Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Coming Scrap Over Gay Marriage

I have always believed that 'outlawing discrimination' was the biggest discrimination of all. I have seen numerous signs in restuarants that said 'no shoes,no shirt ,no service' I have always thought them to be legal. If they are ,why? If an auto shop refuses to work on my car is he in the right to refuse service. If he can, for what reasons. If marriage does not have to be between one man and one woman why not polygamy? Why not man marrying a dog ? Is there anything in the law that says the partners have to be the same species now? These are just questions that we all should know or want to know the answers.

Gay marriage may or may not be among the top 10 even to me, but equal protection under the law is. Gay marriage aside, I firmly believe that the govt should treat everyone the same, without any regard to race, religion, sex, or a host of other characteristics. Therefore if the govt is going to extend certain privileges to a hetro couple they should extend the same opportunity to a homo couple. Are we or are we not equal before the law?

No

Denton:
"...gays should be granted protected class status on the basis of homosexual behavior. It appears that they have attained that in some countries. If Snotwad were to ask how I am damaged by that, then the answer is easy: My right to freely speak my mind would be severely curtailed."

I must disagree. In state A gay marriage is recognized. In stare B it is not. Your right to freely speak your mind is the same in both states. Therefore the statement, "
My right to freely speak my mind would be severely curtailed."
is wrong.

No. I'm telling you your eyes have been closed for generations. And it is going to take a dick in your proverbial ass to open your eyes.

Everybody gave. Now .gov shall take.


Travis

The Scripture states, "Woe unto those that exchange the natural function of the woman and lie with a man, man with man." Same for women. And, "Woe unto those who give hearty approval of those who do such things." And, "God hates homosexuality."

How much more clear does it have to be?

The homosexual "marriage" movement has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality. Its about destroying monogamous marriage altogether. That is their stated goal. Don't believe me? Here's a link. Some of them are even getting tired of lying about it. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...iage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/ Their goal is identical to that of all Marxists, who seek to replace the family (and human freedom) with the homogenous state. Theirs is simply the latest Marxist iteration.

You have a very shallow and confused conception of equal protection. The notion of equality under the law, properly understood, is grounded in the distinction of species in the order of nature. (Read the Declaration of Independence some time). It doesn't mean that everything I (or someone else) wants they get. Nature has discriminated against homosexuals, as it discriminates against dogs and cats (and in favor of humans). As an example, homosexuals can't bear children (although they are hoping science can "cure" that problem and no doubt, they will expect us to pay for it) and marriage is primarily about securing the well-being of children. Nature also discriminates against people who live sexually promiscuous lives (they tend to get venereal disease). Thus nature seems to have an interest in that morality which is conducive to the family.

In 1854, "equal justice" to the South (a synonym for equal rights) was said to require us not to object when a slave master took his slave into Nebraska. Abraham Lincoln said, that he agreed insofar as there was no difference between hogs and men. But Lincoln also said that nature and reason tell us that a man is not an ox, or horse or a dog. And with the very same voice they also tell us that a man is not a woman. The distinction between maleness and femaleness in the order of nature is actually more fundamental than the distinction between the human and a non-human. Whatever calls into question the moral authority of nature and the law of nature can hardly be said to be conducive to achieving equality, properly understood.

In short, the premises of the homosexual rights movement completely undermine the case for the natural right to "equal protection" properly understood.

Jordan

No schist Sherlock.


Travis

Am I the only one here who finds it ironic (tragic, actually) that the "moderator" of a supposedly pro-gun forum is a defender of Marxism's latest attempt to destroy the family in the service of achieving the homogenous world state? Karl Marx sought the destruction of the family because he understood it to be a bulwark against his effort to place the State in loco parentis to every citizen---to make government their "true" parent. Not their parent according to nature, mind you but contra nature and the Declaration of Independence. The homosexual rights movement is Marxist to the core; its intellectual leaders are all Marxists and they have made it abundantly clear: their goal is to destroy monogamous marriage. This has been a core goal of Marxism and Communism since their inception. Stunningly, the Marxists now appear to have infiltrated this forum. Our own moderator is apparently a spokesman for a cause that seeks destruction of the natural family in the service of the implementation of the homogenous world state

At least we finally have you out of the closet Travis.

Jordan

Denton:
"I don't think it is a tangent at all. A fundamental question to be asked and answered is, does the state have an overriding interest in specifying the form of marriage? If children who are reared in conventional heterosexual families do much better than those who are reared in homosexual families, then they might have such an interest. See the statement by the Supreme Court in the original post. What the Justice is doing is articulating the reason the government has such an interest. Absent that, the government did not have the right to disenfranchise polygamists."

It is a tangent, because the fact that if a couple is married or not is completely independent of the involvement of children. To wit: A same sex couple each having children by a previous relationship, are co-habituating. Those children ARE going to be raised by a same sex couple. That is just the reality of the situation. The issue at hand is do we allow that couple to marry and gain the same rights and privileges as a hetro couple. It has nothing to do with the children.


"...the government did not have the right to disenfranchise polygamists."
Personally, I don't think they did. Those people should have been left alone to practice their religion as they see fit.

Am I the only one here that finds it ironic that in no point in this thread have I defended homosexuality or a homosexual's right to marry?

I have only explained that the populous as a whole has allowed the state to determine what is and is not allowable in regards to all things marriage. And since the populous has allowed that, a homksexual's marriage will inevitably be recognized by the state.

So in short, you bunch a dumb [bleep] are crying "no" way too late.

Get it?


Travis

As an aside, I do appreciate the recognition of my moderator status.

Thank you, God bless, and work a little harder at determining what freedom is.


Thanks,
Dave

RobJordan: "Homosexuality would be wrong, even if every religion in the world said otherwise."

Hypothetical question: Would homosexuality be wrong, even if every person in the world (other than you) said otherwise?

Be nice if just once, you could respond without a fit of name calling. This isn't the third grade. The populace hasn't "allowed the state to determine what is and is not allowable in regards to all things marriage" nature has. But even conceding that the state had acted to defend natural marriage, what is wrong with that? Our history is shot through with an understanding of the importance to a free society of an intellectually and morally educated population. Concern for the well-being and defense of the family, like concern for the well-being and defense of "freedom" is the highest priority of the body politic.

Jordan

The only time a cock in the can is ok, is when it's my cock, and an adult female's can.

Next.


Travis

Yes, I get it !!!

That's rich. An apologist for logical and moral positivism as well as for one of Marxisms core goals in the service of achieving the homogenous world state lecturing a defender of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence on the proper understanding of freedom. Unreal. We've entered some sort of alternate universe here where up is down and right is wrong. Un-frigging believable.

IMHO, polygamy and polyandry should be legal, even though I would decline to participate in either. As to the inter species question absolutely not. The reason is: When the couple gets divorced, and the goat gets possession of the single wide, he/she will be unable to pay the lot fees to the trailer park. :-)

Zimhunter. Good work. You've reduced Snotwad to spouting idiocy.

Position noted, I however, hold to the egalitarian principles of a true conservative and therefore have a diametrically opposed viewpoint.