Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate

Patrick wrote:

<quoted text>
Slippery slope arguments are the last resort of the weak minded.

Such claims are the last resort of the defeated.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
So now you see the slippery slope spoken of earlier. You jest now, but it will happen. 50 years ago you would never have been able to convince someone we would be having this talk today. Give a little, the crazies take a mile. More if you sit back and let them.

As I said before, women and blacks got the right to vote. Then adults who could die for their country got the right to vote (18 to 20 year olds). But it hasn't followed that children and animals have gotten the right to vote. No one has even suggested that they should. Your argument is ridiculous.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thats all great! Really! But no where did it say marriage was a civil right.

It doesn't have to. Equal protection is a civil right. It doesn't say a driver's license is a civil right. Yet you can't deny someone the right to drive because they're a Jew. It's called equal protection.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thats all great! Really! But no where did it say marriage was a civil right.

And what a sad person you are to fight for the "right" to make sure others don't have the same rights you do.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
The waste of money is socialist liberals wasting our time trying to change an instituion that has been around for thousands of years.
If anything, it is the liberal extremists who are wasting our time on promoting their perversion. We have more serious matters to deal with than a small group of pschos who get off on perversion and want the rest of the country to suffer for it.

..and exactly HOW WOULD YOU SUFFER? Really? How would You as an individual SUFFER from 2 consenting adults enbtering into marriage? EXPLAIN without using Religious BS!

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Might want to back up here and rethink your "educated" statement.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp...
On a side note,
"American Psychiatric Association classifies gender identity disorder as a treatable mental illness,"

But they differentiate between biologically-based gender identity disorder, which is only treatable through sex reassignment surgery and psychologically-based gender identity disorder which is treatable through therapy. Neither have anything to do with sexual orientation though the latter often develops when a homosexual enters puberty and thinking the idea of being homosexual is so horrible, has sexual fantasies where they imagine they themselves are the opposite sex of their gender in real life...that way the fantasy entails two people of the opposite sex and isn't a horrible "gay fantasy". This develops into gender identity disorder. Yet another side-effect of homophobia.

Disgusted American wrote:

<quoted text>..and exactly HOW WOULD YOU SUFFER? Really? How would You as an individual SUFFER from 2 consenting adults enbtering into marriage? EXPLAIN without using Religious BS!

Just like I said, financially. We suffer from the tax dollars being wasted on all of the legal costs incurred dealing with homosexuals and the homosexual agenda; instead of dealing with the REAL issues.

This is no different than when the zoosexuals start screaming for their rights. God knows how much that fiasco is going to cost.

Fort Myers wrote:

Case study on zoosexuality (the sexual orientation that some say does not exist):
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/A_Case_Study...

Maybe you should read them before you post them. It's using the term "zoosexual" as an adjective to describe zoosexual interests. It has a nice discussion about zoophilia and the different terms used to desribe zoophiles, the noun. And it makes it clear that there is no such thing as a person with zoosexual interest who has no sexual interest in humans. Therefore it's not a sexuality. Homosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex and have no attraction to the same sex. That's a sexuality, not zoophilia. And that's just one of the many differences.

Fort Myers wrote:

Zoosexuals create wiki to promote zoosexuality.
Much like the Homosexual Agenda.
http://zoosexual.org/zoowiki/index.php/Concep...

Yes, that's obviously a huge organized movement, LOL.

I think the wiki page you found is a lame post from one sick individual seeking validation for his paraphilia which is treatable. He's not going to gather much support as zoophilia is fairly rare as described in the study you posted previously.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>

This is no different than when the zoosexuals start screaming for their rights. God knows how much that fiasco is going to cost.

LOL!!!!!

The only reason there are legal costs involved are because of the discrimination and bigotry against gay people.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like I said, financially. We suffer from the tax dollars being wasted on all of the legal costs incurred dealing with homosexuals and the homosexual agenda; instead of dealing with the REAL issues.
This is no different than when the zoosexuals start screaming for their rights. God knows how much that fiasco is going to cost.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Therefore it's not a sexuality.

Incorrect. However, maybe the science world should change the name from "zoosexuality" to "zoo-not-a-sexuality " to fit your personally created dictionary and political goals.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the wiki page you found is a lame post from one sick individual seeking validation for his paraphilia which is treatable.

Now you know how the majority of the world feels about homosexuality. Welcome to the world.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like I said, financially. We suffer from the tax dollars being wasted on all of the legal costs incurred dealing with homosexuals and the homosexual agenda; instead of dealing with the REAL issues.
This is no different than when the zoosexuals start screaming for their rights. God knows how much that fiasco is going to cost.

Oh yes the old argument that someone would want to marry thier dog. For your information animals don't have the capacity to consent. This amendment didn't get through the last time with a Republican majority and it has even less chance now.

PDupont wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh yes the old argument that someone would want to marry thier dog. For your information animals don't have the capacity to consent. This amendment didn't get through the last time with a Republican majority and it has even less chance now.

Apparently you have not seen how animals are suing for rights now. The right to consent will come in time, just like homosexual "marriage" has come in time.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080529-chi...

Done That wrote:

The problem with this issue is rouge judges overturning the will of State legislatures. Much like the abortion problem that was a State issue. If supreme court overturned Roe all that would happen is that it would go back to the states. California it would be legal. Utah probable not. The California court overturned its legislature. Only two of the most liberal states have done this. A homosexual union can not be a marriage in 46 state legislatures. It will take an ammendment to the federal constitution to solve the issue forever

You are fool, and you don't know how to spell. The California Legislature passed a bill TWICE for marriage equality, but the Governator vetoed it TWICE, saying that it was a measure for the courts to decide.
Check your facts and your spelling before you post, dufus.

Gary47 wrote:

The High Court in New York did NOT rule that marriage between same sex couples was illegal. The ruling was that it was not required, and was a political question for the legislature to solve.<quoted text>

I did not say anything to the contrary.

Done That wrote:

<quoted text>Of course slippery slope arguments are used in debate all the time. Also called Camels nose in the tent. If we do this then this can happen. Also called unintended consequences. A very usful tool in debate

In childish debates perhaps, but not in formal debates.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you know how the majority of the world feels about homosexuality. Welcome to the world.

Wrong.

The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Council on Child and Adolescent Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics and even the health ministries in Russia and China say homosexuality isn't a choice, can't be changed, and trying to change it is HARMFUL.

These same professional association diagnose zoophilia, not "zoosexuality", as an aberrant paraphilia.

It's not likely that even 1 person out of 1000 is a zoophile. Homosexuals are 3 to 8% of the population.

The Golem wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you think that the California Supreme Court overturned the legislature? And why would we have judges for rouge?

The first part of the post, I'll let the dufus answer, but as for your second question, Golem, have you seen women's make-up lately? Not only rouge judges, but mascara police and lipstick licenses should be required!