NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/lgbt/


John Kerry and John Edwards believe that every American should have the opportunity to succeed and to live the American dream. Discrimination has no place in a nation founded on the principles of freedom. While America has made great strides toward true equality, much remains to be done and too often the progress we’ve made comes under attack.

The LGBT community contributes to our nation in so many ways, in every corner of this country. Gay and lesbian Americans only ask for equal treatment. They deserve the right to make medical decisions for one another in times of crisis, the right to inherit a house purchased together and equal access to health insurance, social security and retirement benefits. Together, we can provide this simple justice.


A Call to Action
Dear Friend,

The time is now. The election is quickly approaching and gay and lesbian voters and their allies can make a difference in the direction of this country. If you want to help John Kerry get elected and send Bush back to Texas, here are five ways that you can help.

Get Local - Volunteer in your area

Write to friends and family in battleground states

Travel to a battleground state to work on the campaign

Make your gay and lesbian dollars count

Never have the stakes been higher. It's clear what awaits our community if we don't defeat George Bush.

# Decreased funding for HIV/AIDS treatment & prevention
# No workplace protections for gays and lesbians
# More bans on adoption by gays and lesbians
# Increase in hate crimes against gay and lesbian citizens

You can make a difference. We all must make a difference. Get involved today.

Join the Pride at the Polls Program
Get involved with the Pride at the Polls program - a nationwide effort designed to educate, register, and turn out millions of LGBT voters. Distribute literature and talk to voters about why John Kerry will make America a better place for the LGBT community and why the LGBT community cannot survive another four years of George W. Bush.

Join Pride at the Polls Today
Notes from the Convention
As we return from the Democratic National Convention and are now focused on getting out LGBT voters across the country, we want to share with you some highlights from each day of the convention. With great speakers like Robert Gant from Queer as Folk, and Teresa Heinz Kerry, the convention was a spectacular show of strength and support for the LGBT community.

Check out all the highlights here
John Kerry on LGBT Issues
With a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign since 1995, John Kerry is a powerful voice in the ongoing fight for civil rights. John Kerry and John Edwards will work to support civil unions, prevent hate crimes, end discrimination, increase HIV/AIDS funding, and will protect Gay and Lesbian families.

Read More
Bush Administration Does NOT Extend to LGBT Americans
The Bush administration repeatedly uses gay rights as a political tool to divide the nation. John Kerry and John Edwards will use the power of the White House to support equal rights for all Americans, including gay Americans. We don’t need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. We need to find a way to provide all American families with full and equal rights. We don’t need opposition to hate crimes legislation. We need to reject hate and embrace diversity. And we don’t need a president who plays politics with gay adoption. We need a president who works everyday to protect and support all children and families – including our gay and lesbian families.

Read Bush's Record
Strengthen Civil Rights Laws Damaged By Right-Wing Judges And Strengthen Hate Crime Laws.
John Kerry and John Edwards support the Fairness Act, which will reverse damage done to civil rights laws by right-wing judges. As president, John Kerry will only appoint judges who will enforce the laws and the Constitution of the United States, including civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. He wants to ensure that every American can get their day in court and have access to fair and meaningful remedies for injustice. John Kerry and John Edwards also support strong enforcement and equal justice for all victims of hate crime.

A Commitment to Hope, Fairness, and Opportunity

Alone due to that, Kerry would be my perfect candidate, if I could vote in the U.S.

Alone due to that, Kerry would be my perfect candidate, if I could vote in the U.S.
Well, you can't. So stop trying to.

Well, you can't. So stop trying to.
I'm supporting Kerry with the little things I can do :)

NO BUSH AND NO DICK IN 2004!!!

I just wish Kerry and Edwards didnt have to be pussified into being against gay marriage, but for civil unions. :rolleyes:

I just wish Kerry and Edwards didnt have to be pussified into being against gay marriage, but for civil unions. :rolleyes:
Yeah, Gigatron conveniently omits the fact that Bush and Kerry support the exact same thing for gays and lesbians, and there is no difference whatsoever between them.

Kerry and his cohorts are also opposed to gay marriage, and support constitutional amendments to outlaw them forever. However, the gay community likes him because he's not Bush.

That's all good and such....except for the fact that there's already a place to put your genitals....

Yeah, Gigatron conveniently omits the fact that Bush and Kerry support the exact same thing for gays and lesbians, and there is no difference whatsoever between them.
That is quite incorrect. No one but Nader supports full gay marriage, but the Democrats have the balls to support civil unions at least.

Kerry and his cohorts are also opposed to gay marriage, and support constitutional amendments to outlaw them forever.
When the amendment came up for the Senate vote, only 3 Democrats crossed the line and supported that abomination. They were Zell Miller (endorses Bush), Robert Byrd (ex KKK member), and some dude from Nebraska.

They are VERY much against those amendments that seem trendy all of a sudden. Hell, even McCain and Cheney are against them. McCain cause he's a reasonable guy, Cheney cause he has personal issues, haha.

Nevermind the fact that Kerry and Edwards are for using someones sexuality for political gain and shemlessly reach for the GLBT vote by using that crap.

Yeah, Gigatron conveniently omits the fact that Bush and Kerry support the exact same thing for gays and lesbians, and there is no difference whatsoever between them.

Bush has never expressed support for civil unions.

Democrats have the balls to support civil unions at least.

So do Republicans.

Nevermind the fact that Kerry and Edwards are for using someones sexuality for political gain and shemlessly reach for the GLBT vote by using that crap.
You want to talk using sexual orientation for political gain?! This entire pathetic phenomenon of passing constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage was a politica prank by Republicans looking to peel off Catholics, Jews, and black Baptists from the Democrat Party. Now that's shameless.

Slighty off-topic: What do T's have to do with L's G's and B's?

Lesbian, Gay and Bi are indicators of sexual preference, whereas a transsexual is someone who either believes themself to be someone of the opposite sex in the wrong body, or someone who wants to change their sex. In both cases, someone who feels they need surgical alteration of their body.

I can't help feeling that transsexuals are just jumping on the LGB bandwagon.

You want to talk using sexual orientation for political gain?! This entire pathetic phenomenon of passing constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage was a politica prank by Republicans looking to peel off Catholics, Jews, and black Baptists from the Democrat Party. Now that's shameless.
No, that what the majority of Americans want. This is called doing what your constituants want.

So do Republicans.
McCain, Swarzenegger, and Giuliani...

Then again, they're not really considered Republicans, right? :p

No, that what the majority of Americans want. This is called doing what your constituants want.
The majority of America supports civil unions. Check your facts.

Well if the LGBT support Kerry, do cross-dressing TV hookers as well? I'm sure the members of NAMBLA endorse the Kerry campaign. ;)

McCain, Swarzenegger, and Giuliani...

Then again, they're not really considered Republicans, right? :p
*shrug
If it came down to it, myself and every Republican I know would vote for civil unions.

So do Republicans.

Which is why they rejected a unity plank that would include homosexual rights in their platform.

STUFF
"Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage" - Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage)

"We're both opposed to gay marriage ..." - John Edwards (reported by Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0806-03.htm))

Fuck anyone that thinks civil unions are a good idea. This whole "seperate but equal" bullshit wasn't good enough during the civil rights movement and it's not good enough now. By creating civil unions and banning marriage we would be officially creating seperate classes of people, which should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form.

The majority of America supports civil unions. Check your facts.
And if marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, what does that have to do with civil unions?

Which is why they rejected a unity plank that would include homosexual rights in their platform.
Because marriage isn't a right.

And if marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, what does that have to do with civil unions?
Exactly!

Because marriage isn't a right.

If the government decides to give privileges and protections, it must do so in a non-discriminatory manner.

There is nothing in the Constitution about the fire department. Having a fire department to come put out the fires at your house is not a right. However, we have fire departments. This means that the fire department can't show up and say, "Whoops! You guys are gay! Looks like we can let your house burn down!"

The same goes for the protections provided by a marriage license. If they are to be granted, then the government can't say "Whoops! You two are a *gay* couple, guess you don't get the same protections as those straight people that we actually like!"

And if marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, what does that have to do with civil unions?
Because these amendments go further and also ban civil unions. :)

Marriage is a union for the purpose of conceiving, birthing, and raising a child. None of which a same sex couple can do. Civil Unions will do.

And if marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, what does that have to do with civil unions?

Civil union = civil marriage. If it doesn't, then it is unconstitutional and we all know it.

"Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage" - Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage)

"We're both opposed to gay marriage ..." - John Edwards (reported by Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0806-03.htm))

Fuck anyone that thinks civil unions are a good idea. This whole "seperate but equal" bullshit wasn't good enough during the civil rights movement and it's not good enough now. By creating civil unions and banning marriage we would be officially creating seperate classes of people, which should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form.
I agree with you.

But we work with what we got. As long as Republicans control the country, gay marriage will never happen. Democrats would be more willing to let the states allow gay marriage (as Massachusetts has done), and less tolerant of constitutional bans.

If the government decides to give privileges and protections, it must do so in a non-discriminatory manner.

There is nothing in the Constitution about the fire department. Having a fire department to come put out the fires at your house is not a right. However, we have fire departments. This means that the fire department can't show up and say, "Whoops! You guys are gay! Looks like we can let your house burn down!"

The same goes for the protections provided by a marriage license. If they are to be granted, then the government can't say "Whoops! You two are a *gay* couple, guess you don't get the same protections as those straight people that we actually like!"
One man can marry one woman, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or creed. The privilege is universal.

Marriage is a union for the purpose of conceiving, birthing, and raising a child. None of which a same sex couple can do. Civil Unions will do.
Funny, I thought it was about love. Naff off.

Marriage is a union for the purpose of conceiving, birthing, and raising a child. None of which a same sex couple can do. Civil Unions will do.

Is it? Hmmm, guess we should start banning old couples and infertile couples from marrying then.

*Wonders what exactly spousal immunity, filing joint income taxes and paying more taxes, power of attorney, or next-of-kinship between spouses have to do with conceiving, birthing, or raising a child*

Civil union = civil marriage. If it doesn't, then it is unconstitutional and we all know it.
So are fire departments, social security, and EMS, but I don't hear you bitching about that. The government has no place in marriage.

One man can marry one woman, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or creed. The privilege is universal.

Marriage is not a privilege given to an individual, it is given to a pair of people who have decided to share their lives. Homosexual pairs cannot obtain this privilege and the protections thereof - which they need for the same reasons as heterosexual pairs. This is clearly discriminatory.

And if marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, what does that have to do with civil unions?
The amendment in question right now reads:
[1.] Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
[2.] Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Notice, in point 2, the phrase "or the legal incidents thereof." This could easily be manipulated to make civil unions illegal (banning states from giving homosexuals some of the rights involved in a marriage). That's how the amendment affects civil unions.

Is it? Hmmm, guess we should start banning old couples and infertile couples from marrying then.

*Wonders what exactly spousal immunity, filing joint income taxes and paying more taxes, power of attorney, or next-of-kinship between spouses have to do with conceiving, birthing, or raising a child*
*Wonders why spousal immunity exists at all, since it's assuming that only your spouse can be a confidant

*Wonders why homosexuals don't file taxes jointly anyway, since you don't have to be married to do it

*Wonders why homosexuals don't sign their power of attorney to their other in a legal document, like people do who aren't married

*Wonders why homosexuals don't write a will

*shrug
If it came down to it, myself and every Republican I know would vote for civil unions.
64% of registered Republicans would not.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html

So are fire departments, social security, and EMS, but I don't hear you bitching about that. The government has no place in marriage.

They are? Howso?

The government has a place in ensuring that people who chose to marry do not get punished for that choice. In other words, many people in this country (gay and straight) choose to marry and entwine their lives together. The government has a vested interest in making sure that this portion of the constituency is protected.

Marriage is not a privilege given to an individual, it is given to a pair of people who have decided to share their lives. Homosexual pairs cannot obtain this privilege and the protections thereof - which they need for the same reasons as heterosexual pairs. This is clearly discriminatory.
Neither can incestual pairs. Point?

Because these amendments go further and also ban civil unions. :)
No, they don't, but keep up the good work spreading this fear mongering. :)

No, they don't, but keep up the good work spreading this fear mongering. :)
Do read Mentholyptus's post.

The amendment in question right now reads:
[1.] Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
[2.] Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Notice, in point 2, the phrase "or the legal incidents thereof." This could easily be manipulated to make civil unions illegal (banning states from giving homosexuals some of the rights involved in a marriage). That's how the amendment affects civil unions.

They are? Howso?

The government has a place in ensuring that people who chose to marry do not get punished for that choice. In other words, many people in this country (gay and straight) choose to marry and entwine their lives together. The government has a vested interest in making sure that this portion of the constituency is protected.
I have never needed the fire department. However, I must pay for it so others can use it. I am paying for a service I do not use. That is called stupidity if done by my choice, and theft if done against my will. No one can be deprived of property without due process of law.

Why is there a compelling interest in making people get married? The only thing that comes to my mind is to raise children, or to increase home ownership. Neither of which should be my concern.

*Wonders why spousal immunity exists at all, since it's assuming that only your spouse can be a confidant

Probably because the couple, in many cases, are seen as a single legal entity and thus incriminating your spouse could incriminate yourself.

*Wonders why homosexuals don't file taxes jointly anyway, since you don't have to be married to do it

You do to fall under the tax brackets that have to do with marriage. You think married people are punished by filing taxes jointly? Two people who aren't married would definitely end up paying *much* more taxes.

*Wonders why homosexuals don't sign their power of attorney to their other in a legal document, like people do who aren't married

Many do, but it is often contested - successfully.

*Wonders why homosexuals don't write a will

A will doesn't get you out of inheritance taxes you shouldn't have to pay on your own home.

Neither can incestual pairs. Point?

There is a compelling interest in preventing birth defects. This cannot be used as a comparison.

Probably because the couple, in many cases, are seen as a single legal entity and thus incriminating your spouse could incriminate yourself.
Except that's why you have the Fifth Amendment. A married person CANNOT testify against their spouse, except in certain exceptions.

You do to fall under the tax brackets that have to do with marriage. You think married people are punished by filing taxes jointly? Two people who aren't married would definitely end up paying *much* more taxes.
Not if they filed jointly, which many people do.

Many do, but it is often contested - successfully.
That's a problem with sleazy lawyers, not with the idea.

A will doesn't get you out of inheritance taxes you shouldn't have to pay on your own home.
That's why you file for joint ownership of your home. Come on, didn't you learn anything in Finance 101?

*Nominates Arammanar for 2008 Republican nominee*

I have never needed the fire department. However, I must pay for it so others can use it. I am paying for a service I do not use. That is called stupidity if done by my choice, and theft if done against my will. No one can be deprived of property without due process of law.

You have just as much likelihood of needing the fire department as anyone. And the fact that you have paid for other houses to be put out means that the fire didn't spread throughout your entire city and burn your house down. Thus, unless you live in the middle of a 10 acre plot with nothing else on it, you have used it.

Why is there a compelling interest in making people get married? The only thing that comes to my mind is to raise children, or to increase home ownership. Neither of which should be my concern.

There is not a compelling interest in *making* people get married. There is a compelling interest in recognizing the unions of those who choose to entwine their lives together. Part of it is convenience - a couple that has chosen to live together for life will almost invariably combine their assets - and determining ownership/debt/etc becomes a problem. One thing that comes to mind is the fact that there is no inheritance tax between spouses. This makes sense when you consider that both spouses have probably contributed quite a bit to a house/car/etc., regardless of which name it is in. If each person has contributed, then they should not have to pay a sum so high that they lose it when their partner dies.

There is a compelling interest in preventing birth defects. This cannot be used as a comparison.
There's a compelling interesting in keeping streets clean. Should we kill all the hobos to prevent the spread of disease? Besides, the birth defect argument is stupid, first of all, not all incestous pairs result in birth defects, secondly, many nonincestual couples have children with birth defects, and three, you can just abort it anyway, and four, I thought marriage wasn't about children, but was about two people and love and other bogus crap?

McCain, Swarzenegger, and Giuliani...

Then again, they're not really considered Republicans, right? :p
lol... tru dat..the only good republicans are the ones that the party rejects.

lol... tru dat..the only good republicans are the ones that the party rejects.

Who ever said they were rejected. I think any three of those would make great presidents.

You have just as much likelihood of needing the fire department as anyone. And the fact that you have paid for other houses to be put out means that the fire didn't spread throughout your entire city and burn your house down. Thus, unless you live in the middle of a 10 acre plot with nothing else on it, you have used it.
I live in the suburbs, with a vinyl sided house and 10 feet of space on all sides. I live on a cul-de-sac. No house within 2 miles of mine has ever caught on fire. Besides, I should have the right to determine if I need fire protection, the government can't force me to wear a condom to protect myself from AIDS, so why can they force me to protect myself from fire?

There is not a compelling interest in *making* people get married. There is a compelling interest in recognizing the unions of those who choose to entwine their lives together. Part of it is convenience - a couple that has chosen to live together for life will almost invariably combine their assets - and determining ownership/debt/etc becomes a problem. One thing that comes to mind is the fact that there is no inheritance tax between spouses. This makes sense when you consider that both spouses have probably contributed quite a bit to a house/car/etc., regardless of which name it is in. If each person has contributed, then they should not have to pay a sum so high that they lose it when their partner dies.
You can get property in two people's names. People do it all the time. It's not as convenient as marriage, but working isn't as convenient as welfare now is it?

There's a compelling interesting in keeping streets clean. Should we kill all the hobos to prevent the spread of disease? Besides, the birth defect argument is stupid, first of all, not all incestous pairs result in birth defects, secondly, many nonincestual couples have children with birth defects, and three, you can just abort it anyway, and four, I thought marriage wasn't about children, but was about two people and love and other bogus crap?
I personally have no problem with incest. I'm not in a position to judge who should and should not be having children. What if someone has a natural preponderance towards a genetic defect in any possible children? All the time, people who really aren't gleaming examples of human genetic perfection have children.


lol... tru dat..the only good republicans are the ones that the party rejects.
Heh. If Bush loses, I'm pretty sure the GOP will come back with a more centrist moderate candidate in 2008. Either way, liberal social ideas will be the norm.

Except that's why you have the Fifth Amendment. A married person CANNOT testify against their spouse, except in certain exceptions.

You have no idea what you are talking about. A person cannot be *forced* to testify against their spouse except in certain exceptions, but can choose to at any time.

And you said a few posts ago that we should do away with spousal immunity, which would mean that a person could *always* be forced to testify against their spouse. The 5th amendment only directly applies to the individual.

Not if they filed jointly, which many people do.

You obviously know nothing about tax brackets. If I make $25000, I am in a certain tax bracket. If I make $50000, I am in a different one which is taxed at a higher rate. If two people who each made $25000 filed jointly (and weren't married), they would be taxed at the single person's $50000 rate - which would result in them paying much higher taxes.

The marriage tax brackets are different - they still often result in higher taxes when people file jointly, but not always - and not to the same extent.

That's a problem with sleazy lawyers, not with the idea.

Actually, it's a problem with the law, when certain couples can get protections that others cannot.

That's why you file for joint ownership of your home. Come on, didn't you learn anything in Finance 101?

Joint ownership of your home, when not married, means half-and-half ownership. *One* person can claim it on their taxes and if one person dies, the other still has to pay inheritance taxes on the other half - thus possibly having to sell the home to pay said taxes. Looks like you, again, have no idea what you are talking about.

I personally have no problem with incest. I'm not in a position to judge who should and should not be having children. What if someone has a natural preponderance towards a genetic defect in any possible children? All the time, people who really aren't gleaming examples of human genetic perfection have children.
The only argument against incest is eugenics, and I thought the consensus was that that was bad.

The only argument against incest is eugenics, and I thought the consensus was that that was bad.
Actually, the main argument against incest is probably religiously based, like the opposition to gay marriage.

EDIT: I know you haven't brought up religion yet in this thread, but you must admit, without religious opposition to gay marriage, we would already have joined Denmark, Norway, Belgium etc. in allowing gay marriage.

You have no idea what you are talking about. A person cannot be *forced* to testify against their spouse except in certain exceptions, but can choose to at any time.

And you said a few posts ago that we should do away with spousal immunity, which would mean that a person could *always* be forced to testify against their spouse. The 5th amendment only directly applies to the individual.
The Fifth Amendment applies to any question that you consider incriminating. You can't appeal someone's Fifth Amendment protections. And YOU have no idea what you're talking about, a lawyer for one spouse can ask that the other spouse's testimony not be admitted except in a few exceptions. A sposue CANNOT testify against their spouse, it's not a privilege, it's a law.

You obviously know nothing about tax brackets. If I make $25000, I am in a certain tax bracket. If I make $50000, I am in a different one which is taxed at a higher rate. If two people who each made $25000 filed jointly (and weren't married), they would be taxed at the single person's $50000 rate - which would result in them paying much higher taxes.

The marriage tax brackets are different - they still often result in higher taxes when people file jointly, but not always - and not to the same extent.
The tax brackets are graduated. Ever heard of the marriage penalty? The two people who make $50000 together pay MORE taxes than those who pay $25000 seperately.

Actually, it's a problem with the law, when certain couples can get protections that others cannot.
They can both get those protections, only the route is different.

Joint ownership of your home, when not married, means half-and-half ownership. *One* person can claim it on their taxes and if one person dies, the other still has to pay inheritance taxes on the other half - thus possibly having to sell the home to pay said taxes. Looks like you, again, have no idea what you are talking about.
Not necessarily, you can get out of it by setting up certain legal agreements, go talk to a lawyer before you spout off garbage.

Actually, the main argument against incest is probably religiously based, like the opposition to gay marriage.

EDIT: I know you haven't brought up religion yet in this thread, but you must admit, without religious opposition to gay marriage, we would already have joined Denmark, Norway, Belgium etc. in allowing gay marriage.
The arguments against any deviant relationship except polygamy are religiously based, but that doesn't make them less valid.

so why can they force me to protect myself from fire?
So you're saying that you want to go on fire? ;)

The arguments against any deviant relationship except polygamy are religiously based, but that doesn't make them less valid.
Huh? Since when is any religious argument considered "valid" when discussing law?

And "deviance" is purely subjective.

The Fifth Amendment applies to any question that you consider incriminating. You can't appeal someone's Fifth Amendment protections.

However, in many cases, if you are not married, you cannot claim the fifth. If someone asks you, "Did your husband come home after midnight on the 24th?" you cannot claim that answering that question would incriminate you. Thus, if you refused to answer, you would be held in contempt of court.

And YOU have no idea what you're talking about, a lawyer for one spouse can ask that the other spouse's testimony not be admitted except in a few exceptions. A sposue CANNOT testify against their spouse, it's not a privilege, it's a law.

That is an old interpretation which has not been used for years.

The tax brackets are graduated. Ever heard of the marriage penalty? The two people who make $50000 together pay MORE taxes than those who pay $25000 seperately.

Yup, except the marriage tax brackets *are* different from individual ones. Thus, two non-married people filing jointly would have an even greater penalty.

They can both get those protections, only the route is different.

No, they cannot. Not all of them.

Not necessarily, you can get out of it by setting up certain legal agreements, go talk to a lawyer before you spout off garbage.

I just bought a house with my boyfriend. I am well aware of how this works. However, my boyfriend and I have *chosen* to go without the protections of marriage for now. Homosexual couples don't even have that choice.

So you're saying that you want to go on fire? ;)
Yes, just like everyone with AIDS wanted to get dead.

Huh? Since when is any religious argument considered "valid" when discussing law?

And "deviance" is purely subjective.
Give an argument against beastiality that doesn't appeal to a uniform moral code.


However, in many cases, if you are not married, you cannot claim the fifth. If someone asks you, "Did your husband come home after midnight on the 24th?" you cannot claim that answering that question would incriminate you. Thus, if you refused to answer, you would be held in contempt of court.
Maybe he didn't come home on midnight because the two of you were out murdering someone? It doesn't matter, you cannot get comtempt of court for INVOKING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

That is an old interpretation which has not been used for years.
No, it is still actively used. Unless there was some secret Supreme Court ruling, that is how the law is written.

Yup, except the marriage tax brackets *are* different from individual ones. Thus, two non-married people filing jointly would have an even greater penalty.
So file under the cheaper two seperate entities one. It doesn't matter, in a marriage, only one person should work anyway.

No, they cannot. Not all of them.
I'm a taxpaying U.S. citizen. I cannot draw Social Security, while others can. It's ageism! I'm being denied a right based on my age! There's a reason not everyone has access to every privilege.

I just bought a house with my boyfriend. I am well aware of how this works. However, my boyfriend and I have *chosen* to go without the protections of marriage for now. Homosexual couples don't even have that choice.
Evidently, you're either lazy or had a bad lawyer. You can get exempt from inheiritance taxes in certain cases if you follow the right proceedings.

Give an argument against beastiality that doesn't appeal to a uniform moral code.
You're trying to blur the lines of religion, "uniform moral code", and law. Morality in it's particular religious sense has no place in law. The law exists in part to keep us from harming each other. Whether or not you think animals have rights is a seperate argument. In any case, the best argument against beastiality is that it hurts the animal. It has nothing to do with any pre-conceived notions of "deviance" or "immorality" or "perversion".

Those were the same buzzwords used to ban interracial marriage.

You're trying to blur the lines of religion, "uniform moral code", and law. Morality in it's particular religious sense has no place in law. The law exists in part to keep us from harming each other. Whether or not you think animals have rights is a seperate argument. In any case, the best argument against beastiality is that it hurts the animal. It has nothing to do with any pre-conceived notions of "deviance" or "immorality" or "perversion".

Those were the same buzzwords used to ban interracial marriage.
We can eat animals. We can hunt and kill them. They are traded and sold, like property. Or slaves. If I want, I can have sex with a blow up doll, which is also property. Why not with animals?
EDIT: And animals have teeth and nails, and use them, even when they like you. Imagine what would happen if you tried something that an animal didn't like it its genital area.

We can eat animals. We can hunt and kill them. They are traded and sold, like property. Or slaves. If I want, I can have sex with a blow up doll, which is also property. Why not with animals?
If you believe that animals have no rights, then beastiality is completely fine. If you're asking my personal opinion, I don't like to see needless suffering of animals, even though I believe they have no rights. I wouldn't legislate against someone who likes to burn ants with a magnifying glass, but I wouldn't exactly approve.

EDIT: And animals have teeth and nails, and use them, even when they like you. Imagine what would happen if you tried something that an animal didn't like it its genital area.
Stick to cows then. :p

If you believe that animals have no rights, then beastiality is completely fine. If you're asking my personal opinion, I don't like to see needless suffering of animals, even though I believe they have no rights. I wouldn't legislate against someone who likes to burn ants with a magnifying glass, but I wouldn't exactly approve.
That's exactly my point, the only argument against beastiality is some moral qualm which is not universally shared in the population. As long as you support homosexuality and beastiality, I can disagree with you, but at least not think you're a hypocrite, and thus disagree with you respectfully.

That's all good and such....except for the fact that there's already a place to put your genitals
Oh, getting there again, are you? "It's not natural, wah!"

Geez. Only humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure, are you going to say that's wrong too? Only humans and chimps wage wars.. hmmm...

Only humans wear clothes and use tools to the huge extent that is surrounding ourselves with them.

Only humans are a real, direct threat to this planet. Everything else fits into the eco-system, even AIDS and cancer. Humans perfectly fit the definition of a virus. And I mean perfectly -except we're alive and virii are not.

Oh, and I'm really off-topic as there's more to homosexuality than sex. Like there's more to heterosexuality than sex. :rolleyes:

You think it's gross? Too bad. It's none of your business anyway. I think heterosexual sex is disgusting. I think afros are just stupid. I think sausage is the most disgusting thing out there. I think boiling lobsters alive is plain immoral. I suppose we should ban those things, too... :rolleyes:

"It's against the Bible! Grrr!"
Err.. so's cutting your hair, cuzzing, skipping church, shaving, wearing clothes made from two different garments, eating fish, eating meat on Fridays, failing to pray, and breaking any of the ten commandments. But I suppose that as you do none of those things, it doesn't apply to you. Good for you, 'cause according to your Bible, all those things are -verbatim quote- abominations - punishable by a one-way ticket to this nice and cozy place you Christians have come up with commonly known as "Hell". ;)

"It's a threat to society! Wah! Save us! :eek: "
Nope. Please show one example. "Threat to marriage"? Nope. You think forcing gays to marry women and lesbians to marry men would lower divorce rates? Think again, smart one. Apart from that, I can't think of anything.

I have never needed the fire department. However, I must pay for it so others can use it. I am paying for a service I do not use. That is called stupidity if done by my choice, and theft if done against my will. No one can be deprived of property without due process of law.
There's a good idea! Don't put your house on fire!

Geez, I should've thought about that one. So should all those people who got life-long wounds from fires. And those whose houses burned down. And all those napalm victims in 'Nam. Just... don't get burned. Wow, spread that one! You're a genious!

Should we kill all the hobos to prevent the spread of disease? Besides, the birth defect argument is stupid, first of all, not all incestous pairs result in birth defects
By the same reasoning I could smoke ten cigarettes a day and say that not all smokers get cancer. Or I could jump off of a cliff and say that not everyone dies... :rolleyes:

Huh? Since when is any religious argument considered "valid" when discussing law?
To religious nuts.. since the Dawn of time. :(

Maybe he didn't come home on midnight because the two of you were out murdering someone? It doesn't matter, you cannot get comtempt of court for INVOKING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
OK... so all a witness has to do is say he doesn't want to answer the question and he goes home free. Good idea :rolleyes: . By your reasoning I can bring a bomb onto a train or airplane and refuse to go through X-Ray because I "find it incriminating".

How you managed to not know what reality is like is pretty much an enigma to me... :)

Actually, the main argument against incest is probably religiously based, like the opposition to gay marriage.

EDIT: I know you haven't brought up religion yet in this thread, but you must admit, without religious opposition to gay marriage, we would already have joined Denmark, Norway, Belgium etc. in allowing gay marriage.
Exactly.

Or slaves. If I want, I can have sex with a blow up doll, which is also property. Why not with animals?
Animal abuse. You know that as well as I do, so quit playing stupid. You can't do whatever you want with your own property and you've never been able to. It's that plain and that simple.

That's exactly my point, the only argument against beastiality is some moral qualm which is not universally shared in the population. As long as you support homosexuality and beastiality, I can disagree with you, but at least not think you're a hypocrite, and thus disagree with you respectfully.
I think you are bringing in an unnecessary tangent. Animals are not people, and no analogy can make a conclusive point. People lump "sexual deviancy" all together, homosexuality, cross-dressers, transsexuals, bisexuals, pedophelia, beastiality, necrophelia, incest, etc. The problem is each one of these are completely different issues.

So if the only argument against homosexuality is some moral qualm not universally shared in the population...?

I live in the suburbs, with a vinyl sided house and 10 feet of space on all sides. I live on a cul-de-sac. No house within 2 miles of mine has ever caught on fire. Besides, I should have the right to determine if I need fire protection, the government can't force me to wear a condom to protect myself from AIDS, so why can they force me to protect myself from fire?

So I assume, if your house ever does catch on fire, you won't complain if the fire department didn't come to put it out and your house burned down to the ground with all your possessions inside? What if a fire started when you were sleeping, and you became trapped? Would you not like to be rescued?

Geez. Only humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure, are you going to say that's wrong too? Only humans and chimps wage wars.. hmmm...
All animals have sex for pleasure. If it wasn't pleasurable, they wouldn't engage in it. Ants wage war, bees wage war, many animals wage war. Come back when you know biology.

Only humans wear clothes and use tools to the huge extent that is surrounding ourselves with them.
Chimps and birds use tools. You lose again.

Only humans are a real, direct threat to this planet. Everything else fits into the eco-system, even AIDS and cancer. Humans perfectly fit the definition of a virus. And I mean perfectly -except we're alive and virii are not.
Humans are not dependent on a host to reproduce, the exact definition of virus. All animals could be killed, with no damage done to the planet. I find it appauling that so many who deny religion misuse science to justify their ignorance.

Oh, and I'm really off-topic as there's more to homosexuality than sex. Like there's more to heterosexuality than sex. :rolleyes:
Not really, since sexual preference and action is integral to the definition of either.

"It's against the Bible! Grrr!"
Err.. so's cutting your hair, cuzzing, skipping church, shaving, wearing clothes made from two different garments, eating fish, eating meat on Fridays, failing to pray, and breaking any of the ten commandments. But I suppose that as you do none of those things, it doesn't apply to you. Good for you, 'cause according to your Bible, all those things are -verbatim quote- abominations - punishable by a one-way ticket to this nice and cozy place you Christians have come up with commonly known as "Hell". ;)
Way to misunderstand the entire premise behind salvation. Go read a Good Book.

"It's a threat to society! Wah! Save us! :eek: "
Nope. Please show one example. "Threat to marriage"? Nope. You think forcing gays to marry women and lesbians to marry men would lower divorce rates? Think again, smart one. Apart from that, I can't think of anything.
It costs money. It's not in society's best interest.

There's a good idea! Don't put your house on fire!
Yes, if I don't put my house on fire, why do I have to spend money on those that do? Unless you want to start paying my income taxes...

Geez, I should've thought about that one. So should all those people who got life-long wounds from fires. And those whose houses burned down. And all those napalm victims in 'Nam. Just... don't get burned. Wow, spread that one! You're a genious!
When's the last time anyone you know got burned from napalm? And for all those who did get burned, that's what insurance is for. Welcome to capitalism.

By the same reasoning I could smoke ten cigarettes a day and say that not all smokers get cancer. Or I could jump off of a cliff and say that not everyone dies... :rolleyes:
Yes, but smoking is legal. As is jumping off a cliff. Why isn't incest?

To religious nuts.. since the Dawn of time. :(
Find a source of morality that isn't religion.

OK... so all a witness has to do is say he doesn't want to answer the question and he goes home free.
Oh my God, that's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
Nordumbass="Mr. Bob, did you kill Mr. Fred?"
Mr. Bob="No."
Nordumbass="Hmm, well, I guess since we have no evidence or other witnesses you get to go home, we really were hoping you'd admit to killing him so we could give you the death penalty. Darn, isn't there egg on my face"?

Good idea :rolleyes: . By your reasoning I can bring a bomb onto a train or airplane and refuse to go through X-Ray because I "find it incriminating".
Since when did the federal government, the only entity to which the Fifth applies to, own all the airlines?

How you managed to not know what reality is like is pretty much an enigma to me... :)
I'm really impressed you could spell enigma. Good job.

I think you are bringing in an unnecessary tangent. Animals are not people, and no analogy can make a conclusive point. People lump "sexual deviancy" all together, homosexuality, cross-dressers, transsexuals, bisexuals, pedophelia, beastiality, necrophelia, incest, etc. The problem is each one of these are completely different issues.

So if the only argument against homosexuality is some moral qualm not universally shared in the population...?
Yes, and the only argument against murder is a moral qualm not universally shared. You can see the idiocy of making laws without morality.

That's exactly my point, the only argument against beastiality is some moral qualm which is not universally shared in the population. As long as you support homosexuality and beastiality, I can disagree with you, but at least not think you're a hypocrite, and thus disagree with you respectfully.
i support absolute freedom for any and all sexual practices between consenting individuals. animals cannot give consent. therefore, i fail to see what is hypocritical about my support for consenting sexual activity between persons of the same gender, while i oppose the abuse of animals. if somebody wishes to humanely butcher an animal and use its carcass for sexual purposes rather than food then that is their choice, provided the animal is theirs to butcher, but i do not believe the abuse of animals for sexual purposes is any more acceptable than is the abuse of animals for any other purpose.

So I assume, if your house ever does catch on fire, you won't complain if the fire department didn't come to put it out and your house burned down to the ground with all your possessions inside?
I would complain since I'm paying for it. The rest of your post was emotional rhetoric. I would not complain if I did not pay taxes on it and my house burnt down.

i support only sex between consenting individuals. animals cannot give consent.
Neither can dildos. And animals can give consent, if they didn't enjoy it, they'd bite you.

therefore, i fail to see what is hypocritical about my support for consenting sexual activity between persons of the same gender, while i oppose the abuse of animals.
Do you eat animals? I think it's less humane to kill something than it is to abuse it.

if somebody wishes to humanely butcher an animal and use its carcass for sexual purposes rather than food then that is their choice, provided the animal is theirs to butcher, but i do not believe the abuse of animals for sexual purposes is any more acceptable than is the abuse of animals for any other purpose.
So if someone dug up your greatmother and had sex with her corpse that wouldn't bother you?

Yes, and the only argument against murder is a moral qualm not universally shared. You can see the idiocy of making laws without morality.
Find a source of morality that isn't religion.

You're doing it again, trying to tie religion into laws. I'm not even going to use the word "morality" anymore, because of the religious connotation it has assumed. I'll say ethics instead. Murder is wrong because it hurts people. You don't need thousand year old texts to figure that out. Homosexuality hurts no one. There.

All animals have sex for pleasure.

No they don't. Just humans and dolphins. The rest do it because of instinct, for the sole purpose of reproduction.


Find a source of morality that isn't religion.

Secular Humanism, to name one. There are more. Religious-based ones are simply the most dominant, because of the simple fact that most people subscribe to one religion or another, and therefore their morals are derived from it.

I would complain since I'm paying for it. The rest of your post was emotional rhetoric. I would not complain if I did not pay taxes on it and my house burnt down.
You may not complain, but you would certainly be kicking yourself in the ass for not paying the taxes for it in the first place.

Neither can dildos.

dildos are not living animals, and cannot experience suffering in any form.


And animals can give consent, if they didn't enjoy it, they'd bite you.

animals cannot consent, based on the current clinical, medical, and legal definitions of the word. they do not have the neurological capacity to give consent, period.


Do you eat animals? I think it's less humane to kill something than it is to abuse it.

i disagree. the term "humane" refers to actions characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion; it is possible to kill something or someone in a manner characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion, but it is not possible to abuse something or someone out of the same impulses (by definition).


So if someone dug up your greatmother and had sex with her corpse that wouldn't bother you?
my grandmother was cremated, so if somebody could find each and every one of her ashes and manage to somehow have sex with them then i would have to admit my complete and utter admiration for their patience and focus.

however, to answer your question: my grandmother's remains, were they intact, would not lawfully belong to that individual, and thus they would have no more right to use her remains for their pleasure than they would have the right to break into my home and use a cucumber from my fridge to pleasure themselves.

the act of having sex with a corpse is, to me, rather gross, but as long as the corpse lawfully belongs to the person having sex with it then i don't see any reason to legally forbid them from doing so. i oppose theft, and i oppose trespassing, and i oppose grave robbery, so for those reason i would oppose somebody digging up my grandmother's body and using it for sex. however, them using it for sex wouldn't bother me any more (or less) than if they dug it up and sold it for parts, or dug it up to use as a halloween decoration.

You're doing it again, trying to tie religion into laws. I'm not even going to use the word "morality" anymore, because of the religious connotation it has assumed. I'll say ethics instead. Murder is wrong because it hurts people. You don't need thousand year old texts to figure that out. Homosexuality hurts no one. There.
Lots of things hurt people. Poverty hurts people. Should the rich give them money? That hurts people. Being a police man hurts people, should we outlaw the police?

No they don't. Just humans and dolphins. The rest do it because of instinct, for the sole purpose of reproduction.

actually, great apes also have been observed to enjoy sex. bonobo chimpanzee females have been observed to have orgasms with greater per-capita frequency than is reported by American women, in fact, so in some ways they are enjoying sex more than humans :P.

dildos are not living animals, and cannot experience suffering in any form.
What's suffering? A series of impulses or chemicals that provoke a response. Bacteria can suffer, frogs can suffer, plants can suffer. Besides, who cares about animal suffering? Not animals, since they kill and rape each other.

animals cannot consent, based on the current clinical, medical, and legal definitions of the word. they do not have the neurological capacity to give consent, period.
You can't hide behind a dictionary. To me, consent means you approve of action X, it's hard to mistake allowing someone to stick his dick inside you as anything but consent. And no, I don't condone rape, as the girl is not allowing the guy to do it.

i disagree. the term "humane" refers to actions characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion; it is possible to kill something or someone in a manner characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion, but it is not possible to abuse something or someone out of the same impulses (by definition).
To kill something for the sole person of grinding it into a hamburger is kind or compassionate?

my grandmother was cremated, so if somebody could find each and every one of her ashes and manage to somehow have sex with them then i would have to admit my complete and utter admiration for their patience and focus.
Both of them? Just kidding...

however, to answer your question: my grandmother's remains, were they intact, would not lawfully belong to that individual, and thus they would have no more right to use her remains for their pleasure than they would have the right to break into my home and use a cucumber from my fridge to pleasure themselves.
There's a case pending in the Supreme Court now as to whether or not remains can belong to anyone. It's the one where the crematorium just threw the bodies in a ditch rather than bury them.

the act of having sex with a corpse is, to me, rather gross, but as long as the corpse lawfully belongs to the person having sex with it then i don't see any reason to legally forbid them from doing so. i oppose theft, and i oppose trespassing, and i oppose grave robbery, so for those reason i would oppose somebody digging up my grandmother's body and using it for sex. however, them using it for sex wouldn't bother me any more (or less) than if they dug it up and sold it for parts, or dug it up to use as a halloween decoration.
A pet lawfully belongs to someone. The same argument could be made. Pets are property, not humans. Their consent or lack of it is irrelevant.

Lots of things hurt people. Poverty hurts people. Should the rich give them money? That hurts people. Being a police man hurts people, should we outlaw the police?
Well then it comes down to one person's harm vs. another person's harm, for instance preventing criminals from getting hurt will lead to more victims being hurt. Preventing poor people from harm in turn harms the rich. But in the clear case where no one is harmed (such as homosexuality), there is hardly any argument against it.

No they don't. Just humans and dolphins. The rest do it because of instinct, for the sole purpose of reproduction.
Which is a pleasurable act. If the hormones said do this, but it hurt like hell, they wouldn't.

Secular Humanism, to name one. There are more. Religious-based ones are simply the most dominant, because of the simple fact that most people subscribe to one religion or another, and therefore their morals are derived from it.
What are Secular Humanistic beliefs?


You may not complain, but you would certainly be kicking yourself in the ass for not paying the taxes for it in the first place.
Yes, and that's my fault, like the people who don't buy auto insurance and get in a car wreck.

Well then it comes down to one person's harm vs. another person's harm, for instance preventing criminals from getting hurt will lead to more victims being hurt. But in the clear case where no one is harmed (such as homosexuality), there is hardly any argument against it.
Any financial benefit given to a homosexual couple is a tax that must be added somewhere. So people are hurt.

Any financial benefit given to a homosexual couple is a tax that must be added somewhere. So people are hurt.
And thus people are hurt by heterosexual marriage as well. We have come full circle, and ultimately, either the government must completely back out of marriage, or it must allow marriage for all consenting adults.

And thus people are hurt by heterosexual marriage as well. We have come full circle, and ultimately, either the government must completely back out of marriage, or it must allow marriage for all consenting adults.
Completely back out of marriage. Thank you.

Any financial benefit given to a homosexual couple is a tax that must be added somewhere. So people are hurt.
Well then the same applies to heterosexual marriages. It hurts gays who can't be married, and it hurts people who stay single their entire lives.
What are Secular Humanistic beliefs?
A quick intro: http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

What's suffering? A series of impulses or chemicals that provoke a response. Bacteria can suffer, frogs can suffer, plants can suffer. Besides, who cares about animal suffering? Not animals, since they kill and rape each other.

according to the physiological definition, bacteria cannot suffer, nor can plants. animal life above a certain level of complexity can suffer.

as for who cares, i do. you stated that a person cannot support gay rights and oppose beastiality without being a hypocrite; i have shown why that is not the case. you do not need to agree with me on my opinions, but my holding them does not fit the definition of hypocricy.


You can't hide behind a dictionary. To me, consent means you approve of action X, it's hard to mistake allowing someone to stick his dick inside you as anything but consent. And no, I don't condone rape, as the girl is not allowing the guy to do it.

"hide behind a dictionary"? i'm sorry, should i be using your definitions of words rather than the definitions that correspond to the correct use of the English language? do forgive me, i wasn't aware that you were empowered to redefine words to fit your arguments.


To kill something for the sole person of grinding it into a hamburger is kind or compassionate?

i don't believe i ever claimed that, no. though that's a very pretty straw man you have made for yourself.


There's a case pending in the Supreme Court now as to whether or not remains can belong to anyone. It's the one where the crematorium just threw the bodies in a ditch rather than bury them.

lol, you probably should read the specifics of that case before you try to use it here!


A pet lawfully belongs to someone. The same argument could be made. Pets are property, not humans. Their consent or lack of it is irrelevant.
children are also classified as the property of their parents, in many legal respects. a child lawfully belongs to his parents or guardians, yet his ability to consent to sex is very much relavent. i believe the same holds true for any organism capable of experiencing suffering; again, you don't have to agree with me on that respect, but you will (unfortunately) have to concede that it is quite possible for a person to support the consenting sexual activities of two same-sex individuals while opposing sexual practices in which any party is non-consenting, including beastiality.

No, that what the majority of Americans want. This is called doing what your constituants want.

Isn't there a little bit of dissonance in asserting that minorities are subject to the whims of the majority in the "land of the free"?

Completely back out of marriage. Thank you.
I can live with this. I'm done for now. :)

according to the physiological definition, bacteria cannot suffer, nor can plants. animal life above a certain level of complexity can suffer.
Plants can warn other plants of danger, and plants react to damage. Plants move away from a negative stimulus. As do bacteria. They simply aren't as dramatic as a crying child or whimpering dog. You're just being morally relative.

as for who cares, i do. you stated that a person cannot support gay rights and oppose beastiality without being a hypocrite; i have shown why that is not the case. you do not need to agree with me on my opinions, but my holding them does not fit the definition of hypocricy.
Then it fits the definition of poor scientific understanding. The scientific definition of suffering applies to all life except viruses.

"hide behind a dictionary"? i'm sorry, should i be using your definitions of words rather than the definitions that correspond to the correct use of the English language? do forgive me, i wasn't aware that you were empowered to redefine words to fit your arguments.
You're arbitrarily saying only things with a central nervous system can suffer, and then it only counts if they're being fucked, not if they're being eaten or hunted for furs.

i don't believe i ever claimed that, no. though that's a very pretty straw man you have made for yourself.
Then address it. Is eating an animal humane or isn't it? And if it isn't, then why is it okay while sex is not? Hiding behind fallacies is also pathetic if the argument is still valid.

lol, you probably should read the specifics of that case before you try to use it here!
I did, I just didn't feel the need to post it here.

children are also classified as the property of their parents, in many legal respects. a child lawfully belongs to his parents or guardians, yet his ability to consent to sex is very much relavent. i believe the same holds true for any organism capable of experiencing suffering; again, you don't have to agree with me on that respect, but you will (unfortunately) have to concede that it is quite possible for a person to support the consenting sexual activities of two same-sex individuals while opposing sexual practices in which any party is non-consenting, including beastiality.
Children cannot be bought and sold. Children cannot be eaten or hunted. They are not like property at all. They are in the custody of their custodians. I will not concede that one can say consent applies in the case of humans and in animals, since only one can be owned.

Maybe he didn't come home on midnight because the two of you were out murdering someone? It doesn't matter, you cannot get comtempt of court for INVOKING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

So you're telling me that if I were called to testify against you and they asked me "Do you know this person?" and I said "I PLEAD THE 5th!!!!" that would fly? I think not.

No, it is still actively used. Unless there was some secret Supreme Court ruling, that is how the law is written.

Wrong, it was *interpreted* that way. These days it is interpreted to mean that someone cannot be forced to testify against their spouse. They realized that doing it the other way kept battered/raped women or battered men from being able to prosecute their spouses. Check case law.

So file under the cheaper two seperate entities one. It doesn't matter, in a marriage, only one person should work anyway.

Wow, and I guess women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen then. Are you crazy?

I'm a taxpaying U.S. citizen. I cannot draw Social Security, while others can. It's ageism! I'm being denied a right based on my age! There's a reason not everyone has access to every privilege.

Yes, but everyone must have equal access to every privilege *unless there is a compelling interest* in denying them that privilege. There is no such interest in denying homosexual couples the protections afforded to heterosexual couples here.

That's exactly my point, the only argument against beastiality is some moral qualm which is not universally shared in the population. As long as you support homosexuality and beastiality, I can disagree with you, but at least not think you're a hypocrite, and thus disagree with you respectfully.

Animals cannot give informed consent. Thus, it is not hypocritical in the least to support an individual's right to partner with the consenting adult of their choice and not support a person who rapes an animal.

Nevermind the fact that Kerry and Edwards are for using someones sexuality for political gain and shemlessly reach for the GLBT vote by using that crap.

I don't think that encouraging someone to vote for you on the grounds that you are going to give them rights is "shameless" or "crap". Isn't that what elected representatives are for?

Lots of things hurt people. Poverty hurts people. Should the rich give them money?

Yes. It's called welfare. We have a lot of it in Europe. That's why Europe is such a nice place.


That hurts people.

No it doesn't. If you are taxing the rich so much that it hurts them, you're probably doing it too much. But if you are taking away the money that they were going to spend on their 3rd spare yacht, that won't hurt them at all.


Being a police man hurts people, should we outlaw the police?

What do you mean? That police men get hurt? They volunteer for the job to help keep us safe. Or do you mean that police men hurt other people? If they do it more than is absolutely necessary to keep us safe, that is already outlawed in America as well as in Europe.

If you believe that animals have no rights, then beastiality is completely fine.

You are assuming that all bestiality is abuse. Might it not be the case that some animals enjoy sex with people?

You are assuming that all bestiality is abuse. Might it not be the case that some animals enjoy sex with people?

We can't know if they do or not, as they cannot give informed consent.