasize about being raped to have an
orgasm, do they have special rights or men who fantasize about rape, is
that a special sexual identity with RIGHTS?

The heterosexuals just aren't mentally ill. They do what nature intends
(proven by the fact that over 90% are "normal" heterosexuals) and
requires of the human species they seek out a sexual partner for
attributes of their health and other positive attributes that will help
their offspring survive. Hence the mental condition of love meaning
that they have found a mate to procreate with that they think is the one
to procreate with.... If they are trying to procreate with a dead body
or a same sex body, they have failed the evolutionary test. They don't
evolve. You'd think that Liberals who live and die by the science of
evolution would at least understand it.

The rest are a divergence from that natural goal, either environmental
or genetic or a mental failure by the ones that seek same gender sex or
sex with the dead (necrophilia) or bestiality.

Steve Martin in "THE JERK" called it his special purpose.... but it's
Natures special purpose.... and if there is no power to limit marriage
based on procreation then there must be no delegated power by government
to regulate natures special purpose (any sexual proclivity that doesn't
violate another persons rights).

That would mean delegating new RIGHTS based on sexual identity is a
violation of the the logic of the Constitution.
That's Karma