No gay scout leaders but lots of molested boys

[_Drifting]

Paul has a right to do everything I have a right to do. Paul does not have a right to what is biologically impossible. And Paul can at least be civil and not act as if he is without corruption and anyone who has another point of view must be silenced and beaten and hanged and cursed at...

So infertile couples have no right to have sex because it is biologically impossible for them to produce children?
Oscar Pistorius has no right to run because it us biologically impossible?
People shouldn't fly because it is biologically impossible?

[_LittleNipper]

Paul does not have a right to what is biologically impossible.

Truth! That is why we can rest assured that Paul does not engage in anything that is biologically impossible. *giggle*

Producing a baby through homosexuality...

[_LittleNipper]

Paul has a right to do everything I have a right to do. Paul does not have a right to what is biologically impossible. And Paul can at least be civil and not act as if he is without corruption and anyone who has another point of view must be silenced and beaten and hanged and cursed at...

So infertile couples have no right to have sex because it is biologically impossible for them to produce children?
Oscar Pistorius has no right to run because it us biologically impossible?
People shouldn't fly because it is biologically impossible?

Do infertile couples desire to be infertile or do they wish, hope, pray to have a baby? Do infertile couples imagine life with a baby all their own and that their making be the cause of one.

[_Darth J]

A rational bases for marriage is not about what one wants, but what it represents. Marriage doesn't represent sex. Marriage represents an IDEAL of totally committed love, founded in trust, respect, and selflessness.

That's exactly why same-sex couples want the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

The fruit of that relationship is expressed by the birth of a baby.

Nope. That is not the law. The same-sex marriage issue is about the legal relationship of marriage, not the religious sacrament of marriage---a distinction you are utterly incapable of recognizing, let alone addressing. Procreation is not a legal element of marriage anywhere in the United States. In Utah, for example, a judge can allow first cousins to marry if he or she finds that one or both parties is unable to have children. That is, their marriage is valid specifically because they cannot procreate. Parental rights are not contingent on marriage, either---Lord Mansfield's Rule has become meaningless thanks to genetic testing. Two people can have a legally valid marriage without ever procreating, and two people can procreate without having a legally valid marriage.

What one government deems suitable, does not (in and of itself) mean it is acceptable to a healthier governing body.

What government deems suitable is the definition of what law is.

At times, some in government engaged in prostitution; however, no one considers such "arrangements" worthy of a societal blessing --- at least not yet...

That's a particularly stupid analogy. An elected official patronizing a prostitute, which is illegal in almost every U.S. jurisdiction, is not remotely analogous to equal protection of law requiring the government to recognize same-sex marriage. The first is an individual committing a crime; the second is the rule of law being applied in society the way the 14th Amendment demands.

[_DarkHelmet]

Truth! That is why we can rest assured that Paul does not engage in anything that is biologically impossible. *giggle*

Producing a baby through homosexuality...

If Paul is trying to produce a baby through homosexuality, he is the dumbest homosexual I know. But I seriously doubt that's what he is doing.

[_LittleNipper]

A rational bases for marriage is not about what one wants, but what it represents. Marriage doesn't represent sex. Marriage represents an IDEAL of totally committed love, founded in trust, respect, and selflessness.The fruit of that relationship is expressed by the birth of a baby.

Nope. That is not the law. The same-sex marriage issue is about the legal relationship of marriage, not the religious sacrament of marriage---a distinction you are utterly incapable of recognizing, let alone addressing. Procreation is not a legal element of marriage anywhere in the United States. In Utah, for example, a judge can allow first cousins to marry if he or she finds that one or both parties is unable to have children. That is, their marriage is valid specifically because they cannot procreate. Parental rights are not contingent on marriage, either---Lord Mansfield's Rule has become meaningless thanks to genetic testing. Two people can have a legally valid marriage without ever procreating, and two people can procreate without having a legally valid marriage.

What one government deems suitable, does not (in and of itself) mean it is acceptable to a healthier governing body.

What government deems suitable is the definition of what law is.

At times, some in government engaged in prostitution; however, no one considers such "arrangements" worthy of a societal blessing --- at least not yet...

That's a particularly stupid analogy. An elected official patronizing a prostitute, which is illegal in almost every U.S. jurisdiction, is not remotely analogous to equal protection of law requiring the government to recognize same-sex marriage. The first is an individual committing a crime; the second is the rule of law being applied in society the way the 14th Amendment demands.

If Paul is trying to produce a baby through homosexuality, he is the dumbest homosexual I know. But I seriously doubt that's what he is doing.[/quote]

I never said Paul wanted to produce a baby through homosexual behavior. The production of children is impossible through homosexual means. That is why homosexuality will never be on par with marriage --- because of the total impossibility, no matter what the age or fertility of those so engaged. They are biologically not designed to produce children between themselves. There can be no consummation by such an affair. Sorry, but George Washington himself would have thought your rantings about Constitutional rights for "gay" "marriage" totally foolish if not obscene. I imagine that Jefferson himself would have considered this entire matter insultingly idiotic. And there was some consideration by them for freedom of slaves and for women voting, but never a word about making marriage inclusive...

[_LittleNipper]

A rational bases for marriage is not about what one wants, but what it represents. Marriage doesn't represent sex. Marriage represents an IDEAL of totally committed love, founded in trust, respect, and selflessness.The fruit of that relationship is expressed by the birth of a baby.

Nope. That is not the law. The same-sex marriage issue is about the legal relationship of marriage, not the religious sacrament of marriage---a distinction you are utterly incapable of recognizing, let alone addressing. Procreation is not a legal element of marriage anywhere in the United States. In Utah, for example, a judge can allow first cousins to marry if he or she finds that one or both parties is unable to have children. That is, their marriage is valid specifically because they cannot procreate. Parental rights are not contingent on marriage, either---Lord Mansfield's Rule has become meaningless thanks to genetic testing. Two people can have a legally valid marriage without ever procreating, and two people can procreate without having a legally valid marriage.

What one government deems suitable, does not (in and of itself) mean it is acceptable to a healthier governing body.

What government deems suitable is the definition of what law is.

At times, some in government engaged in prostitution; however, no one considers such "arrangements" worthy of a societal blessing --- at least not yet...

That's a particularly stupid analogy. An elected official patronizing a prostitute, which is illegal in almost every U.S. jurisdiction, is not remotely analogous to equal protection of law requiring the government to recognize same-sex marriage. The first is an individual committing a crime; the second is the rule of law being applied in society the way the 14th Amendment demands. If Paul is trying to produce a baby through homosexuality, he is the dumbest homosexual I know. But I seriously doubt that's what he is doing.

I never said Paul wanted to produce a baby through homosexual behavior. The production of children is impossible through homosexual means. That is why homosexuality will never be on par with marriage --- because of the total impossibility, no matter what the age or fertility of those so engaged. They are biologically not designed to produce children between themselves. There can be no consummation by such an affair. Sorry, but George Washington himself would have thought your rantings about Constitutional rights for "gay" "marriage" totally foolish if not obscene. I imagine that Jefferson himself would have considered this entire matter insultingly idiotic. And there was some consideration by them for freedom of slaves and for women voting, but never a word about making marriage inclusive...

[_SteelHead]

Sorry, but with science lesbian couples will shortly be able have children that are biologically wholly theirs. And the same technology will then be available for male couples but will require a surrogate for the fertilized zygote.

[_Darth J]

I never said Paul wanted to produce a baby through homosexual behavior. The production of children is impossible through homosexual means. That is why homosexuality will never be on par with marriage --- because of the total impossibility, no matter what the age or fertility of those so engaged. They are biologically not designed to produce children between themselves. There can be no consummation by such an affair.

The production of a baby is irrelevant to the legal validity of a marriage.

Sorry, but George Washington himself would have thought your rantings about Constitutional rights for "gay" "marriage" totally foolish if not obscene. I imagine that Jefferson himself would have considered this entire matter insultingly idiotic. And there was some consideration by them for freedom of slaves and for women voting, but never a word about making marriage inclusive...

I am not claiming that homosexuals have a substantive due process right to marriage. I am claiming that once a state defines the parameters of marriage, a state cannot deny its citizens equal protection of law. There is nowhere in the United States where the legal rights and duties of marriage require the partners to be of the opposite sex in order to carry out those rights and duties. That means there is no rational basis for denying same-sex marriage, which means that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the 14th Amendment.

The reason all this seems foolish, if not obscene, to you is because you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

[Guest]

I never said Paul wanted to produce a baby through homosexual behavior. The production of children is impossible through homosexual means. That is why homosexuality will never be on par with marriage --- because of the total impossibility, no matter what the age or fertility of those so engaged. They are biologically not designed to produce children between themselves. There can be no consummation by such an affair.

The production of a baby is irrelevant to the legal validity of a marriage.

Sorry, but George Washington himself would have thought your rantings about Constitutional rights for "gay" "marriage" totally foolish if not obscene. I imagine that Jefferson himself would have considered this entire matter insultingly idiotic. And there was some consideration by them for freedom of slaves and for women voting, but never a word about making marriage inclusive...

I am not claiming that homosexuals have a substantive due process right to marriage. I am claiming that once a state defines the parameters of marriage, a state cannot deny its citizens equal protection of law. There is nowhere in the United States where the legal rights and duties of marriage require the partners to be of the opposite sex in order to carry out those rights and duties. That means there is no rational basis for denying same-sex marriage, which means that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the 14th Amendment.

The reason all this seems foolish, if not obscene, to you is because you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

The State has never defind marriage. God guiding religious people did. The State simply used the event (marriage) to collect a tax. Government did not define or establish marriage. Government recognized that which has been established by the Creator. Redefining marriage would affect how God's image is understood and portrayed, how we understand God-like love, and how kids understand their own gender identity. People are not arguing that homosexuals are lesser people or they ought to be ostracized in our society or that they ought not to enjoy the same freedoms or protections that the rest of us enjoy. The issue is that one doesn't rewrite the nature of God's design based on contemporary cultural mores.