Activists Press for Homosexual 'Rights' to Be Included in Comprehensive Immigrat

[Hazcat]

First off FQ, "Marriage is a contract with God. Despite what BO says America was founded on Christian principles and according to the book of Leviticus (I don't feel like googling the specific reference, I've used that before) God says that men who sleep together as man and wife are an abomination and should be killed, it goes on to say that their blood is on their own hands for being perverts (paraphrasing as I do not recall the exact wording, you can do a forum search of my posts if you want to find it) .
By that reasoning any Church Official who performs such ceremonies is committing a sacrilege and should be cast out not only from his Office but from his denomination until he has repented of his sin. Civil "Cohabitation contracts" are a matter of legislation and should be left to the discretion of the voters , there should however be no requirement for one jurisdiction to recognize the preferences of another (this is the same as current reciprocity laws on concealed carry and the laws that governed the bringing of slaves into free states and was upheld by the SCOTUS  prior to the Civil war ).
As for adoption, regulations require a "Stable and Healthy" atmosphere, this is not present as Gay relationships are statistically far less stable than normal ones and is demonstrably unhealthy in that the gender relationship is unbalanced.
As to Gays in the military, on occasion even dead men have been propped up to draw fire under the premise that if the enemy is shooting at them they are not shooting at ME.

Bingo!  And that is exactly what the above legislation does.

[fightingquaker13]

Bingo!  And that is exactly what the above legislation does.

Tom, Haz
I two small points of disagreement. God is a party to marriage in a Christian marriage, its a contract between three people. Its why I'm not gung ho about seeing gay marriage in my church. Civil marriage on the other hand, is a horse of a different color. It is nothing more "than a cohabitation contract"  between two people. God isn't in it, its a wholly secular matter. Two types of marriage, two different rules. That is why I think civil marriage should be open to any two individuals. As far as reciprocity, marriage laws can be worded to prevent that, as Massachusetts did.
As far as gays in the military, if you're willing to put on the uniform and pick up a gun, I say you're welcome. Letting gays in now is a lot less disruptive than integrating blacks in 1948. Telling some kid from Alabama that that he had to eat with, shower with, room with and take orders from a black guy was a far bigger cultural hurdle than havig a gay guy in a unit comprised of kids raised on MTV and Will and Grace.
FQ13

[Hazcat]

Marriage is between a man and a woman for purpose of procreation.

The other is a civil contract which as far as I know is legal now.  If they want tax benefits for that civil contract they can petition respective governments (Fed, state, local) for that.

I have already stated that gays are in the military.  As far as eat, shower, room etc., there are many females that would not be upset to have men do that with them BUT there are those that would.  Same with guys or girls and homosexuals.

[Pathfinder]

First pedophilia is a different animal. Children by definition can't consent. Leaving that red herring off the table, we then return to you proving my basic point. You define homosexuality as perversion. That's fine, its your right to think and say what you want. You then however seek to legislate that into disciminatory practice. Its no different than laws banning interracial marriage. Blacks and whites were treated equally, both could marry their own race. It was just the "unnatural" mingling of the races that was illegal. Its bigotry Haz. I'm not going to try to change your views on gays for two reasons. One, I don't care much about the issue, and two, its not my business what you think. It is my business when predjudice gets written into law. Civil marriage should appy equally, it currently doesn't and I think it should. If that somehow makes me immoral, than so be it.
FQ13

In the sense that some male pedophiles prey on girls rather than boys, yeah, I suppose it's "different".

Given that the gay community houses the lower-than-whale-shit likes of NAMBLA, I'm not sure that it is all that different.

Tom - another bingo, excellent.

Back to FQ - where is the right to be queer and marry another written? I missed that Article in the Constitution. Or is this another man-made right created from the ether by an activist judge?

[fightingquaker13]

It would be a man made right created by the 14th ammendment. Yes it was originally designed (intent) to be applied to blacks, but the text doesn't limit it to just them. So it has covered religious groups, Asians, women, political groups etc over the years. No judicial activism just the words on the page.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Amendment 11
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Explain to me how that translates into "You have the right to take it up the pooper ?

[fightingquaker13]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Amendment 11
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Explain to me how that translates into "You have the right to take it up the pooper ?

Oops! That was meant to read the 14th Amendment. I left out the four.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

 Either drink, or type, don't try both at the same time  
Same question here

Amendment 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to
their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,
excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the
choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or
the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male
inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the
United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion,
or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of
President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the
United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of
any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to
support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the
United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred
in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.


The way I read it the 1st clause means the Constitution applies to all citizens
2nd  Reiterates how Representatives are chosen, doing away with the 4/5 for blacks
3rd, No one who left Congress to join the Confederacy can be returned to Congress after the war.
4th Federal debts get paid, Confederate debts have to be written off as a loss
5  If Congress couldn't do one of these 4 things before they can now.
I still don't see anything about queers.

[fightingquaker13]

You don't see anything about mormons or women or left handed fly fishermen either. What it does say is that the government may not deny ANY PERSON the equal protection of the law. That means you can't have an except for (fill in your category here) clause. Civil marriage would seem to apply. Two persons of age wishing to marry would seem to apply to anyone, even you.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Marriage is a religious ceromony so your reasoning does not work.

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your the one that bitches about the "Moral majority" , you can't have it both ways Buttwheat.