Gay Is Not OK

[actuarial]

Dunno...I bet if you took a poll of NRA members you would find many support rocket launchers being owned by private citizens.

How about chemical weapons? Nuclear warheads?

It's all just bearing arms right?

 

[actuarial]

The point being "equal rights for us, but not for you"?

1) So does that mean they have to campaign against any potential violation of rights?
2) Polygamy is NOT an equal rights issue. It's an expansion of rights issue. No one is allowed to marry multiple partners, so everyone is treated equally.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Well homosexuality is the same as bestiality right?

I mean, that's what Rick said, isn't it?

 

[Brovane]

Dunno...I bet if you took a poll of NRA members you would find many support rocket launchers being owned by private citizens.

I think FPS Russia would be all for private ownership of rocket launchers.

 

[Brovane]

It is true that being-anti-homosexual is an easy target for Christians. It also assists in distracting one from one's own sins. I am not quite sure why a Christian would expect a non-Christian to follow what God says if they do not believe in God. It is backwards.

I say all this as a Christian. I also say that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong, but i don't expect someone who is not a Christian to obey the teachings of the Bible, and so while I may express my belief in a forum such as this, I would not try to convince others that this is wrong b/c even if you ended up believing it was wrong, you'd still go to hell. It does no good to try to change the culture in a superficial way.

So anyone that doesn't believe in Christianity is going to hell?

 

[cybrsage]

1) So does that mean they have to campaign against any potential violation of rights?
2) Polygamy is NOT an equal rights issue. It's an expansion of rights issue. No one is allowed to marry multiple partners, so everyone is treated equally.

Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue. It's an expansion of rights issue. No one is allowed to marry people of the same sex, so everyone is treated equally.

Bad argument.


Personally, I have no problem with polygamy, provided there is a limit on the number of partners, to remove the chaos from it (from a legal standpoint).

 

[cybrsage]

How about chemical weapons? Nuclear warheads?

It's all just bearing arms right?

The SCOTUS already ruled on many of these, though that does mean there was a challenge.

 

[cybrsage]

Well homosexuality is the same as bestiality right?

I mean, that's what Rick said, isn't it?

Did he? Have a link for it? Dumb thing to say, since one does involves a non-human.

 

[Throckmorton]

The arguments do not apply equally.

For one, our legal system is not capable of handling a polygamist marriage currently. For example, what if one one member of the group wants to divorce? How do you divide up property and determine alimony. How are medical decisions made?

Second, benefit programs are not set up to handle multiple spouses. Other than an assumed increase in marriages, benefit programs (federal and private) are easy to transition to include gay marriage, because it's still a single spouse.

Finally, there is a distinct difference between a government dictating the number of parties that can participate in a marriage, and the qualities of the parties that can participate in the marriage.

Personally, I don't see any difference between allowing interracial marriage and allowing gay marriage. Or interfaith marriage. Or secular marriage. Do you think any people who are in favour of those but not polygamy are also hypocrites?

It sounds to me like you're defending denying a certain group of people their rights based on practicality.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Did he? Have a link for it? Dumb thing to say, since one does involves a non-human.

As usual it has to be taken out of context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality

Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.

 

[Throckmorton]

1) So does that mean they have to campaign against any potential violation of rights?
2) Polygamy is NOT an equal rights issue. It's an expansion of rights issue. No one is allowed to marry multiple partners, so everyone is treated equally.

That sounds awfully like the anti gay marriage argument: "EVERYONE is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex"

 

[actuarial]

Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue. It's an expansion of rights issue. No one is allowed to marry people of the same sex, so everyone is treated equally.

Bad argument.

Personally, I have no problem with polygamy, provided there is a limit on the number of partners, to remove the chaos from it (from a legal standpoint).

If you're referencing sex, then the sexes don't have equal rights.

Women are allowed to marry men, but men are not? Not equal rights.

Can Jane marry Joe?
Can Dan marry Joe?

Polygamy is discrimination based on marital status, which is a choice. Gender is not a choice.

Based on your support of polygamy the current laws are fine. The limit on legal partners is just very low: 1. And there are perfectly good legal reasons for it (the exact same legal chaos you're referencing above).

And personally, I have no problem with polygamists either, I just don't think that debate is linked to gay marriage in any way, other than the word marriage.

 

[actuarial]

It sounds to me like you're defending denying a certain group of people their rights based on practicality.

I'm basing it on current contractual obligations. Which is FAR different from basing it on a person's gender.

If someone wants to draw up a system that would make polygamy work from a legal perspective that would stand up to scrutiny, I'm all for polygamy. I have no problem with a person living with multiple people and raising kids with them.

I still disagree that polygamy is in any way intertwined with gay marriage. It is a completely separate issue.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue.

Yes it is. It's about gender equality.

It's an expansion of rights issue. No one is allowed to marry people of the same sex, so everyone is treated equally.

If I am prohibited from marrying the same person that Jane is permitted to marry, then my rights are not equal to Jane's rights. This is a violation of the 14th amendment.

Bad argument.

You wouldn't acknowledge a good argument if it shat on your head, fuckwit.

 

[sportage]

I say all this as a Christian. I also say that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong, but i don't expect someone who is not a Christian to obey the teachings of the Bible, and so while I may express my belief in a forum such as this, I would not try to convince others that this is wrong b/c even if you ended up believing it was wrong, you'd still go to hell. It does no good to try to change the culture in a superficial way.

First of all... being gay IS NOT a choice. People are truly made that way. It happens.
Calling it a "choice" has been the true injustice of the ages.
The true injustice of the whole argument. Period!

You cannot expect one to change something built-in, hard coded. Impossible!
Homosexuality has always been around, always will be.
Simply because, there are people actually born that way. It is God's plan. Always has been.
The whole argument assumes homosexuality is some type of choice.
Any true homosexual knows better.

Now.. as to bible and religion and homosexuality, there "ARE" people that are "NOT" homosexual. Most actually!
However... two same sex heterosexuals "CAN" still have sex together.
Those people, the heterosexuals, should not cross that line. That is the un-natural.

So, again, homosexuals being homosexual is not the sin.
Heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts "is the sin".
And that alone is the true intended biblical issue.

If this whole argument were redirected to address heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts, then most everyone would agree that should not be.

I believe that is only, and exactly what the bible is addressing. Has always addressed.

So heterosexuals... JUST STOP IT, DAMN IT !!!!
You're giving true homosexuals a bad name.
Stop placing heterosexual short comings onto true homosexuals.

God is not addressing homosexuals behavior, God is addressing heterosexuals engaging in homosexual behavior !!!
And naturally, mankind being mankind, as God well knows, mankind will often get the issue totally screwed up, backwards and upside down.
So much so, that God had to send his one and only son down to earth just to kick ass.

Homosexuals have never been sinners. Jesus has not once said they were. God has not once said they were.
But heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts... THAT is the pisser.
God made homosexuals for his own, but unknown reason.
God made heterosexuals to reproduce the species. NOT to play around with other heterosexuals of the same sex...

And if my theory is in fact fact, then just consider for one moment the great injustice that has been placed onto the true innocent of society throughout the ages... the homosexual.
The fact homosexuals even exist, could in fact be God's test of heterosexuals with keeping of God's commandments. The homosexual is God's blessing. Just as are the tree's, the sky and the birds.
Think about it...
.
.
.

 

[Rainsford]

Why my post . I made no judgment based on appearance. Fact is I made no judgement at all . I replied to a replier and not the OP

I'm talking about the judgmental pastor here. You seem to feel that judging the pastor based on his appearance is "racist" (or whatever). I was pointing out that if he goes around judging everyone, karma can have a way of evening things out. Judging someone based on their sexual preference is AT LEAST as stupid as judging them based on their looks.

 

[Sonikku]

If he's slamming gays I'm guessing he's a bit gay himself. One moment you're condemning gay people. The next you're taking it up the ass in some air port. XD

 

[Rainsford]

As usual it has to be taken out of context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality

Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.

You're right, he DIDN'T say homosexuality and bestiality are exactly the same...he just said they're similar in the sense that they both "threaten society" and are things the government has a right to regulate. That might be better, but it's definitely not a good point of view either. Santorum is the perfect example of government small enough to fit into your bedroom. He's basically come right out and said that he thinks government should be involved in your private, mutually consensual sexual activities. The only reason you're allowed to have any kind of sex at all is because Santorum personally approves it. That should be a real winner of a position if he's the nominee...

I feel like someone needs to buy him an instruction manual too or something. He thinks "sodomy" and "monogamous/heterosexual" are mutually exclusive concepts? I feel like Missionary Position Santorum might view this whole thing a little differently if he took the time to look beyond his sheltered view of sex.

 

[zinfamous]

I was wondering how long it will be before the reverend is busted in a gay sex scandal, then I saw his picture...

... and I thought 'probably won't have to wait long.'

lol.

:thumbsup:

 

[cybrsage]

First of all... being gay IS NOT a choice. People are truly made that way. It happens.
Calling it a "choice" has been the true injustice of the ages.
The true injustice of the whole argument. Period!

Correct, if someone finds a person of the same sex attractive, that is something they cannot help. Acting on it is different, people can control their actions (sans the few mentally broken people who have no control over their sexual actions - some do exist).

 

[cybrsage]

Yes it is. It's about gender equality.

The genders have never been, and never will be, equal. Men are superior to women in some aspects and women are superior to men in other aspects.

If I am prohibited from marrying the same person that Jane is permitted to marry, then my rights are not equal to Jane's rights. This is a violation of the 14th amendment.

Then you support Jane marrying her brother or sister, right? You support Jane marrying her father or mother, right?

You wouldn't acknowledge a good argument if it shat on your head, fuckwit.

Now now, do you french kiss your dad with that mouth?

 

[Whiskey16]

I say all this as a Christian. I also say that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong, but i don't expect someone who is not a Christian to obey the teachings of the Bible...

This classifies you as an anti-social bigot. No way around it. You are open to such a fair critique in that you feel secure in presenting this clearly demeaning hatred towards those who are fairly as they are.

That you and others feel further justified upon such demeaning isolation against homosexuals under the security of claimed religious doctrine and freedom is great evidence of persistent anti-social disorder, even through to that of criminalized hate speech in some jurisdictions.

Your choice upon who you choose to be and how to interact in this world. Do not be shocked when promoting hatred receives condemnation.

 

[Craig234]

A washington Republican legislator's speech is making the rounds as a 'moving speech in defense of equality for gays on marriage'.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/02/10-0

It's sad that in all the praise for the speech they miss the point that she has a gay daughter, and how bad it is that Republicans seem so immoral unless that have that.

She was one of only two Republicans to vote for it.

 

[cybrsage]

If you're referencing sex, then the sexes don't have equal rights.

Women are allowed to marry men, but men are not? Not equal rights.

Can Jane marry Joe?
Can Dan marry Joe?

Polygamy is discrimination based on marital status, which is a choice. Gender is not a choice.

Just like with Cerpin, I assume you support a dad marrying his daughter and a brother marrying his own brother, right?

Based on your support of polygamy the current laws are fine. The limit on legal partners is just very low: 1.

Poly means more than one.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The genders have never been, and never will be, equal.

In the eyes of the law, they are.

Men are superior to women in some aspects and women are superior to men in other aspects.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you do not get to treat your opinions as facts.

Then you support Jane marrying her brother or sister, right? You support Jane marrying her father or mother, right?

Nope. Interfamilial marriage is something no person enjoys the right to do, so there is no inequality.

Now now, do you french kiss your dad with that mouth?

You have some strange fantasies.