I like GWB but...

You used the example of Islam to equate to race in order to muddy the waters and confuse the point.
You have offered no reason to equate homosexuality with race, because there is none. It is not at all difficult to define what a race is, except in your mind.

At the very least, all gays believe that it is okay to engage in homosexual relations.
This is the sentence you say I misinterpreted. You are being disingenuous at best. You are clearly referring to sexual relations here, why else would you say that they believe it "is okay" to engage in homosexual relations. What other actions would require that phrasing?

The fact that genetic factors cannot be ruled-out means they also cannot be accepted, which means such a theory has no validity in the discussion. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Even if the cause were genetic, that would not qualify them as a separate race.

Not only that, but if I were to make a statement such as "blacks are more prone to criminal activity because they are black, it's just a genetic thing", then you would be screaming racist at me. Using your logic I could claim you must accept that statement as true and act accordingly since no proof exists that it is correct.

The KKK has religious and cultural elements too as well as skin-tone and common genetic features, shall we declare members of the KKK a distinct race?

Your logic, if you can call it that, is twisted beyond belief.

 

So using your priviledge anology, driving is a priviledge provided by the state. They could deny a certain group of people that right to drive? Say all people over 65. Or all males 25-35. Would you stand for that also since its a priviledge not a right to drive?

 

Driving under the auspices of a driver's license is indeed a priviledge, not a right. Driver's licenses are revoked all the time.

Licenses are denied to certain groups of people in accordance with the wishes of the people as legislated through lawmakers.
That is why you must take a written and driving test and fullfill certain requirements, including being of a certain age and having adequate sight and even physical and mental abilities.

Children below a certain age are not licensed to drive because the state, which is comprised of the citizens who reside there, feels that there is a compelling reason to make that restriction.

 

I commend you IYC you have been teaching 6th grade science and 10th grade civics.

 

You said: "race - people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock"

You said: "Even if the cause were genetic, that would not qualify them as a separate race."

You said: "Your logic, if you can call it that, is twisted beyond belief."

Sorry brother. You have some homework to do.

 

Again you try to equate two different concepts.

Just because the word genetic was used in both cases does not mean the reference is the same.

The color of your eyes is determined by genetics. That does not make blue-eyed people a distinct race.

If the cause were genetic, it would be due to a genetic anomaly, that is, there would be a genetic error or failure, such as is involved in Down Syndrome. People with Down Syndrome certainly look alike, and their condition has a genetic cause, but they are not a race of people. They are people with a genetic defect. The race of such a person is still determined by their ancestry, or "genetic stock".

You must have been sleeping during science class, these are simple concepts.

 

You said: "If the cause were genetic, it would be due to a genetic anomaly, that is, there would be a genetic error or failure, such as is involved in Down Syndrome."

But then you also said: “And I don't buy the comparison of being gay to being black. You can't choose not to live as a black person. You can choose not to live a gay life-style."

Much like you can choose not to live with Down Syndrome?

If gayness could be atributed to a genetic attribute, then it wouldn't be a choice. And in fact any law that prohibited gay people from marrying would be discriminatory against people with a certain genetic attribute. This attibute could just as well be skin or hair color.

However I do understand that in your world, you'd rather legislate first and hope to prove yourself right later.

Another wonderful pair of contradictory statements on your part:

You said: “Their desire to be with someone of the same sex is what denies them the right to marriage”

You also said: "There is no "right" to marry as concerns state-sanctioned marriage, see my answer above.
When you ask permission from the state, it is a priviledge, not a right, and priviledge is granted according to the rules which serve the compelling interests of the state. "

Maybe you should apply the same word-splitting rigor with which you analyze other people's statements to your own.

 

It would have been more correct to write “Their desire to be with someone of the same sex is what denies them the priviledge to marriage.” I was using the same phrasing which was being employed by the person I was responding to. It doesn't really change the overall message conveyed by the sentence.

I called you on your attempt to change, after the fact, the context of a complete sentence.

I have to ask, do you understand the difference between a right and a priviledge in this country?

 

You're assuming that marriage is a privledge granted by the state.

I disagree. I think people have the right to marry whoever they please and the state has no say in the matter.

"Compelling interests of the state" is a bullshit concept, used to justify all kinds of blatantly unconstitutional activity by the state. The only "compelling interest" the state has is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The state is the servant, not the master.

 

Again, where does the state derive constitutional authority to grand said privileges? A right does not have to be explicitly listed in the constitution to exist (see the Ninth Amendment). So, where does the state derive the authority to determine who can and cannot get married?

Also, "compelling interest" holds no weight with me, as the state has no such thing. The state exists to serve the people. It has no interests.

 

And the Supreme Court has ruled that travelling by the common means of the day, aka driving, is most definitely a right held by the people. Engaging in commerce on the public roadway IS within the power of the state to regulate. Travelling by the common means of the day is not.

That doesn't change the fact that the state engages in unconstitutional activity every day, but why should this one area of public life be different in that regard.

 

People do have the right to marry, in a religious or common-law sense, anyone they wish. When you apply for a state-issued marriage license, you are giving the state the right to decide the parameters of that marriage. This is the form of marriage being sought by gays, not the religious or common-law marriage they already have access to.

The compelling interest concept may not be acceptable to you, but it is the norm and has been forever. The state is not the servant or the master, the state is the people who reside there and who legislate those laws and rules according to what they feel is their compelling interest.

I would bet you'd agree with the concept if your neighbor decided to open a 24- hour bar, or a pig farm or saw-mill.

 

A pig farm next door has nothing to do with "compelling interest" at all. I'm being damaged by that action.

That "compelling interest" bullshit has been used to justify every unconstitutional action the state has ever taken. You might buy it. I don't. Nowhere in the constitution does is this idea of the state's "compelling interest" given the power of law.

I also don't recall surrendering any of my rights when I got a marriage license. That action was simply to record it in the public record. The state had no authority to tell me who I could or could not marry. They still lack that authority if gays wish to access marriage.

But let's pretend this "compelling interest" bullshit actually has validity for a moment. Exactly what "compelling interest" does the state have in who an individual chooses to marry? Keeping in mind that creation of future taxpayers, i.e. children, isn't valid as straight, married people are under no legal obligation to procreate. Nor is the validity of their marriage license contingent upon making babies.

So, let's hear what the state's "compelling interest" is in this situation.

Your desire to discriminate against your gay neighbors also isn't a "state interest" either. You have no dog in that fight so you have no legal interest, or standing, in the discussion. Your rights are in no way, shape, or form the issue in someone else's marriage.

 

So, when will someone's right to mary a sheep be violated? Or, is that TOO sick?

 

When you find a sheep to say I do and sign his/her name on the dotted line then go for it my man.

I may hate your wife and consider her a dog or elephant or gorilla or any other animal but I cant deny you the right/privilege to be married to one another.

 

You said: "Notice your use of the word "if" in two places. Your statements are pure supposition as they are based on a "what if" statement, not on fact. There is no proof that being gay is genetic."

That's true. As I have said many times, nobody knows what causes gayness. I'm glad you finally caught on to that. The next thing you should understand is that you are making assumptions that are equally unfounded when you say that being gay is a choice. Not having any research to back you up on this, and not being gay, you're without substantiation. The big difference between my statement and yours was that I made it clear the whole time that genetics was only a POSSIBLE cause of gayness, whereas you have asserted that it is purely behavioral. That makes my statement accurate and yours unfounded.

Unless of course, you have a PhD in Sociology or Cultural Anthropology? Or do you have some kind of accrediation you did not mention that allows you to officially determine the cause of gayness?

You said: "Having Down Syndrome or being black is not a life-style."

It most certainly is. Do you honestly think you have the same lifestyle choices as a person with Down syndrome? They are living a lifestyle that is the consequence of their genetic makeup.

These are the same points I was making earlier. Your definitions of race and culture are workable only in a very small and isolated context. They are not suited for issues of this level of complexity.

You asked me if I understood the difference between a right and a priviledge. I do, and I think you do too. I have no grievance with the legal aspect of your arguments; where you have gone wrong is in your underlying assumptions about gay people.

Well that, and your constant character attacks. Your constant insults really decrease your credibility.

 

In that their actions create a societal norm in the society in which I live and in which my children live, I do indeed have a dog in that fight. The only "right" I am denying them is their wish to redefine the state of marriage. They are not being denied any right to associate or engage in any practices or form any legal relationship. The discrimination angle is just bullshit.

 

So If I denied you a job at my company because you were male that isnt discrimination?

If I denied it because your a hetrosexual would that be discrimination?

It isnt your right to have a job in my company it is your privilege to have a job here. All of these lawsuits that the courts are upholding are fake and not discrimination of any type?

Anyone anywhere can deny anyone anywhere anything they want?

That is the definitation of discriminate.


To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

 

Nice examples, but they are not analagous to this situation. Gays are not asking to be treated the same as regards marriage laws, since they are not proscribed from marrying as long as they do it within current rules. They are asking to have the rules changed to suit them.

In line with your examples, it would be more accurate to ask if it would be discrimination to not hire me if, even though reading is a job requirement, I couldn't read because I was dyslexic. Since my inability to read is not my fault, why should you be allowed to discriminate against me? Obviously, the requirement of reading should be removed to avoid discrimination.

And by the way, if you did deny me a job because I was male or heterosexual, no court in the country would find against you.

Any lawyer will tell you that healthy white heterosexual males cannot be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace. In theory, maybe, but in reality, never.