Child molesters are not allowed to vote in FL and some other states. That applies to all convicted felons. Good idea. That keeps bad people from influencing politics. This makes for good morals and social values in our laws.
And as for work, homosexuals and child predators should not work with impressionable children. Laws against this practice are reasonable. I expect a future congress to remove this from federal court jurisdiction and allow states to better protect our children.
48 comments
And I expect a future Supreme Court to tell Congress to go fuck itself with respect to discrimination against homosexuals. Legislating power away from federal courts does not eliminate the power of judicial review - ain't checks-and-balances a bitch?
Most people disagree? WTF? Last numbers that I heard, New York was 47% in our favor, 53% against. While that is a statistical majority, it is hardly the overwhelming tide of humanity you claim it to be.
@"Wow"
And I expect a future Supreme Court to tell Congress to go fuck itself with respect to discrimination against homosexuals. @"Libs R Lame"And I expect a future Supreme Court to tell Congress to go fuck itself with respect to discrimination against homosexuals. LOL at ignorant Libs like you and your stupid (and failed) prophesies! You really think you're right and everybody else is "wrong" and is "bigoted" and is "homophobic", eh clown?
It is not a failed prophecy, at some point in the future people (or at least those with some power) will realise that homosexual people are humans to and are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
@"Libs R Lame"Grow a brain, Lib. You're a LOSER, and you're in the MINORITY. Most people DISAGREE with you and your leftist ilk.
It doesn't matter how many disagree. We only need the people making the laws to realize that discriminating against homosexuals is against the law.
"You sound like a jerk, JustinGG. Tell us, are all Libs as dumb as you?"
You know, if you want to insult someone using quotes, why don't you use their quotes? Your fifth post aims your vitriol at me, despite the fact that the quote you use came from Nekhbet. Are you claiming that we are the same person? Or are you simply incapable of keeping names straight through five posts? Another question: why are you quoting a poll from Jan 21, when a poll from last week supports your own claim? Why do you feel the need to discredit my source (NPR, a perfectly viable source) in favor of another perfectly viable source (ABC) when both support you? Is it that you can't bear to use evidence that has been found by someone that disagrees with you?
Rapists are human too, yet are denied the same rights as everyone else. In fact, we throw them in jail for exercising their "rights". Another colossal example of Lib Ignorance. BTW, did you also predict the New York State Supreme Court would come down on the side of the Homosexual Activists? And did you also predict the election wins of Albert Gore Junior and John Forbes Kerry in their presidential bids?
I did neither, if you read what I typed you would know that I am Dutch and have no interest in who wins or loses the American elections or on which side the supreme court is. I just like to see people being treated as equals no matter who they fall in love with.
Then again, Libs rarely learn from their mistakes.
I'm rather good at learning from my mistakes. But please tell me how being optimistic about the future of human rights in America is being a "mistake". Are American not entitled to human rights according to you? Didn't you sign the same piece of paper stating that the government (amongst others) isn't allowed to discriminate against people?
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
In other words, not allowing homosexual people to marry is against the rules of the document the US signed.
They already are being treated as equals, so all you succeeded in doing was showing us how ignorant you are. Homosexuals already have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex (so long as it's not their cousin, mother, or other close relative) that everyone else has!
Seriously, why would they want to marry someone of the opposite sex? They want to be able to marry someone of the same sex, that's what being a homosexual who wants to marry is all about.
One of the reasons you dumb homosexual Libs keep losing this debate is because you are dishonest with your language. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are allowed to marry a person of the same sex, and both homosexuals and heterosexals are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
We knew that everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, but why is it that people aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex? What is wrong with marrying someone of the same sex? Why are all of us being bombarded into being homosexual (some of us are, but not all of us!)?
Why can't you see that homosexuals have nothing to gain by being able to marry someone of the opposite sex? They want to be able to marry someone of the same sex, which they are often denied!
Article 16
In other words, it does not say that a marriage is between a man and a woman, it says that both men and women are allowed to marry the "intending spouse" in cases of mutual consent. Do you know what a spouse is?
@"Dictionary.com"spouse Pronunciation Key (spous, spouz)
n.
A marriage partner; a husband or wife.
A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles."
(2) because society recognizes that marriage and the family are the foundation of civilized human society
Define "Civilized" Because we all know what the Greeks did
(3) because science recognizes that no homosexual act has ever resulted in human offspring
Um... Is there a point in that?
For a couple of simple and fundamental reasons:
Thus discriminating against homosexuals, by not allowing them to marry the person they want. Remember that discrimination is illegal.
(2) because society recognizes that marriage and the family are the foundation of civilized human society
And by allowing homosexuals to marry civilization crumbles? Computers stop working and powerplants are turned inoperative? Allowing two men or two women to marry each other does nothing to your life and your level of "civilization".
(3) because science recognizes that no homosexual act has ever resulted in human offspring
Neither has being single or asexual. Should they be forced to marry someone they do not like just to produce offspring? There is more to life than having kids.
When did I claim it was? You did.
And by allowing homosexuals to marry civilization crumbles? Computers stop working and powerplants are turned inoperative?
so you didn't say:
(2) because society recognizes that marriage and the family are the foundation of civilized human society
?
If "heterosexual marriage is the foundation of civilization" is a valid argument to not let homosexual marry than there should at least be dire consequences to letting homosexuals marry (like civilization collapsing). If it doesn't make any difference to the level of civilization people enjoy, then the argument is declared irrelevant and can't be used to argue for your cause.
Sorry, but I don't think it's a good idea to force two people to marry each other, NotMe. Even if you do.
And who says there aren't dire consequences? Oh wait, I see - the Homosexual Activists say there aren't dire consequences. And of course you believe them, don't you! Even though they haven't given any proof of that claim of theirs.
Libs R Lame,
Sorry, but when only the people who remain in a system have the only say about who gets chucked out, and there's no way back in, what you have is positive feedback, which creates instability and a tendency to swing wildly to extremes until the system breaks down in some way. In electronics, when this happens a circuit usually explodes. What happens in systems of people?
Rysith
Everyone else,
Please do not feed the troll.
I second. When he shows up, just ignore him.
When I was in high school, there was loser kid who sat at the end of the lunch table from me, with his worthless friends. For the entire lunch period, he'd shout at me, "Hey, Butthole. Hey, Butthole. Hey, Butthole. Hey Butthole. Hey, Butthole..." Seriously. For 30 minutes.
My friends and I started by giving him funny looks, then just moved on to basically pretending he didn't exist. Who do you think ended up getting more frustrated?
S/he is right. Convicted child predators, homosexual or heterosexual, should not be allowed to work with children. However, homosexuals and heterosexuals of good character should be allowed any available jobs for which they are qualified.
<<< And as for work, homosexuals and child predators should not work with impressionable children. >>>
As the saying goes, if at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried. Sometimes I feel that if only the shame of being corrected in one's erroneous thoughts could be eliminated, the development of the human race could be orders of magnitude greater than it is, even if all other problems remained untouched.
I don't know if people are still checking on this thread, but I'll explain my rationale for the Supreme Court (maybe not this one, but one in the next 20 years) overturning discrimination against homosexuals.
And as for work, Christians should not work with impressionable children. Laws against this practice are reasonable. I expect a future congress to remove this from federal court jurisdiction and allow states to better protect our children.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
