It's Official - Stand and Shout the Gays are Out (link)

[_Darth J]

i mean someone with MSUD (maple syrup urine disease) is obviously fine...but isn't genetic abnormalities the main justification for our society not allowing incestuous relationships?
And the idea of "passing on" disease or deformities is not foreign to our society...
when a blood test was required for a marriage license its purpose was to determine if either applicant had a disease which would be passed on to their children. This was an obvious concern before the days of penicillin..but alas, science has yet to develop that immunization for LGBT.
And note the concern for something being passed on to children...an inherent assumption that the purpose of marriage was to provide children..this was the rule not the exception, because it is the virtue that society aspires for.

None of this is relevant to an argument against same-sex marriage, since people of the same sex cannot reproduce.

And on that note: Subgenius, your member profile says your location is Tennessee. Perchance, does Tennessee law require a couple to have children, or to have the ability to have children, as a condition precedent to marriage? Just in case you will continue to confuse marriage as a religious sacrament with marriage as a legal relationship, if your answer is "yes," can you cite specifically where in Tennessee law this condition precedent is found?

[_Darth J]

i don't have to defend anything, the law and the majority of society is on my side.

I am glad to know that the law is on your side. I look forward to the presentation of your rational basis argument.

[_subgenius]

The people who said that women should not have the vote didn't need to defend anything: the law and the majority of society were on their side.

excuse me, we are talking about LGBT...women are immutable...your logic is not applicable
although i am sure NAMBLA shares your sentiment and they surely, by your reasoning, they will one day come out into the sun out of the shadow of an oppressive society.

The people who said that enslaved people were simply their owners' property didn't need to defend anything: the law and the majority of society were on their side.

excuse me, we are talking about LGBT... "non-white" are immutable...your logic is not applicable
although i am sure NAMBLA shares your sentiment and they surely, by your reasoning, they will one day come out into the sun out of the shadow of an oppressive society.

And so on ...

yes, and so on.
The difference is that the examples you listed above actually held marches, not parades...actually strove to improve and uplift society, not just themselves....
i think the one thing that you overlook is what it actually took to make the changes you speak of above....it took more than hosting an interior design show on HGTV.
But hey, i appreciate your logic....it was cute....or rather, it was gay.

[_subgenius]

I am glad to know that the law is on your side. I look forward to the presentation of your rational basis argument.

as you should...allow me to give you a primer.

Romer v. Evans, sexual orientation is not subject to strict scrutiny, but only to a rational basis test.

Lawrence v. Texas, the striking down of sodomy laws does not pave the way for same-sex marriage, because it was ruled on the grounds of substantive due process instead of equal protection, which kinda hurts legal arguments for same-sex marriage.

Loving v. Virginia found bans on interracial marriage are not constitutional on equal protection grounds, including using language like "fundamental right to marry." Fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny, same-sex marriage is not - simply because marriage is legally defined, in most places, the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife This means that as a person, you have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. (the absence of this definition is where same-sex marriages have been allowed because of this type of legal scrutiny - that is why you often here this definition debated).

Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson ruled not long after Loving v. Virginia, stated, "In commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex - Race is immutable, but a relationship (ie. sexual orientation) is not" - this is once again echoed in the ruling by the Washington state supreme court.

The fundamental association of marriage being between a man and a woman has an incredible amount of legal precedence which runs the concept of marriage and procreation through such cases listed above and even Skinner v. Oklahoma, Griswald v. Connecticut, and even Roe v. Wade. Not to mention DOMA and even the UN declaration on human rights.

To run the gauntlet of legal arguments on this cause is an incredible, if not futile, effort...which is quickly being realized by the LGBT. This realization is being manifest by the LGBT massive Public Relations campaign to win "hearts and minds", because quite literally, that is their only hope. No one can deny that the LGBT has enjoyed an recent increase in political power due to such a massive financial outpouring of propaganda for their cause....but that is a different discussion....er, a different "presentation".

[_Drifting]

This realization is being manifest by the {Insert Organization Name} massive Public Relations campaign to win "hearts and minds", because quite literally, that is their only hope.

I'm seeing a parallel...

[_schreech]

excuse me, we are talking about LGBT...women are immutable...your logic is not applicable
although i am sure NAMBLA shares your sentiment and they surely, by your reasoning, they will one day come out into the sun out of the shadow of an oppressive society.

excuse me, we are talking about LGBT... "non-white" are immutable...your logic is not applicable
although i am sure NAMBLA shares your sentiment and they surely, by your reasoning, they will one day come out into the sun out of the shadow of an oppressive society.

yes, and so on.
The difference is that the examples you listed above actually held marches, not parades...actually strove to improve and uplift society, not just themselves....
i think the one thing that you overlook is what it actually took to make the changes you speak of above....it took more than hosting an interior design show on HGTV.
But hey, i appreciate your logic....it was cute....or rather, it was gay.

Dear elohim...



Ahh yes, from comparing homosexuals to serial killers to comparing them to child molesters...Your small-minded, ignorance-based bigotry apparently knows no bounds. Good luck with that!

"The difference is that the examples you listed above actually held marches, not parades" - this line was my favorite - lol!

[_just me]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

The Gay Rights Movement

It's about love. It's about equal rights. It's about saving lives.

[_subgenius]

I'm just gonna leave this here. {insert propaganda}

It's about love.

no its not, and besides no one is denying anyone love nor promoting that anyone not love.

It's about equal rights.

not really. its more about politics and selfishness

It's about saving lives.

hmmm...no, its not. Organ and blood donation, clean water, CPR, and ambulances are about saving lives.

your brain has obviously been washed, let it dry. so, sit back, relax, and take another drink of the kool-aid.

[_subgenius]

Ahh yes, from comparing homosexuals to serial killers to comparing them to child molesters...Your small-minded, ignorance-based bigotry apparently knows no bounds. Good luck with that!

don't need luck, but you sure do. thankfully, your 'no'-minded, selfish-based bigotry knows plenty of bounds - to mention a few, there is logic, reason, sense, good-taste, wit, integrity, introspection....

"The difference is that the examples you listed above actually held marches, not parades" - this line was my favorite - lol!

cause i gotz skillz yo!

[_schreech]

don't need luck, but you sure do. thankfully, your 'no'-minded, selfish-based bigotry knows plenty of bounds - to mention a few, there is logic, reason, sense, good-taste, wit, integrity, introspection....

cause i gotz skillz yo!

Was any of that supposed to make sense? It looks like a failed attempt at the grade-school "Im rubber you're glue" comeback but I really can't tell...So, me hoping to see equality in the US makes me a "selfish-bigot"? LOL!...you are truly delusional but, hey, you are here defending the LDS church so that is completely expected.

Bottom-rung "apologists", like you and LDS"faqs", actually make we wish simon and the stem were still here....They, occasionally, had an original thought.