Gay Marriage Debate - El Paso, TX

Brian_G wrote:

The second section of the 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes man and woman are unequal; there is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_am...

Where is this gender inequality? I see this ---> 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

but that just says a male can't be denied rights, not that females don't have rights.

also I see this ---> 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.( which apparently doesn't apply to gays )

also...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

That sort of makes men and women equal, yes?

but that just says a male can't be denied rights, not that females don't have rights.

I never claimed females don't have right, just pointed out the second section explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal.

[The 19th Amendment] sort of makes men and women equal, yes?

Suffrage doesn't give equality, at least in our Constitution. It just gives the right to vote.

There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

right to women vote amendment

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
I never claimed females don't have right, just pointed out the second section explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal.
<quoted text>
Suffrage doesn't give equality, at least in our Constitution. It just gives the right to vote.
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.
right to women vote amendment

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

I just showed you there is no inequality in the constitution. there used to be, but we've been fixing it slowly over time.

Why is it wrong to love???? People also have to be careful with what they say. Cause we LGBTQ dont judge streight people on who they love.

Im part of LGBTQ and think its right to love someone.

Dom wrote:

Im part of LGBTQ and think its right to love someone.

Neat. I'm bi, but not part of LGBTQ I'm more freelance and awesome. I play by my own rules cause it's the cool kids thing to do XD

j/k

I'm straight and I still say let them get married!

undefined apathy wrote:

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I just showed you there is no inequality in the constitution. there used to be, but we've been fixing it slowly over time.

I understand you tried to 'fix' the Constitution with the Equal Rights Amendment, but the State's didn't ratify so it failed.

Now, same sex marriage is an end run, so the government can regulate that gender isn't significant in marriage. That's a bad idea without Constitutional basis.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I understand you tried to 'fix' the Constitution with the Equal Rights Amendment, but the State's didn't ratify so it failed.
Now, same sex marriage is an end run, so the government can regulate that gender isn't significant in marriage. That's a bad idea without Constitutional basis.

allow me rephrase 'There is no gender inequality in the constitution' also, it will happen. and gender isn't significant in marriage. Marriage is an expression of love.

You're thinking of arranged marriages where it's about power/money/land and the women are just barganing chips.

undefined apathy wrote:

... and gender isn't significant in marriage. Marriage is an expression of love...

Gender is significant, most gays understand that fact. Gays have a gender preference and wouldn't want government saying gender isn't significant in their relationships any more than I want government saying gender isn't significant in my relationships.

That's how same sex marriage harms gays, straights, married couples and single people.

Not natural

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Gender is significant, most gays understand that fact. Gays have a gender preference and wouldn't want government saying gender isn't significant in their relationships any more than I want government saying gender isn't significant in my relationships.
That's how same sex marriage harms gays, straights, married couples and single people.

Why is gender significant?

Without gender, we'd become extinct.

Why do you believe gender is insignificant?

Brian_G wrote:

Without gender, we'd become extinct.
Why do you believe gender is insignificant?

As a whole unit gender is important for reproduction, yes this is true.

On the individual level, however, when homosexuality is such a small percentage of the population anyways in a populations that's overbreeding itself to extinction it becomes almost necessary to have it, do to our inability to stop having so many kids. I know you won't believe me, but when natural resources are depleted and people start starving you'll see we are overpopulated then.

So ultimately what I'm saying is on the individual level ( where marriage takes place ) two individual people gender is irrelevant.

undefined apathy wrote:

... a populations that's overbreeding itself to extinction it becomes almost necessary to have it, do to our inability to stop having so many kids. I know you won't believe me, but when natural resources are depleted and people start starving you'll see we are overpopulated then...

When? Population always fluctuates based on resources available.

I think we've found u.a.'s true motive, he want same sex marriage to help control population. It's like eugenics or China's one child policy, but with a twist.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>When? Population always fluctuates based on resources available.
I think we've found u.a.'s true motive, he want same sex marriage to help control population. It's like eugenics or China's one child policy, but with a twist.

China - Kills children

my plan - let gays marry and be happy

China's death toll - something million to something billion

my death toll - zero

yeah I'm just as bad as they are 0.o

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>When? Population always fluctuates based on resources available.
I think we've found u.a.'s true motive, he want same sex marriage to help control population. It's like eugenics or China's one child policy, but with a twist.

Allowing gay marriage doesn't make more gay people. It will not influence population to any significant degree.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Gender is significant, most gays understand that fact. Gays have a gender preference and wouldn't want government saying gender isn't significant in their relationships any more than I want government saying gender isn't significant in my relationships.
That's how same sex marriage harms gays, straights, married couples and single people.

Did this make sense in your head?

How does same sex marriage harm anyone?

Tide with Beach wrote:

Did this make sense in your head? How does same sex marriage harm anyone?

You keep asking about harm, but we don't need to go there. All we have to do is prove keeping marriage as is prevents government from considering gender insignificant. If we can show that husband/wife marriage provides the next generation of citizens, we've proved benefit. Harm is negative, we can be positive and win the argument.

We don't need harm because that implies a wrongdoer; let's not go there. Our opponents aren't evil or bad. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, we could all get along.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>You keep asking about harm, but we don't need to go there. All we have to do is prove keeping marriage as is prevents government from considering gender insignificant. If we can show that husband/wife marriage provides the next generation of citizens, we've proved benefit. Harm is negative, we can be positive and win the argument.

We don't need harm because that implies a wrongdoer; let's not go there. Our opponents aren't evil or bad. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, we could all get along.

The harm would be the next generation of citizens which many are unwanted (orphans), more abortions, and not respecting people's rights to love! A gay couple getting married should be a right because gay couples can adopt the unwanted children and give them hope, give them a place to live, and show them love. By not allowing gay people to marry and share the same benefits the other couples have is wrong. They are citizens, pay taxes so why not marriage? I'm sorry but religion is not a factor here being that religion cut and paste what benefits them during mass. Religion is overrated. Come back to reality, choice means freedom to marry. I really feel that will change within five years.