AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Debra Law wrote:

some junk

...For a [person], you are woefully ignorant.

O'George and McWhitey are so gay . . .

After listening to Obama's speech at the University of Arizona graduation exercises yesterday, I am convinced Obama is a fool. He is a fool either because he actually believes that what he says is true, or he is a fool because he thinks his demagogery against America is going to win him continuing support from a majority of the American people.

How does anything you said above constitute a response to anything that I said?

Where in the f'ing constitution do you find that you have a right to wear a hat? NO WHERE -- that's because the constitution is NOT a charter of rights. Thus, your argument--i.e., where in the constitution do you find the right to "gay" marriage--is STUPID.

The constitution tells our government what it can and cannot do. It says, e.g., government has the power to regulate commerce, etc., but the government does not have the power to deprive persons of life, liberty, or property unless doing so serves a legitimate (rational), important, or compelling government interest and the government does not have the power to deprive persons of equal protection under the law. You don't need a college degree or a juris doctorate to understand that basic concept about our constitution.

With respect to your "license" talk, if the state allowed heterosexuals to apply for a driver's license or a hunting license but deprived homosexuals of that same privilege to apply for those same licenses, then the state would be violating the equal protection clause. The same holds true for marriage licenses. As our society exists today, both homosexual persons and heterosexual persons are pairing up and forming families. The state has no rational, important, or compelling interest that warrants disparate treatment.

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. There is a law that requires them to marry one other person of the opposite sex as everybody else is required to do if they marry.

I've never heard O'Reilly talk about that. But answer the question. Why not? Can you think of any reason that three people should not be allowed to marry each other? Who would it hurt? Why should that be a problem to anybody? If we are going to change the definition of marriage anyway that it should not be discriminatory, what rationale can you come up with to limit it to two people?

Virtually all cultures, including primitive and native American cultures, have never sanctioned homosexual behavior as a santioned behavior

CULTURE THROUGH THE AGES

While it may not seem like it, at least for those in America, homosexuality is basically viewed with ambivalence throughout the world. Except for those individuals who are diehard Old Testament supporters, who believe that homosexuality is abominable and should be punishable by death, most people throughout the world really don't care one way or the other about sexual preference.

In fact, two-thirds of seventy-six societies studied by American scientists Clellan Ford and Frank Beach actually consider homosexual activities normal and socially acceptable. That may be hard for most people to believe who live in North America and a few countries in Europe, but it is true. In some societies, including the Arunta (Aranda) people of central Australia, homosexuality is almost universal. Other societies, including the Sambian tribe of Papua New Guinea and some Melanesian tribes, not only viewed homosexuality as acceptable, but actually consider someone to be deviant who does not engage in homosexual activities. These people also practice pedophilia regularly.

In all kinds of ways. The government grants a marriage license, just as it does for driving, hunting, fishing, and countless other things, and therefore they have a right to dictate what it will license you to do. That doesn't mean you can't do some things anyway, if they are legal, but marriage is not necessarily a right guaranteed by the constitution, it is a legal contract, and contracts are regulated.

see, foxy. even i have my limits.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. There is a law that requires them to marry one other person of the opposite sex as everybody else is required to do if they marry.

Just like a prohibition of interracial marriage doesn't prohibit two people of different races to get married. The law would merely require them to marry one other person of the same race, just as everybody else would be required to do if they marry.

No discrimination, right?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

see, foxy. even i have my limits.

But why must everyone else live by your limits?

Isn't that what you are saying in all this? That even you have your limits and therefore everyone should should have the same limits. Well, other people have their limits, why shouldn't you live by their limits?