I support discriminating against homosexualsex

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
if i believed that it'd cause helpfully social change for those that identify themselves as homosexuals I'd support it. But monogamy is some thing that this movement is also against. Same-sex marriage will only lead to further disregard for monogamy and the institution of marriage over all, as has been seen in other countries that have done this.

if you support 'discriminating against homosexuals' then how is anyone going to believe you would support homosexuals if it can be shown their
practices are socially beneficial ? being a tad disingenuous, no ?

since homosexuals want the same marriage rights as heterosexuals that should make a farce of your contention that 'this movement is against
monogamy'.

and how does same-sex marriage lead to a further disregard for monogamy when it is promoting monogamy ? figure than one out. perhaps what
you were trying to say is that same-sex marriage would destroy the eons-old understanding of marriage as a ritualized bond between man and
woman and that would lead to a global apocalpyse.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Government shouldn't be expanded to approve of any unethical behavior, nor should we suffer under judicial tyranny.

That's what your stance boils down to.

And, how do you define homosexuality as unethical? Because of your religious beliefs. Therefore, your stance is invalid in a court of law.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,720
6,201
126
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
im just saying tradition has nothing to do with it
traditionalism vs. secularism; Do we have a right to have and vote on views that disagree with a purely secular agenda?

YOU MEAN AGREE WITH A PERFECTLY RELIGIOUS AGENDA I.E. CAST A BIGOTED VOTE OR TRY TO PASS BIGOTED LAW. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRY AND THEN THAT MEAN NASTY PROACTIVE SUPREME COURT WILL STEP IN AND TELL YOU YOU VOTED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FOR BIGOTRY AND YOU MUST TURN THE AMERICA INTO AFGHANISTAN FOR YOUR VOTE TO BECOME LAW. AFTER YOU DESTROY OUR WAY OF GOVERNMENT, THEN YOU CAN VOTE TO BAN GAYS AND STONE THEM TO DEATH TOO, WHICH YOU WILL BECAUSE YOU NO NOT YOUR OWN EVIL.

It's not an 'American ideal' to expand the powers of the government to approve of more activities, especially unethical activities.

IT IS THE AMERICAN WAY TO DO EXACTLY THAT. THAT IS HOW WE HAVE EVOLVED FORM A BACKWARD BIGOTED SLAVE HOLDING, NO WOMEN VOTING, DENY GAY PEOPLE EQUAL RIGHTS, TO THE FINER MORE MORAL NATION WE ARE TODAY AND WE HAD TO DO IT AGAINST BIGOTS LIKE YOU AT EVERY TURN WHO HAD AS THEIR ONLY ARGUMENT A FEELING THAT SLAVES WOMEN AND GAYS ARE INFERIOR TO OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE BIGOTRY IN THE BIBLE AND OTHER TRADITIONAL SO CALLED RELIGIOUS ETHICS.

You understand the government-involvement expansionary effects that such expansion of government power would have across the board, right? much like other countries that have done this the meaning of marriage will decay.

NO MORE THAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT STATEMENT TO BE BIGOTED FOOLISHNESS UTTERED AS TRUTH WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST REFERENCE IN FACT TO REALITY. YOU ARE A BIGOTED FEAR MONGER TRYING TO SELL YOUR PARANOID FEAR STRAIGHT FROM THE PIT OF YOUR STOMACH. SEE A DOCTOR, A PSYCHIATRIST. THEY MAY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU. YOUR BIGOTRY ISA A BLINDNESS. YOU CAN'T SELL IT TO PEOPLE WHO CAN SEE.

you think government should take a paternalistic posture. I don't, under ANY circumstances.
then why do you argue for the expansion of the role of government?

HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE EXPANSIONIST HORSE CRAP THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN LIFE. WE ARE NOT THE TALIBAN YOU WANT US TO BE. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MORE THE GOVERNMENT PREVENTS BIGOTS LIKE YOU FROM DETERMINING WHAT OUR LAWS MEAN THE FREER WE WILL ALL BE.

Why did the government expand itself and approve of black people being freed as slaves.
because slavery is unethical, such that many where willing to die to change the situation.

BUT THE BIGOTS LIKE YOU SAID IT WAS ETHICAL TO HOLD SLAVES. THEY SAID THE GOVERNMENT WAS EXPANDING ITSELF TO LEGISLATE LAWS THAT WERE UNPOPULAR AND UNETHICAL TO THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD DISRUPT SOCIETY AND RUIN THE ECONOMY AND LET THE DEVIL LOOSE ON THE LAND. THOSE BIGOTS WERE EXACTLY LIKE YOU AND HAD TO BE ROLLED OVER WITH GUNS. THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN AGAIN WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU NOW. THE NEANDERTHALS IN A FREE SOCIETY GO EXTINCT. YOU ARE A RACIST BIGOT TURNED HOMOPHOBE. THERE ISN'T A DIMES WORTH OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EVILS THEY SOUGHT TO PRESERVE IN SOCIETY AND THE EVIL YOU SEEK TO PRESERVE. YOU ARE MENTALLY SICK IN THE HEAD, INFECTED WITH RELIGIOUSLY INSPIRED BIGOTED HATE WHICH IN YOUR PSYCHOTIC DELUSION YOU CALL LOVE FOR YOUR FELLOW MAN, AND PROTECTING US FROM THE HORRIBLE MONSTERS THAT LIVE IN THE PIT OF YOUR STOMACH READY TO EAT THE WORLD. YOU ARE TRAPPED IN AN ENDLESS CIRCULAR LIE THAT BEGINS AND ENDS WITH YOUR FEAR. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU HAVE A GAY KID WHO INVITES YOU TO HIS OR HER WEDDING, EXCEPT FOR THE PITY WE'D HAVE TO EXTEND TO THE KID FOR HAVING A FATHER WHOSE A BIGOT WHOSE SO PROUD OF HIS BIGOTRY HE COULDN'T GO TO THE WEDDING.

debunked again and again,
my support is un-failing, my response to your mindless stereotyping is without hole; that you yell bigot consistently doesn't make you right.

I KNOW, YOU ARE A BULLET PROOF BIGOT LIVING IN AN AIR TIGHT DELUSION. YOU HAVE YOUR FEAR IN YOUR STOMACH, YOUR HIDEOUS ARROGANCE THAT YOU LOVE YOUR FELLOW GAY, AND A BIBLE WRITTEN BY BIGOTS THAT SAYS BIGOTRY IS THE ONLY TRUTH. AND NOW THAT FALSE PART OF THE BIBLE IS YOU, THE LIVING WALKING TRUTH THAT GAYNESS IS UNETHICAL BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS AND AMERICA ISN'T AMERICA BECAUSE YOU SAY IT ISN'T. YOU ARE A WALKING LIVING BREATHING LUNATIC, A BIGOT INCARNATE. AND YOU ARE EVIL BECAUSE YOU CALL OTHERS EVIL ONLY BECAUSE YOU ARE INSANE. THE DEVIL HAS GOT YOU GOOD MY FRIEND. HE IS VERY VERY TRICKY. HE TELLS YOU THAT GOD IS A BIGOT AND THEN HE HAS YOU EATING FROM HIS HAND.

Why do you sh!t on gays? Is it so you will go to heaven? Gay bash them in a pile so you can walk up their bodies like a stair?

What's bigoted about wanting it to be a states-rights issue? and God loves us all equally, you, me, homosexuals, and mass-murderers; he wants all of us to spend every day working toward his righteousness, and it's not for any man to judge another's walk.

YOU DO NOTHING BUT JUDGE ANOTHER'S WALK WHEN YOU SAY GAY SEX IS UNETHICAL AND GAY MARRIAGE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. YOU ARE JUDGE JURY AND VERDICT ALL ROLLED UP IN ONE. YOU JUDGE YOURSELF WHEN YOU TRY TO DUMP YOUR BIGOTED CRAP INTO LAW. YOU BECOME A TOOL OF EVIL.

LMK, tell exactly what in your life will be damaged or injured by allowing same-sex marriages.
marriage between a brother and sister doesn't directly damage or injure me, should we allow it? There are things greater than the 'virtue' of selfishness to be taken into account; Have you no empathy? Have you no love for your fellow man? Why would you want to encourage and approve of people to destroying themselves?

YOU BIGOTED ASS THE DESTROY THEMSELVES IN YOUR MIND. TO BE MARRIED IN A LOVING RELATIONSHIP COMMITTED BEFORE ALL IS GOOD. YOU ARE DESTROYING YOURSELF WITH YOUR BIGOTRY AND DUPLICITOUS LIES. AND YOU SEEK TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN WAY THAT PROTECTS PEOPLES FREEDOM WITH JUSTICE AND TRUTH IN LAW.

When the meaning of marriage decays

THE DECAY IS YOUR BIGOTRY THINKING THE FEAR IN YOUR STOMACH WILL RISE AND CONSUME THE WORLD. YOU ARE ONLY MENTALLY ILL AND HAVING A BAD HAIR DAY. THE DECAY IS A REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT YOUR MORALITY HAS BEEN REPLACED BY BIGOTRY AND YOU FEAR THE WORLD WILL BECOME AS SICK AS YOU. DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY, RELAX, GOD LOVES GAY SEX OR HE WOULDN'T HAVE CREATED GAYS. I KNOW THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE IT SAY SO IN THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY AND THEY ARE NEVER WRONG. IT SAYS SO IN THE JOURNAL. to a social institution that has little to no meaning at all,

AND YOU WANT TO GIVE IT LESS BY PASSING BIGOTED LAW THAT EXCLUDES GAYS BECAUSE GAYS ARE EVIL, DESTRUCTIVE AND GET SICK AND OTHER VARIOUS HORSE POO.

then you stop you encouragement for heterosexual monogamy,

HEHE, LIKE PEOPLE ARE REALLY QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT TO GET OR TO STAY MARRIED AS THE CASE MAY BE BECAUSE SOMEBODY IN SAN FRANCISCO JUST MARRIED SOMEBODY OF THE SAME SEX. THE ONLY THOUGHT I HAVE, BEING THE BETTER CHRISTIAN THAT I AM IS I WISH THEM ALL THE BEST IN LONG LIFE AND GOOD LUCK AND MAY THEY LIVE FOREVER TOGETHER IN HEAVEN, NO. OF COURSE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KNOWS WHAT REAL LOVE IS CAUSE YOU HAVE A BOOK AND ALL I GOT IS MY HEART THAT CRIES FRO THE EVIL HYPOCRITES LIKE YOU BRING TO THE WORLD.

have a higher divorce rate, more children from broken homes, more children who grow up in poverty, and more children that are a blight instead of a boon.

THAT'S RIGHT LET THAT DEVIL MANIPULATE YOUR FEAR AND SPEW FORTH YOUR JUDGMENTALISM AND PHONY LIES ABOUT THE DISASTER GOING ON IN THE PIT OF YOUR STOMACH. THE DEVIL HAS HIS HAND UP YOUR ASS AND IS MOVING YOUR LIPS. TALK ABOUT GAY SEX.

When medical costs and supply's are less we pay more for everything from a doctors visit to car insurance. When premarital sex increases we have higher teen pregnancy, again with children born poor and without a stable home. you can call any fact i put fort 'BS' but I've supplied resources you are welcome to look up for yourself. Expanding government to approve of activity that hurts the vast majority of people is irrational and the

WHAT IS IRRATIONAL IS YOUR NUT CASE UNSUBSTANTIATED FEAR. YOU FEAR BECAUSE YOU ARE STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF HELL SEEING ALL AROUND YOU YOUR OWN FEAR AND BIGOTRY.

antithesis of 'providing for the common welfare' as defined in the constitution.

ANTITHESIS AS SELF DEFINED BY YOU STRAIGHT OUT OF THE DEVIL'S MOUTH. Doing it by the judiciary instead of our elected legislature is nothing less than un-elected judicial tyranny.

NOTHING LESS THAT THE WAY THE FOUNDING FATHERS SET UP THE GOVERNMENT SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO BE TAKEN OVER BY EVIL BIGOTED NUT CASES LIKE YOU WHO WOULD TURN IT INTO THE SPANISH INQUISITION.

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
"It's not an 'American ideal' to expand the powers of the government to approve of more activities, especially unethical activities. You understand the government-involvement expansionary effects that such expansion of government power would have across the board, right? much like other countries that have done this the meaning of marriage will decay."

"You think government should take a paternalistic posture. I don't, under ANY circumstances.

"Then why do you argue for the expansion of the role of government?"

This is NOT an example of government expansion Kain, and you know it. Gay couples don't want any more from the government than equal standing under the law. That doesn't require a new government office or one more civil service job. And PLEASE, stop using the word "unethical" when we ALL know you mean immoral. Your God says that homosexuals are an "abomination", and you've taken that idea unto yourself, that's all. That you've managed to armor your intellect with pseudo-science doesn't change that underlying motivation one bit. You hate gays simply because they exist. Decay? How can marriage be more decayed than it is now with 50% of hetero's who tie the knot finding themselves divorced after not too long? If marriage is SO important, why don't we (meaning "society") just outlaw divorce and stone adulterers? I'll answer this one for you, because the control freaks (whom you are abetting) in government want the flexibility to get divorces themselves.

Come this August 22 I will have been married for 19-years to the kindest most tolerant woman in the world. There is NOTHING that a gay marriage can do to affect my situation. I would be damaged not at ALL by the simple act of two people wanting to form a financial union, somewhere, regardless of the sexual dynamic that describes them.

Divest yourself of the idea that your personal, religiously motivated ideas of the way OTHERS should behave are important. In a free society, your wants stop at the tip of your nose. Deep down you must know that you can't logically expect others to do as you'd prefer anyway, no matter how righteous you are. Or do you?

I saw some old civil rights-era footage of a white girl once. She was wailing like the world was about to come to an end. Why? Because some blacks kids were being allowed to attend her school, under National Guard rifles, that is. I'm sure she was pissed about it for years afterwards, but her anger and arrogance didn't stop her lilly white world from changing.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,720
6,201
126
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.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.
doubtful -

When bans on interracial marriage were lifted - it didn't change the nature of marriage itself - it was still between a man and a woman.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.
doubtful -

When bans on interracial marriage were lifted - it didn't change the nature of marriage itself - it was still between a man and a woman.

And same-sex couples will continue the tradition of wedded bliss between a loving couple. They may even bring some sanctity back to an institution that's been wracked with a 50% divorce rate among new marriages (and the religious among them having the higher divorce rates than the atheists/agnostics...imagine that...hmmm...)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
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.
Interspecies relations are not accepted as normal by society.
Polygamy is not accepted as normal by society.
Incest is not accepted as normal by society.
Pedophilia is not accepted as normal by society.
and you could list all the other societal "taboos" as not "normal".

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.
So this "gay marriage" issue is not about "rights" - it's about becoming a societal "norm". What are the reasons for it to become a societal "norm"? Why should homosexual marriage be a "norm" and not the other examples?

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


CkG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
CkG,

The problem with your statement is you mix criminal behavior (incest - normally based in sexual abuse - and pedophilia. And, some could argue bestiality, too, but it still occurs...just check your spam folder) with traits and behavior that are naturally occuring or harm no one (homosexuality and polygamy)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
CkG,

The problem with your statement is you mix criminal behavior (incest - normally based in sexual abuse - and pedophilia. And, some could argue bestiality, too, but it still occurs...just check your spam folder) with traits and behavior that are naturally occuring or harm no one (homosexuality and polygamy)

And who decides what is "criminal behavior"? That's right...it's society! Society sets the limits on what is "normal". My other post stands - I'm waiting for moonie to answer the questions.

CkG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
CkG,

The problem with your statement is you mix criminal behavior (incest - normally based in sexual abuse - and pedophilia. And, some could argue bestiality, too, but it still occurs...just check your spam folder) with traits and behavior that are naturally occuring or harm no one (homosexuality and polygamy)

And who decides what is "criminal behavior"? That's right...it's society! Society sets the limits on what is "normal". My other post stands - I'm waiting for moonie to answer the questions.

CkG

No, it's not society. It's our legislature. Pedophilia is a crime as children are sexually abused and/or injured or worse, killed. Incest usually springs from sexual abuse.

Homosexuality affects no one.

Polygamy affects no one outside the family unit.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,130
5,658
126
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.
doubtful -

When bans on interracial marriage were lifted - it didn't change the nature of marriage itself - it was still between a man and a woman.

But it did change the nature of it, just not that part. Many people thought the idea was as disgusting as this one, others just felt uncomfortable with it.

In a nation where Homosexuality is not Illegal, there is no good reason to deny "Marriage". Quite the opposite, there are plenty of reasons to allow out, many of the reasons that LMK has given are reasons for allowing it. Disallowing it will not change the Number of Homosexuals, the Activities of Homosexuals, or even the visibilty of Homosexuals. OTOH, allowing it will most likely affect the Activities of Homosexuals(at least a segment of the population) and lead to Healthier Lifestyles.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
CkG,

The problem with your statement is you mix criminal behavior (incest - normally based in sexual abuse - and pedophilia. And, some could argue bestiality, too, but it still occurs...just check your spam folder) with traits and behavior that are naturally occuring or harm no one (homosexuality and polygamy)

And who decides what is "criminal behavior"? That's right...it's society! Society sets the limits on what is "normal". My other post stands - I'm waiting for moonie to answer the questions.

CkG

No, it's not society. It's our legislature. Pedophilia is a crime as children are sexually abused and/or injured or worse, killed. Incest usually springs from sexual abuse.

Homosexuality affects no one.

Polygamy affects no one outside the family unit.

And the legislature doesn't flow with society? You are missing the point conjur. Legislature, who technically makes the law, doesn't sway society perse - society sways legislature. If society doesn't like something or wants something - they push for a law to make it legal or illegal. So again - back to my questions.

CkG
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.
doubtful -

When bans on interracial marriage were lifted - it didn't change the nature of marriage itself - it was still between a man and a woman.

And same-sex couples will continue the tradition of wedded bliss between a loving couple. They may even bring some sanctity back to an institution that's been wracked with a 50% divorce rate among new marriages (and the religious among them having the higher divorce rates than the atheists/agnostics...imagine that...hmmm...)


Are you going to address any of the points i raised?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.
doubtful -

When bans on interracial marriage were lifted - it didn't change the nature of marriage itself - it was still between a man and a woman.

And same-sex couples will continue the tradition of wedded bliss between a loving couple. They may even bring some sanctity back to an institution that's been wracked with a 50% divorce rate among new marriages (and the religious among them having the higher divorce rates than the atheists/agnostics...imagine that...hmmm...)


Are you going to address any of the points i raised?

What the hell are you talking about? What points? You made no point. You replied to a post of mine and I replied in kind.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.
doubtful -

When bans on interracial marriage were lifted - it didn't change the nature of marriage itself - it was still between a man and a woman.

But it did change the nature of it, just not that part. Many people thought the idea was as disgusting as this one, others just felt uncomfortable with it.
no it didn't.

Through out history there has been realitvely short-lived no-no's on inter-racial, inter-cutlure, inter-religion, inter-ethinic, inter-tribal mixing - but the constant that has ALWAYS been: is marriage is man and woman.
 

BeefJurky

Senior member
Sep 5, 2001
367
0
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................


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

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.
doubtful -

When bans on interracial marriage were lifted - it didn't change the nature of marriage itself - it was still between a man and a woman.

But it did change the nature of it, just not that part. Many people thought the idea was as disgusting as this one, others just felt uncomfortable with it.
no it didn't.

Through out history there has been realitvely short-lived no-no's on inter-racial, inter-cutlure, inter-religion, inter-ethinic, inter-tribal mixing - but the constant that has ALWAYS been: is marriage is man and woman.

and the constant 50 years ago had ALWAYS been: marriage is a white man and white woman or black man and black woman.

personally, i like the progress we've been making.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: BeefJurky
Originally posted by: shrumpage

Through out history there has been realitvely short-lived no-no's on inter-racial, inter-cutlure, inter-religion, inter-ethinic, inter-tribal mixing - but the constant that has ALWAYS been: is marriage is man and woman.

and the constant 50 years ago had ALWAYS been: marriage is a white man and white woman or black man and black woman.

personally, i like the progress we've been making.

:beer:
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Are you going to address any of the points i raised?

What the hell are you talking about? What points? You made no point. You replied to a post of mine and I replied in kind.


This:

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

You had it quoted in an earlier post that orginally spawned this current discussion.

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |