Had an impromptu protest today - my first one!

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

There is a right to heterosexuality. It is inherent in the legal institution of marriage.

What do you think the issue is here?

Wrong. there is no "right". Just because people have gotten intellectually lazy by using "right" all the time doesn't mean it's use is correct. There is no specific "right" to heterosexuality, just like there is no specific right to homosexuality as far as the Constitution goes.

So it sounds like to you, you don't think there is a right for humans to breathe air... What do you think of the US Constitution's Ninth Amendment? Just because a right is not specifically enumerated doesn't mean we don't have them.

Again, what do you think the issue is here?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

There is a right to heterosexuality. It is inherent in the legal institution of marriage.

What do you think the issue is here?

Wrong. there is no "right". Just because people have gotten intellectually lazy by using "right" all the time doesn't mean it's use is correct. There is no specific "right" to heterosexuality, just like there is no specific right to homosexuality as far as the Constitution goes.

So it sounds like to you, you don't think there is a right for humans to breathe air... What do you think of the US Constitution's Ninth Amendment? Just because a right is not specifically enumerated doesn't mean we don't have them.

Again, what do you think the issue is here?

:roll: Please show where our Constitution states heterosexuality is a "right". Hint - it doesn't. There are other rights stated by it that may protect people but there is nothing that specifically says homosexuality or heterosexuality is a "right". Sheesh.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

There is a right to heterosexuality. It is inherent in the legal institution of marriage.

What do you think the issue is here?

Wrong. there is no "right". Just because people have gotten intellectually lazy by using "right" all the time doesn't mean it's use is correct. There is no specific "right" to heterosexuality, just like there is no specific right to homosexuality as far as the Constitution goes.

CAD, did you not read my earlier post? The supreme court has specifically stated that the right to privacy includes the right to consensual sex between adults in any manner they choose. I even quoted you the passage. The right isn't specifically to sodomy, it's to all sex... sodomy included. There's simply no way around this. The right is to have sex however you want.

If you think the Supreme Court has become intellectually lazy, maybe you should write them a letter.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Please show where our Constitution states heterosexuality is a "right". Hint - it doesn't. There are other rights stated by it that may protect people but there is nothing that specifically says homosexuality or heterosexuality is a "right". Sheesh.

Ugh never mind. I specifically argued that the consitution doesn't specifically enumerate all rights. Of course the constitution doesn't say heterosexuality is a right just like it doens't say we have a right to breathe air on public property. But you don't get it.... and you also refuse to answer my question.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Please show where our Constitution states heterosexuality is a "right". Hint - it doesn't. There are other rights stated by it that may protect people but there is nothing that specifically says homosexuality or heterosexuality is a "right". Sheesh.

Ugh never mind. I specifically argued that the consitution doesn't specifically enumerate all rights. Of course the constitution doesn't say heterosexuality is a right just like it doens't say we have a right to breathe air on public property. But you don't get it.... and you also refuse to answer my question.

Ok, so now you understand that there is no "right" to either. good. It's a great first step.

Now if you want to start talking about inherent "rights" as homosapiens - that's a whole different subject.

But the thing is, people here keep trying to claim that some ruling states that it is a "right" when it most certainly does not.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

There is a right to heterosexuality. It is inherent in the legal institution of marriage.

What do you think the issue is here?

Wrong. there is no "right". Just because people have gotten intellectually lazy by using "right" all the time doesn't mean it's use is correct. There is no specific "right" to heterosexuality, just like there is no specific right to homosexuality as far as the Constitution goes.

CAD, did you not read my earlier post? The supreme court has specifically stated that the right to privacy includes the right to consensual sex between adults in any manner they choose. I even quoted you the passage. The right isn't specifically to sodomy, it's to all sex... sodomy included. There's simply no way around this. The right is to have sex however you want.

If you think the Supreme Court has become intellectually lazy, maybe you should write them a letter.

That is incorrect. I've addressed that ruling- you must not have read my post. It was about privacy and such. It doesn't mean that there is a "right" to sodomy though - which is what you people are trying to suggest. It just doesn't exist. Is the act protected by the "right" to privacy - sure but that doesn't mean it itself is a "right". Sheesh.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

It has nothing to do with a "right" to any sexual preference. It has everything to do with their right to enjoy the same legal benefits and priviliges in their personal committed love relationships as you do in yours.

Originally posted by: Infohawk

There is a right to heterosexuality. It is inherent in the legal institution of marriage.

The LEGAL institution of marriage affords married couples very specific rights and priviliges. For example, it grants partners the right to act as attorney ad litem, to act as the legal authority and corresponding duties of care for the personal and property interests for a partner when he/she is hospitalized and cannot act or speak for him/herself. Married couples also enjoy tax and other civil benefits.

What do you think the issue is here?

The rights, benefits and advantages granted to married couples are creatures of the state. The issue is whether the state can deny those rights, benefits and advantages to committed couples based solely on whether the partnership is a hetero or homosexual relationship.

Why should you even care? :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That is incorrect. I've addressed that ruling- you must not have read my post. It was about privacy and such. It doesn't mean that there is a "right" to sodomy though - which is what you people are trying to suggest. It just doesn't exist. Is the act protected by the "right" to privacy - sure but that doesn't mean it itself is a "right". Sheesh.

Are you listening to yourself? If an act is protected by a right, that means you have the right to do it.

EDIT: And for further clarity I will repeat the quote from the Supreme Court majority opinion (which is the currently prevailing jurisprudence on the subject, and thereby under our system is the final word on what the constitution means)

right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...a_Proposition_8_(2008)

I guess that's not something they would have in your "state."

No, we don't get to vote on stuff in our state. We just have the libs push their excessive spending(robbing rainy day funds) and rights violations(smoking ban) through the congress and it gets signed by the puppet governor.

The one thing we did get to vote on was a statewide "local option" sales tax- which thankfully failed miserably. Unfortunately we didn't get to vote on the school curriculum? thing(forgot exact details) that stripped local control of schools from the local area and put it in state bureaucrat's hands.

You don't have a right to plunder whatever booty you want, but you have a right to smoke? WTF?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong wrong wrong. I'm not "honoring the rights" of homosexuals by saying I would likely vote no on something like that. The issue as I see it is not about "rights" of homosexuals even though some of you are trying to claim somehow this is about the "right" to homosexuality. There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

I didn't say he did anything illegal- i simply noted his rage.

(A) There *is* a right to equal protection under the law. Please google "Equal Protection Clause." There are rights conferred to individuals when they marry. To deny some folks these rights and benefits violates the 14th amendment.
(B) He didn't seem so full of rage, I think you're exaggerating.