I support discriminating against homosexualsex

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm sorry Caddy but why should I obey your request when you didn't bother with mine. Above you will note that I said:
"I know you realize that when you say real you mean real in your opinion, but perhaps you would like to tell us people out here who don't know what's real, of course in your, opinion, what real in your opinion is. Try to be clear and logical in your explanation and don't appeal to any negatives that are just assumed. Make a logical case for anything you wish to imply is good or bad. I know it will be logical, in your opinion, but we all have various amounts of judgment we have to call up to evaluate such things. I have lots of judgment, I'm sure you agree."

You then proceeded to answer with a statement full of unconscious bias and bigotry and unjustified implications and claims exactly as I had asked you not to. And you did so while pretending to be real. All that was real there was your bigot and the obvious fact you are blind. Your bigotry is like the smell of gas soaked into your clothes. Everything that comes our of your mouth or fingers is loaded with bigotry. Here is your reply once more with annotations to help you see, useless as those will be for you:

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................

Why can't we discuss the real issues behind this?

CkG

I know you realize that when you say real you mean real in your opinion, but perhaps you would like to tell us people out here who don't know what's real, of course in your, opinion, what real in your opinion is. Try to be clear and logical in your explanation and don't appeal to any negatives that are just assumed. Make a logical case for anything you wish to imply is good or bad. I know it will be logical, in your popinion, but we all have various amounts of judgment we have to call up to evaluate such things. I have lots of judgment, I'm sure you agree.

The issue Mr.Condescending asshat is that it's a societal judgment(or feelings).

Homosexuality is not accepted as normal by society.

Interracial marriage was not accepted as normal. End of relevance for 'not normal' as a bone of contension.

Interspecies relations are not accepted as normal by society.

This was what you called getting real. We are talking about gay marriage your bigotry wants to tar gays with animal sex. Animals do not consent to having sex with people and is a form of abuse, animal abuse or cruelty to animals and is against the law because it hurts animals and without their consent

Polygamy is not accepted as normal by society.

What society and when did we get on polygamy. The implication is that we are on a slippery slope but the real slippery slope is that we are in danger of becoming the Taliban if bigots like you succeed in creating bigoted law.

Incest is not accepted as normal by society.

Incest is generally a father taking advantage of his position of authority to seduce his daughter. Her consent, therefore has to be seen as suspect. There are also known genetic risks and what is not normal in the animal world is inbreeding. But I'm glad you didn't feel it was a problem for Adam and Eve's kids

Pedophilia is not accepted as normal by society.

This involves people below the age of consent who are therefor legally protected.

and you could list all the other societal "taboos" as not "normal".

But the real point is your use of the words 'not normal'. You want to do what all bigots do which is to impute evil into not normal as though good were the norm. You do this because your brain has never learned to think critically. You are a propagandist rather than a logician because you are brainwashed with the notion that homosexuality is evil. Cancer is not normal. people with cancer can marry. Not normal is no reason not to marry. What you mean is evil should not marry. But homosexuality isn't evil. Bigotry is though because of the damage it does. Nuts like you threaten to destroy the checks and balances put up to stop the tyranny of an insane and bigoted majority, assholes who think they are normal.

So you see, well of course you don't see, but other people will, there is nothing real about what you call getting real. If social judgment(or feelings) were a source of truth or justice or light, then a majority of people who believed that slavery's OK and create laws to hold slaves would be living in the right, the same right that went on for thousands of years.

Now then why is one a "rights" issue and the others not? Anyone who runs around and bellers "BIGOT" at people is a two faced hypocrite if they do not wish to grant "rights" the above - according to their usage of "bigot" anyway.

Nobody can grant rights, dunce. Rights come from the fact that they are self evident and given by the Creator. It is you who wants to play God and take rights away.

So this "gay marriage" issue is not about "rights" - it's about becoming a societal "norm".

Hehe, here you try again to conflate norm with evil because you were put in a box as a child and told that outside that box is evil. Gay marriage will never be the norm because gays are a small percent of the people

What are the reasons for it to become a societal "norm"?

That is the wrong question since it's not about becomming. It's about retaining the right to be free in the face of bigotry. The truth is there is no logical, rational reason why gays can't marry. There is only bigotry that stands in the way. The courts will simply reaffirm what we already knew, that we live in a land of the free.

Why should homosexual marriage be a "norm" and not the other examples?

As stated, it will not be a norm. Gay marriage will happen in smaller numbers than straight marriage. Straight couples marrying for the fifth or sixth time won't be the norm either, but they will be represented, I'm sure. A bigot cannot comprenend 'norm'

I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat for your "enlightened" reply

CkG

Alright - there is your post. Now how freaking hard would have that been?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I guess I'm just not following your logic CAD. Are you saying that society must first accept homosexuality as normal before it deems it acceptable? Society can't accept it unless it regards it as normal?

This is for luny too

Yep - you are missing it. You guys are looking too hard and you have your "bigot finder" glasses on too tight. This isn't about bigotry like moonie keeps shouting - its about acceptable societal norms.

Homosexual marriage is not a societal norm(although there has been a push towards that by activists). Society sets it rules and laws according societies acceptable norms. If things are outside of acceptable -then they are usually deemed not legal by society. So the point is that homosexuals are trying to become acceptable societal norms by getting legal status from the gov't. But society(obviously all bigots by moonies standards:roll doesn't see homosexual marriage as an acceptable norm. The same goes with the other things I mentioned. Pedophilia is not accepted as normal by society and has been deemed not legal. Sure there are child safety things that go with it but isn't that because society has said it isn't acceptable?
Polygamy is not accepted as normal by society. Should society be forced to allow them to marry even though society doesn't accept it as normal?
Same with the others - why are the others illegal or unaccepetable? Because society says so? What else is there?

Society sets its rules and boundaries. Talk about the constitution and other such "equality" BS is moot because society still sets limits to those things. IE - you have to be 18yrs old(in most states) to be legally married. Why? Because society has said they can't. Society has said they aren't old enough to be legally responsible or some such thing. Now as for calling those in society who wish to retain rules and boundaries - bigots - it is absurd. It's just a name calling game. I don't give two rats asses if steve wants to be with bill - I could care less - but forcing society to accept them as normal against societies will is not the way it works. It's the same as other things people whine about things being "shoved down their throat".

Who gets to decide what society deems an "acceptable norm"? Is "bigot" going to become the rally cry for every activist group? Society says X is not acceptable but an X group wants to be a societal norm so they get the gov't to give them legal status so society has to accept them as normal.

I realize that some won't follow any of this but the issue goes deeper than what people are trying to say it does. This isn't about "rights" - this is about societal norms and acceptability.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm sorry Caddy but why should I obey your request when you didn't bother with mine. Above you will note that I said:
"I know you realize that when you say real you mean real in your opinion, but perhaps you would like to tell us people out here who don't know what's real, of course in your, opinion, what real in your opinion is. Try to be clear and logical in your explanation and don't appeal to any negatives that are just assumed. Make a logical case for anything you wish to imply is good or bad. I know it will be logical, in your opinion, but we all have various amounts of judgment we have to call up to evaluate such things. I have lots of judgment, I'm sure you agree."

You then proceeded to answer with a statement full of unconscious bias and bigotry and unjustified implications and claims exactly as I had asked you not to. And you did so while pretending to be real. All that was real there was your bigot and the obvious fact you are blind. Your bigotry is like the smell of gas soaked into your clothes. Everything that comes our of your mouth or fingers is loaded with bigotry. Here is your reply once more with annotations to help you see, useless as those will be for you:

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................

Why can't we discuss the real issues behind this?

CkG

I know you realize that when you say real you mean real in your opinion, but perhaps you would like to tell us people out here who don't know what's real, of course in your, opinion, what real in your opinion is. Try to be clear and logical in your explanation and don't appeal to any negatives that are just assumed. Make a logical case for anything you wish to imply is good or bad. I know it will be logical, in your popinion, but we all have various amounts of judgment we have to call up to evaluate such things. I have lots of judgment, I'm sure you agree.

The issue Mr.Condescending asshat is that it's a societal judgment(or feelings).

Homosexuality is not accepted as normal by society.

Interracial marriage was not accepted as normal. End of relevance for 'not normal' as a bone of contension.

Society accepted that as normal as society progressed - but it still means man&woman

Interspecies relations are not accepted as normal by society.

This was what you called getting real. We are talking about gay marriage your bigotry wants to tar gays with animal sex. Animals do not consent to having sex with people and is a form of abuse, animal abuse or cruelty to animals and is against the law because it hurts animals and without their consent

Wrong - I'm not tarring homosexuals with anything fool. Try to keep up here - this is about acceptable behavior by society. But what if someone was born being attracted to another species and loves another species? Who is to say that it is wrong? A bigot?

Polygamy is not accepted as normal by society.

What society and when did we get on polygamy. The implication is that we are on a slippery slope but the real slippery slope is that we are in danger of becoming the Taliban if bigots like you succeed in creating bigoted law.

Why shouldn't polygamy be recognized as a legal and the marriages among them legal? Are you a bigot moonbeam? Why do you wish to force your supposed morals on them. They love their partners - why shouldn't they be able to marry?

Incest is not accepted as normal by society.

Incest is generally a father taking advantage of his position of authority to seduce his daughter. Her consent, therefore has to be seen as suspect. There are also known genetic risks and what is not normal in the animal world is inbreeding. But I'm glad you didn't feel it was a problem for Adam and Eve's kids

So you are forcing your supposed morality on these two people who love each other? Bigot! Who says her consent is coerced? A bigot? Genetic and other issues are moot according to homosexual marriage activist - why do they apply here, bigot?

Pedophilia is not accepted as normal by society.

This involves people below the age of consent who are therefor legally protected.

Again - who says they can't consent, bigot? Why should society get to decide who is and isn't "protected"? What if these people "love" each other - who, besides a "bigot" wants to deny them their happiness? Hell, maybe a pedophile was born that way - why should we deny him when he didn't choose the way he is?

and you could list all the other societal "taboos" as not "normal".

But the real point is your use of the words 'not normal'. You want to do what all bigots do which is to impute evil into not normal as though good were the norm. You do this because your brain has never learned to think critically. You are a propagandist rather than a logician because you are brainwashed with the notion that homosexuality is evil. Cancer is not normal. people with cancer can marry. Not normal is no reason not to marry. What you mean is evil should not marry. But homosexuality isn't evil. Bigotry is though because of the damage it does. Nuts like you threaten to destroy the checks and balances put up to stop the tyranny of an insane and bigoted majority, assholes who think they are normal.

So you see, well of course you don't see, but other people will, there is nothing real about what you call getting real. If social judgment(or feelings) were a source of truth or justice or light, then a majority of people who believed that slavery's OK and create laws to hold slaves would be living in the right, the same right that went on for thousands of years.

This isn't about what "I" want - bigot. This is about society. I understand this is a hard concept for you to understand but that doesn't mean you can project your hate onto me. But I got a kick out of your little tirade of name-calling and such - I guess you aren't mature enough to handle these questions. Maybe your therapist can help you with these issues - it couldn't hurt to ask "Nuts like you threaten to destroy the checks and balances put up to stop the tyranny of an insane and bigoted majority, assholes who think they are normal" - well that could be said about each of the things I presented. That argument could be used against almost every law. Seek help soon - please.

Now then why is one a "rights" issue and the others not? Anyone who runs around and bellers "BIGOT" at people is a two faced hypocrite if they do not wish to grant "rights" the above - according to their usage of "bigot" anyway.

Nobody can grant rights, dunce. Rights come from the fact that they are self evident and given by the Creator. It is you who wants to play God and take rights away.

ah, so now God exists in this discussion? I thought it was about bigots? God detests homosexuality if you believe in God that is. He may love the sinner - but hate the sin. *shrugs* I thought God couldn't be used in this debate though...

So this "gay marriage" issue is not about "rights" - it's about becoming a societal "norm".

Hehe, here you try again to conflate norm with evil because you were put in a box as a child and told that outside that box is evil. Gay marriage will never be the norm because gays are a small percent of the people

Ah, so again - why aren't the others OK? Are you a bigot moonbeam? Or only bigoted against everyone else but homosexuals? Why do YOU get to decide which of those things are OK/acceptable/legal? Hmmm....? - bigot.

What are the reasons for it to become a societal "norm"?

That is the wrong question since it's not about becomming. It's about retaining the right to be free in the face of bigotry. The truth is there is no logical, rational reason why gays can't marry. There is only bigotry that stands in the way. The courts will simply reaffirm what we already knew, that we live in a land of the free.

Ah, so your bigotry stands in the way of a polygamist. How nice of you to admit that. Just think - Steve could marry Bill and Ted! Too bad your bigotry stands between them and happiness

Why should homosexual marriage be a "norm" and not the other examples?

As stated, it will not be a norm. Gay marriage will happen in smaller numbers than straight marriage. Straight couples marrying for the fifth or sixth time won't be the norm either, but they will be represented, I'm sure. A bigot cannot comprenend 'norm'

Why will it be the "norm"? Because society said so or because the courts did? Why shouldn't the courts also say that the others are "normal" too? Are the courts bigoted against the others I mentioned just like society is? Plus your insinuation that normal man&woman marriages don't last has nothing to do with the argument for or agings homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage will not save the institution of marriage

I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat for your "enlightened" reply

CkG

Have any other bigoted stances to defend moonie?

CkG

 

[cheetoden]

oh geez

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,
We have a few issues to overcome before society can rule the roost at the expense of a minority group or class of people. But, first we must eliminate associating all the criminal analogies from the topic. You are somehow attempting to place the homosexual in with the criminal and shout: 'See, how can society ever accept as norm these kinds of behaviour'. You must simply deal with the homosexual like you would any other legal 'class' of people. They are the same as Dwarfs, Midgets, Indians, Latinos, Irishmen etc.. Just an identifiable 'class' within the population that makes up society.
We have the Fourteenth Amendment and the separation of church and state. Marriage from a state point of view is and has associated with it many 'rights'. Why deny these to some and not others?
I've got to run now but, will finish later.. Going to a wedding..

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Homosexual marriage is not a societal norm(although there has been a push towards that by activists). Society sets it rules and laws according societies acceptable norms. If things are outside of acceptable -then they are usually deemed not legal by society. So the point is that homosexuals are trying to become acceptable societal norms by getting legal status from the gov't. But society(obviously all bigots by moonies standards:roll doesn't see homosexual marriage as an acceptable norm.
CkG

this same reasoning has been used to justify all sorts of callous behavior, priviledge, and discriminatory institutions. these acceptable norms
can be bigotry, hatred of a class of person, or other injustices, no ?

these would be values that a certain society has practiced for eons; they cherish and feel rather comfortable with; they had them codified into
law; and yet disenfranchise an entire class of person. i thnk you can come up with many instances in the history of this nation and in those many
other nations too to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning, however well-intentioned it may be

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
We have a few issues to overcome before society can rule the roost at the expense of a minority group or class of people. But, first we must eliminate associating all the criminal analogies from the topic. You are somehow attempting to place the homosexual in with the criminal and shout: 'See, how can society ever accept as norm these kinds of behaviour'. You must simply deal with the homosexual like you would any other legal 'class' of people. They are the same as Dwarfs, Midgets, Indians, Latinos, Irishmen etc.. Just an identifiable 'class' within the population that makes up society.
We have the Fourteenth Amendment and the separation of church and state. Marriage from a state point of view is and has associated with it many 'rights'. Why deny these to some and not others?
I've got to run now but, will finish later.. Going to a wedding..

Separation of church and state is a principle, Ray. You won't find it anywhere in the constitution, though I think it SHOULD have been included, and in GREAT detail. BTW, hats off to you for even mentioning the constitution. Must of the pseudo-intellectuals here run from it like their asses are on fire. I guess to them it no longer has a purpose, being that the "majority" is always right.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
We have a few issues to overcome before society can rule the roost at the expense of a minority group or class of people. But, first we must eliminate associating all the criminal analogies from the topic. You are somehow attempting to place the homosexual in with the criminal and shout: 'See, how can society ever accept as norm these kinds of behaviour'. You must simply deal with the homosexual like you would any other legal 'class' of people. They are the same as Dwarfs, Midgets, Indians, Latinos, Irishmen etc.. Just an identifiable 'class' within the population that makes up society.
We have the Fourteenth Amendment and the separation of church and state. Marriage from a state point of view is and has associated with it many 'rights'. Why deny these to some and not others?
I've got to run now but, will finish later.. Going to a wedding..

Wrong - Homosexuals aren't a race. As for Dwarfs and Midgets - please present the data showing that it is a genetics issue.

I'm not equating anything - like I said, it goes deeper than legality. The things that society deem unacceptable or not normal are the things that aren't legal. Homosexual marriage is not legal just like the other things I mentioned. Now sure a couple of the others are things that society say people should be punished for being/doing - but again this is about society. Again - you are attempt to bring the Constitution into this and it has no bearing on this because it doesn't address everything society says is legal or not legal. But anyway lets take your statement "Why deny these to some and not others?" - and you don't wish to ask that about the other things I pointed out? Why should we deny marriage to a polygamist? Why shouldn't we allow someone who is "old" to marry someone "young"(pedophile/ statutory rapist)? Is it not because society says it isn't acceptable? Why don't we call everyone who doesn't want a polygamist or a pedophile to be able to marry who they want in the quantity they want and at whatever age they want a bigot? Are you a bigot luny? Who said you get to decide that these people can't marry?

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Homosexual marriage is not a societal norm(although there has been a push towards that by activists). Society sets it rules and laws according societies acceptable norms. If things are outside of acceptable -then they are usually deemed not legal by society. So the point is that homosexuals are trying to become acceptable societal norms by getting legal status from the gov't. But society(obviously all bigots by moonies standards:roll doesn't see homosexual marriage as an acceptable norm.
CkG

this same reasoning has been used to justify all sorts of callous behavior, priviledge, and discriminatory institutions. these acceptable norms
can be bigotry, hatred of a class of person, or other injustices, no ?

these would be values that a certain society has practiced for eons; they cherish and feel rather comfortable with; they had them codified into
law; and yet disenfranchise an entire class of person. i thnk you can come up with many instances in the history of this nation and in those many
other nations too to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning, however well-intentioned it may be

Perhaps he had a grandfather who, along with the German nation and their notion of societal norms, supported the extermination of the Jews, and he wants to acquit him of any lingering charges of bigotry.

The thing about Cad, is that he has a real talent for believing in the absurd.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Homosexual marriage is not a societal norm(although there has been a push towards that by activists). Society sets it rules and laws according societies acceptable norms. If things are outside of acceptable -then they are usually deemed not legal by society. So the point is that homosexuals are trying to become acceptable societal norms by getting legal status from the gov't. But society(obviously all bigots by moonies standards:roll doesn't see homosexual marriage as an acceptable norm.
CkG

this same reasoning has been used to justify all sorts of callous behavior, priviledge, and discriminatory institutions. these acceptable norms
can be bigotry, hatred of a class of person, or other injustices, no ?

these would be values that a certain society has practiced for eons; they cherish and feel rather comfortable with; they had them codified into
law; and yet disenfranchise an entire class of person. i thnk you can come up with many instances in the history of this nation and in those many
other nations too to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning, however well-intentioned it may be

Perhaps he had a grandfather who, along with the German nation and their notion of societal norms, supported the extermination of the Jews, and he wants to acquit him of any lingering charges of bigotry.

The thing about Cad, is that he has a real talent for believing in the absurd.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Homosexual marriage is not a societal norm(although there has been a push towards that by activists). Society sets it rules and laws according societies acceptable norms. If things are outside of acceptable -then they are usually deemed not legal by society. So the point is that homosexuals are trying to become acceptable societal norms by getting legal status from the gov't. But society(obviously all bigots by moonies standards:roll doesn't see homosexual marriage as an acceptable norm.
CkG

this same reasoning has been used to justify all sorts of callous behavior, priviledge, and discriminatory institutions. these acceptable norms
can be bigotry, hatred of a class of person, or other injustices, no ?

these would be values that a certain society has practiced for eons; they cherish and feel rather comfortable with; they had them codified into
law; and yet disenfranchise an entire class of person. i thnk you can come up with many instances in the history of this nation and in those many
other nations too to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning, however well-intentioned it may be

Absolutely - they are discrimination(which means more than just the negative connotation people think it does). But that's my point. Who defines what is acceptable and what is not? Society is who. But why then does "bigot" apply to those who don't think homosexual marriage is acceptable and not the others? Society sets limits on all sorts of behavior(discrimination) - whether it is a "choice" or Werther they are "born that way" People discriminate every day - that doesn't make them a bigot does it? We use discrimination to say young people can't do X and Y because society deemed they can't. Should we change that because they are "disenfranchised" or "unprivileged"? Are we bigots because of this?

See - the point goes further than people here wish to realize or contemplate. People here seem content to scream "BIGOT" instead of understanding that society sets the rules and such.
Let me ask you a question. Should a Polygamist be able to marry whoever they want? Why should society be able to limit them to only one?

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Homosexual marriage is not a societal norm(although there has been a push towards that by activists). Society sets it rules and laws according societies acceptable norms. If things are outside of acceptable -then they are usually deemed not legal by society. So the point is that homosexuals are trying to become acceptable societal norms by getting legal status from the gov't. But society(obviously all bigots by moonies standards:roll doesn't see homosexual marriage as an acceptable norm.
CkG

this same reasoning has been used to justify all sorts of callous behavior, priviledge, and discriminatory institutions. these acceptable norms
can be bigotry, hatred of a class of person, or other injustices, no ?

these would be values that a certain society has practiced for eons; they cherish and feel rather comfortable with; they had them codified into
law; and yet disenfranchise an entire class of person. i thnk you can come up with many instances in the history of this nation and in those many
other nations too to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning, however well-intentioned it may be

Absolutely - they are discrimination(which means more than just the negative connotation people think it does). But that's my point. Who defines what is acceptable and what is not? Society is who. But why then does "bigot" apply to those who don't think homosexual marriage is acceptable and not the others? Society sets limits on all sorts of behavior(discrimination) - whether it is a "choice" or Werther they are "born that way" People discriminate every day - that doesn't make them a bigot does it? We use discrimination to say young people can't do X and Y because society deemed they can't. Should we change that because they are "disenfranchised" or "unprivileged"? Are we bigots because of this?

See - the point goes further than people here wish to realize or contemplate. People here seem content to scream "BIGOT" instead of understanding that society sets the rules and such.
Let me ask you a question. Should a Polygamist be able to marry whoever they want? Why should society be able to limit them to only one?

CkG

As usual, what you call deep turns out to be shallow. Our society has agreed as a societal norm to live under a Constitution that bars certain kinds of discrimination. the irrational bigoted kind, for example, that is used to exclude gays. You simply need to move to Iran where the government and bigotry go hand in hand. You took a pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. That is your social contract and social norm. You're just not very good at your word. We don't discriminate on the basis of color. We don't discriminate on the basis of race, We don't discriminate on the basis of gender, and very soon we won't be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation because we are growing up and everybody can see the incredible evil of bigotry. When, Caddy, are you going to stop killing your wife. Why can't you let people love like you have the freedom to do. You are a monster, but because you are a bigot you can't see. Kiss your wife and ask God to forgive you that you would keep others from that. Stop the drivel machine in your head and feel.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As usual, what you call deep turns out to be shallow. Our society has agreed as a societal norm to live under a Constitution that bars certain kinds of discrimination. the irrational bigoted kind, for example, that is used to exclude gays. You simply need to move to Iran where the government and bigotry go hand in hand. You took a pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. That is your social contract and social norm. You're just not very good at your word. We don't discriminate on the basis of color. We don't discriminate on the basis of race, We don't discriminate on the basis of gender, and very soon we won't be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation because we are growing up and everybody can see the incredible evil of bigotry. When, Caddy, are you going to stop killing your wife. Why can't you let people love like you have the freedom to do. You are a monster, but because you are a bigot you can't see. Kiss your wife and ask God to forgive you that you would keep others from that. Stop the drivel machine in your head and feel.

Well said, sir!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Homosexual marriage is not a societal norm(although there has been a push towards that by activists). Society sets it rules and laws according societies acceptable norms. If things are outside of acceptable -then they are usually deemed not legal by society. So the point is that homosexuals are trying to become acceptable societal norms by getting legal status from the gov't. But society(obviously all bigots by moonies standards:roll doesn't see homosexual marriage as an acceptable norm.
CkG

this same reasoning has been used to justify all sorts of callous behavior, priviledge, and discriminatory institutions. these acceptable norms
can be bigotry, hatred of a class of person, or other injustices, no ?

these would be values that a certain society has practiced for eons; they cherish and feel rather comfortable with; they had them codified into
law; and yet disenfranchise an entire class of person. i thnk you can come up with many instances in the history of this nation and in those many
other nations too to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning, however well-intentioned it may be

Absolutely - they are discrimination(which means more than just the negative connotation people think it does). But that's my point. Who defines what is acceptable and what is not? Society is who. But why then does "bigot" apply to those who don't think homosexual marriage is acceptable and not the others? Society sets limits on all sorts of behavior(discrimination) - whether it is a "choice" or Werther they are "born that way" People discriminate every day - that doesn't make them a bigot does it? We use discrimination to say young people can't do X and Y because society deemed they can't. Should we change that because they are "disenfranchised" or "unprivileged"? Are we bigots because of this?

See - the point goes further than people here wish to realize or contemplate. People here seem content to scream "BIGOT" instead of understanding that society sets the rules and such.
Let me ask you a question. Should a Polygamist be able to marry whoever they want? Why should society be able to limit them to only one?

CkG

As usual, what you call deep turns out to be shallow. Our society has agreed as a societal norm to live under a Constitution that bars certain kinds of discrimination. the irrational bigoted kind, for example, that is used to exclude gays. You simply need to move to Iran where the government and bigotry go hand in hand. You took a pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. That is your social contract and social norm. You're just not very good at your word. We don't discriminate on the basis of color. We don't discriminate on the basis of race, We don't discriminate on the basis of gender, and very soon we won't be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation because we are growing up and everybody can see the incredible evil of bigotry. When, Caddy, are you going to stop killing your wife. Why can't you let people love like you have the freedom to do. You are a monster, but because you are a bigot you can't see. Kiss your wife and ask God to forgive you that you would keep others from that. Stop the drivel machine in your head and feel.

Ah yes - more hate projections - how quaint.

But anyway - then if you want to argue law "discrimination" and "equal rights" - then why isn't polygamy "legal"? Why are the young discriminated against? They are "excluded" even though our Constitution supports "equality".

Are you a bigot moonbeam? And are you trying to ignore society's impact on our legal structure? It goes way beyond what you think supports your narrow view of acceptable.
Here I am fighting for equality for everyone and you are stuck in your selfish homosexual marriage mode. Stop the drivel machine in your head and feel. Maybe you should move to Iran where the government and bigotry go hand in hand.

Anyway - I see you wish to ignore the other questions....go figure.

CkG

 

[YellowRose]

LMK

I see a fine example of Hetrosexual mariage in the news today. 7 children and 2 adults DEAD. Says a lot for traditional marriage.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
LMK

I see a fine example of Hetrosexual mariage in the news today. 7 children and 2 adults DEAD. Says a lot for traditional marriage.

Yup, and gay marriage could actually make it worse?

 

[Moonbeam]

edit see a couple of post further on.

 

[Gaard]

So the point is that homosexuals are trying to become acceptable societal norms by getting legal status from the gov't.

All this time I thought they just wanted to get married.

Pedophilia is not accepted as normal by society and has been deemed not legal. Sure there are child safety things that go with it but isn't that because society has said it isn't acceptable?

Huh? Again, I don't follow you. You're saying children wouldn't be harmed if Podephilia was legal?

Polygamy is not accepted as normal by society. Should society be forced to allow them to marry even though society doesn't accept it as normal?

Not sure why you're on this 'society/normal' kick, but I don't believe that whether we view it as normal or not has anything to do with the legality of it...or anything else.

Talk about the constitution and other such "equality" BS is moot because society still sets limits to those things.

That's a sad thing to say CAD. (I'm also wondering why, if the constitution is moot in this issue, our president is backing an amendment to it.)

It's just a name calling game. I don't give two rats asses if steve wants to be with bill - I could care less - but forcing society to accept them as normal against societies will is not the way it works.

Allowing them to marry = forcing society to accept them as normal?

I realize that some won't follow any of this but the issue goes deeper than what people are trying to say it does. This isn't about "rights" - this is about societal norms and acceptability.

You're right. I think you're talking over my head because I really don't understand all this 'society' and 'normal' talk. You seem to think that in order for it to be accepted, it first must be regarded as being normal.


Personally, I think you're full of it CAD.

And I may be wrong, but I think this quote by you, whether you're aware of it or not, isn't true...
I don't give two rats asses if steve wants to be with bill - I could care less

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: syzygy
Absolutely - they are discrimination(which means more than just the negative connotation people think it does). But that's my point. Who defines what is acceptable and what is not? Society is who. But why then does "bigot" apply to those who don't think homosexual marriage is acceptable and not the others? Society sets limits on all sorts of behavior(discrimination) - whether it is a "choice" or Werther they are "born that way" People discriminate every day - that doesn't make them a bigot does it? We use discrimination to say young people can't do X and Y because society deemed they can't. Should we change that because they are "disenfranchised" or "unprivileged"? Are we bigots because of this?

See - the point goes further than people here wish to realize or contemplate. People here seem content to scream "BIGOT" instead of understanding that society sets the rules and such.
Let me ask you a question. Should a Polygamist be able to marry whoever they want? Why should society be able to limit them to only one?

CkG

but what i was trying to explain to you is the flip-side of your own reasoning. you get so close but you just don't see how
easily a society can make the wrong choice as much as they can the right one.

yes, i agree, society does set limits, checks, corrections, etc. but society also errs. a society makes mistakes, and these mistakes
can constitute the 'acceptable norm'. these mistakes, under the weight of majority opinion or popular consent, can hide vicious
bigotry that while it is happening is seen as normal, acceptable, as absolute moral law.

i find we are bigots when we apply a blanket rule against a particular class of persons because of some characteristic unique to
this class of person. the injury that results from this action has to be debilitating or grossly stigmatizing to the whole group as
they are identified by their accusers. this is the constitutional definition of discrimination. the casual or cavalier descriptions and
examples of bigotry (or discrimination) you provide clearly do not apply, in fact they are voided given the long history that is the
impetus for this action.

 

[Moonbeam]

C: Ah yes - more hate projections - how quaint.

M: How can there be hate when you know you are forgiven. God doesn't hate you; he hates your bigotry, remember?

C: But anyway - then if you want to argue law "discrimination" and "equal rights" - then why isn't polygamy "legal"? Why are the young discriminated against? They are "excluded" even though our Constitution supports "equality".

M: Remember how you yammered on and on and on about how there was no discrimination against gays because they could marry a person of the opposite sex any time they wanted? Well gays who wish to marry are only asking to marry one person. Gays and straights will still only be able to marry one person, and they will both still have to be of age. And I already told you why polygamy isn't allowed. I would have all the women and you would have none. We don't want society falling apart do we!

C: Are you a bigot moonbeam?

M: You tell me. Am I allowing an unconscious bias to invent a negative connotation which I wish to tar a group of people with?

C: And are you trying to ignore society's impact on our legal structure?

M: I have been trying to explain to you that you don't understand either society or our legal structure. You are ignoring the fact that American society is set up to protect minorities, those terrible abnormals among us from the bigoted and tyrannical majority, that in America we are free and don't have to let the majority and its standards control what we feel and do..

C: It goes way beyond what you think supports your narrow view of acceptable.

M: You ass. It's you who has the narrow view of what is acceptable, all about your narrow bigotry toward gays.

C: Here I am fighting for equality for everyone and you are stuck in your selfish homosexual marriage mode. Stop the drivel machine in your head and feel. Maybe you should move to Iran where the government and bigotry go hand in hand.

M: A big proponent of pedophilia, right.

C: Anyway - I see you wish to ignore the other questions....go figure.

M: From somebody who ignores the truth. You have no questions, You propose only diversions and salves to your bigoted guilt.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
We have a few issues to overcome before society can rule the roost at the expense of a minority group or class of people. But, first we must eliminate associating all the criminal analogies from the topic. You are somehow attempting to place the homosexual in with the criminal and shout: 'See, how can society ever accept as norm these kinds of behaviour'. You must simply deal with the homosexual like you would any other legal 'class' of people. They are the same as Dwarfs, Midgets, Indians, Latinos, Irishmen etc.. Just an identifiable 'class' within the population that makes up society.
We have the Fourteenth Amendment and the separation of church and state. Marriage from a state point of view is and has associated with it many 'rights'. Why deny these to some and not others?
I've got to run now but, will finish later.. Going to a wedding..

Separation of church and state is a principle, Ray. You won't find it anywhere in the constitution, though I think it SHOULD have been included, and in GREAT detail. BTW, hats off to you for even mentioning the constitution. Must of the pseudo-intellectuals here run from it like their asses are on fire. I guess to them it no longer has a purpose, being that the "majority" is always right.

Not to argue too much but, the 'Constitution' is an evolving and fairly dynamic criteria by which we determine legal issues. (I'm not trying to speak down or sideways. I'm simply defining what I mean by what I say.) When I say the separation exists, it is because our Nine Brethren have included those words in explaining their opinions in dissent or concurrence. As you no doubt know and others should as well, the words that make up the constitution are contained in volumes sitting upon the shelves of every law school, law library and etc. Volumes. Well... I suppose one could say.. 'nah.. the words are only what is found in the document itself'. This cannot be the case given the notion of lower courts having precedent to obey and etc.. The latest (separation decision) is the monument on the courthouse steps issue. Using the Fourteenth 'Equal' in this case is similar, not on point but, similar to thinking about the Gay issue. Or the recent University enrollment issues. If it is not illegal to be Gay then it naturally follows that they must be treated equally. In a previous post I mentioned the defining of marriage to be limited to man and woman by recent law is to discriminate against a class of people who by virtue of their legal situation suffer with out any 'Due process'. The kicker IMO is the allowance of non Gay marriage states to ignore the laws related that permit Gay marriage. By saying the 'Full faith and credit' article need not be followed in this event is additional discrimination. This will have to be stricken from law and should garner a unanimous decision from the USSC.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
We have a few issues to overcome before society can rule the roost at the expense of a minority group or class of people. But, first we must eliminate associating all the criminal analogies from the topic. You are somehow attempting to place the homosexual in with the criminal and shout: 'See, how can society ever accept as norm these kinds of behaviour'. You must simply deal with the homosexual like you would any other legal 'class' of people. They are the same as Dwarfs, Midgets, Indians, Latinos, Irishmen etc.. Just an identifiable 'class' within the population that makes up society.
We have the Fourteenth Amendment and the separation of church and state. Marriage from a state point of view is and has associated with it many 'rights'. Why deny these to some and not others?
I've got to run now but, will finish later.. Going to a wedding..

Wrong - Homosexuals aren't a race. As for Dwarfs and Midgets - please present the data showing that it is a genetics issue.

I'm not equating anything - like I said, it goes deeper than legality. The things that society deem unacceptable or not normal are the things that aren't legal. Homosexual marriage is not legal just like the other things I mentioned. Now sure a couple of the others are things that society say people should be punished for being/doing - but again this is about society. Again - you are attempt to bring the Constitution into this and it has no bearing on this because it doesn't address everything society says is legal or not legal. But anyway lets take your statement "Why deny these to some and not others?" - and you don't wish to ask that about the other things I pointed out? Why should we deny marriage to a polygamist? Why shouldn't we allow someone who is "old" to marry someone "young"(pedophile/ statutory rapist)? Is it not because society says it isn't acceptable? Why don't we call everyone who doesn't want a polygamist or a pedophile to be able to marry who they want in the quantity they want and at whatever age they want a bigot? Are you a bigot luny? Who said you get to decide that these people can't marry?

CkG

I think I said 'class' of people not race of people. A class is a group of folks with enough commonality to be included. A dwarf may be of any ethnic origin as a midget may and so too a homosexual or a wheel chair bound person. An Irishman, Indian or one armed wrestlers also can form a class.
What ain't legal is what ain't legal. It is some condition that can bring an indictment, trial and verdict... etc. To my limited knowledge homosexuality is not among the codified crimes. The other issues that are are and they are a different class of people... criminal class. Again, if it is not illegal why lump it in with labels that are? The society you speak of, the everyone, have not made being homosexual illegal so if that is the case why is this class of people being discriminated against?
Bigot.. hehehe... re: your last para.. You said it. Society said it is criminal to be a polygamist. Society and, therefore, you have not (to my knowledge) said the same for homosexuality.
So, we still cannot open the door to discussion until we use analogy that is consistent with the issue. Every 'class' of people you can come up with that are legal in existence should be included if you want. But, you are free to choose those you may.. but, at least use ones that look like oranges...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Bah - someday people will understand I guess. Too much for those with bigot finder glasses on or who don't want to see past just the one issue they think is sooooo important.
Quit thinking about bigotry, homosexuality, and the rest. Think about why things are the way they are, how they got here, and why they are put in place. If you do the above you might just understand the whole "society" thing.

Oh and moonie - you really need to seek help. Constantly projecting things on people like you have done here can be quite self-destructive. Understand and calm your hate - don't project it onto others. Again - your therapist should be able to help you with that.

You can all now return to your "bigot" chanting....

CkG

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
We have a few issues to overcome before society can rule the roost at the expense of a minority group or class of people. But, first we must eliminate associating all the criminal analogies from the topic. You are somehow attempting to place the homosexual in with the criminal and shout: 'See, how can society ever accept as norm these kinds of behaviour'. You must simply deal with the homosexual like you would any other legal 'class' of people. They are the same as Dwarfs, Midgets, Indians, Latinos, Irishmen etc.. Just an identifiable 'class' within the population that makes up society.
We have the Fourteenth Amendment and the separation of church and state. Marriage from a state point of view is and has associated with it many 'rights'. Why deny these to some and not others?
I've got to run now but, will finish later.. Going to a wedding..

Separation of church and state is a principle, Ray. You won't find it anywhere in the constitution, though I think it SHOULD have been included, and in GREAT detail. BTW, hats off to you for even mentioning the constitution. Must of the pseudo-intellectuals here run from it like their asses are on fire. I guess to them it no longer has a purpose, being that the "majority" is always right.

Not to argue too much but, the 'Constitution' is an evolving and fairly dynamic criteria by which we determine legal issues. (I'm not trying to speak down or sideways. I'm simply defining what I mean by what I say.) When I say the separation exists, it is because our Nine Brethren have included those words in explaining their opinions in dissent or concurrence. As you no doubt know and others should as well, the words that make up the constitution are contained in volumes sitting upon the shelves of every law school, law library and etc. Volumes. Well... I suppose one could say.. 'nah.. the words are only what is found in the document itself'. This cannot be the case given the notion of lower courts having precedent to obey and etc.. The latest (separation decision) is the monument on the courthouse steps issue. Using the Fourteenth 'Equal' in this case is similar, not on point but, similar to thinking about the Gay issue. Or the recent University enrollment issues. If it is not illegal to be Gay then it naturally follows that they must be treated equally. In a previous post I mentioned the defining of marriage to be limited to man and woman by recent law is to discriminate against a class of people who by virtue of their legal situation suffer with out any 'Due process'. The kicker IMO is the allowance of non Gay marriage states to ignore the laws related that permit Gay marriage. By saying the 'Full faith and credit' article need not be followed in this event is additional discrimination. This will have to be stricken from law and should garner a unanimous decision from the USSC.

Actually, the constitution is not at all dynamic or evolving (it takes a great deal of effort to actually change it). The interpretations of it (statutes), however, are. Those volumes you speak of, in law libraries, aren't anywhere near the constitution. They're precedents. Meaning what has come before. If say, a judge in New York, 100 years ago, said it was okay to steal a loaf of bread if you are hungry enough, a smart lawyer defending a person arrested for that offense will show up to court armed with this data. The majority of the time it works too. It's a drive-by form of jurisprudence that we've come to accept, but it isn't really square with the constitution. I have a rudimentary understanding of this because I worked in a large Chicago law firm for a while, as a computer operator. Their law library was two full floors of a modern office building. Huge.

As for the rest, you're correct. The SCOTUS has its work cut out.

 

[Moonbeam]

C: Bah - someday people will understand I guess.

Dum de dum dum dum. Giggle giggle, what me a bigot, not a chance. I'm just a deep thinker who's misunderstood. Keep you're eye on the pea ladies and gentlemen, and how bout some three card Monte.

C: Too much for those with bigot finder glasses on or who don't want to see past just the one issue they think is sooooo important.

Really ladies and gents, I'm not that bad a guy. I just wanted to keep lovers apart because they could do some stuff that scare me. Nothing important about that. Please please still love me. I'm not a bigot I'm not. It's how I was trained. I didn't know.

C: Quit thinking about bigotry, homosexuality, and the rest. Think about why things are the way they are, how they got here, and why they are put in place. If you do the above you might just understand the whole "society" thing.

Really ladies and gents, I wasn't talking about gays. I came hear only to point out that the earth orbits the sun. If you'll just stop and think, you'll know that it does. I'm holding fast to my belief, come hell or high water, the earth goes round the sun. And you know what that says about gays. Oh dear, your small little minds will never understand this astronomy thing.

C: Oh and moonie - you really need to seek help. Constantly projecting things on people like you have done here can be quite self-destructive. Understand and calm your hate - don't project it onto others. Again - your therapist should be able to help you with that.

M: Remember to tell that to God when he condemns you too. I know it will give him a chuckle.

C: You can all now return to your "bigot" chanting....

M: Caddy, you are some hairy humongous bigot. You are in fact such a flake I invented a word to describe you. Cadidicy, a perversity of insight whereby one manages not only to be wrong, but also consistently 180 degrees wrong. edit: About everything!