I support discriminating against homosexualsex

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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.

Freedom wasn't the 'norm' in 1776.

I guess that invalidates the entire existence of the U.S. now doesn't it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Kain, your dysfunctional logic and twisted use of words makes it very difficult to follow what you are trying to say. I'm sure that has something to do with the fact that you don't want to say what you really mean and are having to say it in ways that hide that fact, but anyway.... For example take this:

LMK: "enlightenment is a spiritual thing, and trying to force it on others is the same as trying to force religion on others;" You use this notion that something is being forced on you when you refer to gay marriage. Who is forcing you to marry a guy? What exactly are you hallucinating here when you say something is being forced? And you are not being forced to accept the fact of gay marriage either. You can dislike it all you want. You can blow your head off in a fit of rage if you want. You can jump up and down and stamp your feet and curse. All that's fine with me, just so long as you don't violate anybody's rights. So how are you being forced? Your mind is completely sealed up and blinded by bigotry. Nothing can be forced on you. Progress, modernization, justice, truth, Constitutional law, behind your ignorance you are completely safe. You have nothing to fear because the worst that can happen has already happened to you. The human race is evolving and growing and becoming more enlightened. Nobody's forcing you to come along. You're just pissed off because you won't come to the party. You are forcing yourself to lag behind. And there you remain whining and stamping your feet while the gays decorate the cake.

 

[azazyel]

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy his own heart?"

- Nobel Prize-Winning Author Alexander Solzhenitsyn, In Politics

"The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary, men alone are quite capable of every wickedness. "

Joseph Conrad


"Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb"
Dark Helmet

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Kain, your dysfunctional logic...

every reasonable person can see that I've outlined some good reasons here, and intelligent reasonable views on how i would change my mind; they see such thing isn't bigoted, that those of us supporting traditionalist view aren't all as narrow-minded as the progressive view is.

or is their any change to the situation that would cause you to disagree with homosexual marriage, as their are that would cause me to agree with it?

What's wrong with making it a states legislative rights issue? it's the position of almost every representative we've got;

 

[VIAN]

Normal - an adjective that is ever changing. Just like the words in the dictionary. The dictionary - something that should define instead of conform. To conform - a definition of normal.

Anyway.

There is religion and there is state.

Married in a church, goes by church laws and religion. If the religion doesn't let them get married. Ok, I can't argue against that. Freedom of religion.

Married by state. The society recognizes a couple as married. Prohibiting that I can argue against. It's just not right. There is no way that a homosexual couple getting married can harm anyone.

Most politicians arguing against homosexual marriage citing moral or tradition, have had many divorces. They shouldn't be talking - plus, they are politicians. Money hungry, rutheless, I don't care what happens to you, just give me my money - people. Well, most of them. (cough) Bush (cough) - no offense to the Bushees.

For all the traditionists. That is all nostalgia. Sure you might enjoy tradition; sometime I enjoy it. But most of it is nostalgia or the fear of doing something different. You can find that doing something different is also very pleasing. But I'm not going to tell you to stop being traditional if that makes you happy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: azazyel
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy his own heart?"

- Nobel Prize-Winning Author Alexander Solzhenitsyn, In Politics

"The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary, men alone are quite capable of every wickedness. "

Joseph Conrad


"Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb"
Dark Helmet

Dark Helmet ownz!!

 

[Orsorum]

I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

 

[Moonbeam]

LMK: every reasonable person can see that I've outlined some good reasons here, and intelligent reasonable views on how i would change my mind; they see such thing isn't bigoted, that those of us supporting traditionalist view aren't all as narrow-minded as the progressive view is.

M: Yes, I know 9 out of 10 dentists recommend bigotry to keep your teeth white and Christian Fundies are the real progressives.

LMK: or is their any change to the situation that would cause you to disagree with homosexual marriage, as their are that would cause me to agree with it?

A walk by God down Third Avenue proclaiming hate he really does hate gays.

LMK: What's wrong with making it a states legislative rights issue? it's the position of almost every representative we've got;

M: The same thing that's wrong with making slavery a states rights issue. The Constitution either guarantees justice and liberty for all or it doesn't. Try to remember that being gay is not evil and whether by choice or by genetic fate or endocrinology or something we don't yet understand, being gay is not a crime. It also makes not the slightest difference of gayness is good or evil, because it is not illegal. The Constitution says that if it's legal then everybody gets to do it whatever it is that's being done. The notion that being gay is religious and that has no place in our law, because my religion says that people like you shouldn't be left to roam the earth and you wouldn't want me making the rules any more than I would want you introducing your horrible bigotry into the law. And if you don't like it you are living in the wrong country. You aren't just a traditionalist, you want to go back to the dark ages where bigotry and ignorance killed millions.

Marriage exists in the law. Marrying an animal, having more than one marriage partner, marrying your close family member is illegal and will remain as such. No gay person will be able to do any of that as will no straight. There is no conflict, no slippery slope. There is just your bigotry and your inability to let go of the fact that you are biased against gays because of your religion. We define that as bigotry, especially since you want your opinion to stand in the way of their rights. You may be religious, but you are anti freedom, anti, American, and anti life. Nice religion you got.

 

[VIAN]

I thought peopler were allowed to marry within the family.

 

[tec699]

Just let the homosexuals live in peace and worry about your pathetic life.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Marrying an animal, having more than one marriage partner, marrying your close family member is illegal and will remain as such.

and so is marrying someone of your same sex.

The Constitution either guarantees justice and liberty for all or it doesn't.

Neither liberty nor justice requirer that same-sex couples be allowed to marry any more than liberty and justice requirer that multiple partners be allowed to marry.
I'll show you:
***

being gay is not a crime.

having multiple simultaneous partners is not a crime.

It also makes not the slightest difference of gayness is good or evil, because it is not illegal.

it also makes no difference if multiple partners is good or evil as it's not a crime.

The Constitution says that if it's legal then everybody gets to do it whatever it is that's being done.

same with polygamy.

no slippery slope.

I'm not arguing that a slippery slope exists, I'm arguing that you are being hypocritical in your stance unless you are for allowing all those who can legally have sex with one-another getting married.
***
see my point?

And if you don't like it you are living in the wrong country.

I'm never living in the wrong country as long as people get to vote.

You may be religious, but you are anti freedom, anti, American, and anti life. Nice religion you got.

I've not made a religious argument; i have understanding for everyone's opposing views in the Christian community, even the homosexual Christians who think that romans 1 is more about orgies and pedophilia being evil than the homosexual sex act;

You aren't just a traditionalist, you want to go back to the dark ages where bigotry and ignorance killed millions.

Can you please show me the logic that says that wanting marriage to be states-legislative-rights issue indicates this?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Marrying an animal, having more than one marriage partner, marrying your close family member is illegal and will remain as such.

and so is marrying someone of your same sex.

The Constitution either guarantees justice and liberty for all or it doesn't.

Neither liberty nor justice requirer that same-sex couples be allowed to marry any more than liberty and justice requirer that multiple partners be allowed to marry.
I'll show you:
***

being gay is not a crime.

having multiple simultaneous partners is not a crime.

It also makes not the slightest difference of gayness is good or evil, because it is not illegal.

it also makes no difference if multiple partners is good or evil as it's not a crime.

The Constitution says that if it's legal then everybody gets to do it whatever it is that's being done.

same with polygamy.

no slippery slope.

I'm not arguing that a slippery slope exists, I'm arguing that you are being hypocritical in your stance unless you are for allowing all those who can legally have sex with one-another getting married.
***
see my point?

And if you don't like it you are living in the wrong country.

I'm never living in the wrong country as long as people get to vote.

You may be religious, but you are anti freedom, anti, American, and anti life. Nice religion you got.

I've not made a religious argument; i have understanding for everyone's opposing views in the Christian community, even the homosexual Christians who think that romans 1 is more about orgies and pedophilia being evil than the homosexual sex act;

You aren't just a traditionalist, you want to go back to the dark ages where bigotry and ignorance killed millions.

Can you please show me the logic that says that wanting marriage to be states-legislative-rights issue indicates this?

But you've got it upside down. You can legally have sex with only one legal age concenting adult married partner as a married person. The state can't define your choice of partner within those legal parameters. Who and how many can legally have sex has nothing to do with marriage. As everybody knows, married people rarely have sex anyway.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: tec699
Just let the homosexuals live in peace and worry about your pathetic life.

Well put!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

is your implication is that 'being gay', and by connection 'gay' marriage, has nothing to do with having sex? because if marriage and sex are unrelated then sexual activity wouldn't be part of state marriage license laws.

You can legally have sex with only one legal age consenting adult married partner as a married person.

It's illegal to have same-sex marriage in the same way it's illegal to have multiple partner marriage. The legality of a number of partners is a states rights issue. how can you, without being hypocritical, say that the state-requirement of not being same-sex is any different than the requirement of only two?

A number of other religions have 'right to practice your religion' arguments for polygamy, considerably stronger than 'liberty and happiness' that your trying to argue applies to same-sex. But i still say it's a states-rights issue, as the marital definition has always been.

edit:

You aren't just a traditionalist, you want to go back to the dark ages where bigotry and ignorance killed millions.

Can you please show me the logic that says that wanting marriage to be states-legislative-rights issue indicates this? or do we have an honest but mutually respectable difference of opinions?

 

[Moonbeam]

It's illegal to have same-sex marriage in the same way it's illegal to have multiple partner marriage.

The Supreme Court will rule on that matter soon enough, I think, and then we will see. There is no way that they will agree with you, I'm afraid and those pushing for an amendment must agree or they wouldn't be wanting to intorduce bigotry into the Constitution. I am speaking from the postion that the courts will affirm our freedoms. It can't be a states rights issue pecause that would make some people free and others not. Then we would go right back to slavery on the down side of the slippery slope.

 

[VIAN]

Polygamy is another type of marriage. Is that even illegal. The thing is that Polygamy is more of a man thing. In foreign countries, a MAN can marry serval wives but not vice-versa. This is not a man dominated place anymore. Hence Polygamy is illegal. Society sees marriage as a strong bond between two people. That is what it should be. More than two is a crowd. Women would never agree to such a thing as polygamy anyway. May also be illegal because many companies invest money don't take into account multiple partners and probably don't want to. Insurance reasons and so on.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Society sees marriage as a strong bond between two people. That is what it should be. More than two is a crowd. Women would never agree to such a thing as polygamy anyway. May also be illegal because many companies invest money don't take into account multiple partners and probably don't want to. Insurance reasons and so on.

all of these arguments against multiple-partner marriages, except that it's a feminist one (I think it's sexist to think that a woman wouldn't be able to fall in love with more than one man), fall along the same logical lines as the social-argument against homosexual marriage. I just draw the line you're drawing at poligomy in a diferent part of the sexual-morality sand.

There is no way that they will agree with you, I'm afraid and those pushing for an amendment must agree or they wouldn't be wanting to introduce bigotry into the Constitution.

Ruling that the clause in the constitution that makes all states agree with each other's contracts* stands isn't the same as saying that polygamy is any different than homosexual marriage.

*put in their to secure slavery for the south

It can't be a states rights issue pecause that would make some people free and others not.

You've got it back wards: to put us under the rule of the judiciary of any one state makes us all oppressed by tyrants.

 

[VIAN]

I heard on the radio today.

Marriage is done at the Church. Obviously religion isn't gonna allow homos to get married.

Civil Unions is by the State. But why shouldn't we allow them to be a Civil Union.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I heard on the radio today.

Marriage is done at the Church. Obviously religion isn't gonna allow homos to get married.

Civil Unions is by the State. But why shouldn't we allow them to be a Civil Union.

i just want communal property contracts to be a states-rights issue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: VIAN
I heard on the radio today.

Marriage is done at the Church. Obviously religion isn't gonna allow homos to get married.

Civil Unions is by the State. But why shouldn't we allow them to be a Civil Union.

i just want communal property contracts to be a states-rights issue.

The people in hell want ice water.

 

[LunarRay]

Kain,

You've got it back wards: to put us under the rule of the judiciary of any one state makes us all oppressed by tyrants.

"Full Faith and Credit" requires each state to recognize the laws of each other state. This is a group of state all stuck together here.... You gotta have that compliance. To do otherwise would create more chaos than you can imagine. Driver license, Purchase contracts.. etc. Interstate commerce would cease.. It don't oppress anyone. It frees them! In any event, Congress saw fit to allow the non recognition of any state's law or process that issues a marriage license to a gay or lesbian couple.
The real point is that any one can challenge a law and take it all the way up... and if the USSC grants Cert we'll see.
Your argument would have merit IF being homosexual was illegal. To further the point... remember, sodomy laws apply to heterosexuals too.. and girl homosexuals generally don't engage in sodomy. To my knowledge, anyway.
So, there is no rational basis to preclude the marriage of Gay folks. It does not further any state need nor does it impede the rights of anyone else.

 

[YellowRose]

Here is a list of some of those saying that marriage is a scared rite.

The Sanctity of Marriage- Republican style - (Food for thought


Ronald Reagan: divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan: who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole: divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrichivorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey, House Majority Leader: divorced.

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas: divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan: divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California: divorced
George Will: divorced
Sen. Lauch Faircloth: divorced

Rush Limbaugh:Rush and his current wife Marta have six (6) marriages and four (4) divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia: Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times.
Barr had the audacity to author and push the
"efense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending"

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York: divorced.

Sen. John Warner of Virginia: divorced
(once married to Liz Taylor)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia: divorced
Henry Kissinger: divorced.
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho: divorced
Sen. John McCain of Arizona: divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio: divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York: Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced.


Makes one wonder doesn't it.

 

[conjur]

Love: American Style.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: VIAN
I heard on the radio today.

Marriage is done at the Church. Obviously religion isn't gonna allow homos to get married.

Civil Unions is by the State. But why shouldn't we allow them to be a Civil Union.

i just want communal property contracts to be a states-rights issue.

I just want people to mind their own business when it comes to peacefull pursuits of others. It would be just great to see something like THIS added to the constitution

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
sad that you would try to equate quear-bashing, or cross-burning connotatively w/ disagreeing w/ you slightly on a political issue;

this progressive thought-police stuff is getting dangerous; I can't tell you to stop mindlessly adhering to your calling us bigots, but i sure can warn others that libel from the PC-enforcers is someday *if not already today* going to force us all into 're-education';

"re-education?" Isn't that what the Christian Right calls Bible Study?

if we forced you in to a bible study to keep your job you'd throw a shit-fit but if you force me into a progressive re-education seminar to keep my job, I'm just not 'enlightened';

enlightenment is a spiritual thing, and trying to force it on others is the same as trying to force religion on others;

enlightenment is primarily a Cognitive thing, not a Spiritual thing. Enlighten = to furnish knowledge... that's a cognitive thing, it's only spiritual when the knowledge being furnished is relating to spirituality. You send your kids to school to be enlightened, to be furnished with knowledge (facts). You send your kids to church to be enlightened, to be furnished with spiritual "knowledge" (what your church accepts as fact).

China has public re-education centers, but I have never seen one in the USA. You look like a kook when you say sh1t like that, and you sound like a kook when you let your fundamentalism show and you sound like a kook when you claim that discriminating against and hating people because they are gay is justified and moral. Looks like a kook, sounds like a kook, you must be a kook.

People that get forced into alcoholism-treatment after they get half a dozen DUIs could argue that "they are trying to enlighten me, it's religious! they can't do that!" and be just like you. In fact, many have, because there are different forms of treatment, one of which is called AA (Alcoholics Anoymous) which has been found to be religious by the federal courts, and so a state (or employer) can not force (use coercion) a person to participate in AA (12-step based, religious) treatment. The state can, however, force a person with substance abuse problems into a non-religious treatment program for non-religious, non-spiritual enlightenment (in order to get his license back, or to keep his job, etc). In that type of treatment, they show the scientific evidence available regarding alcoholism and/or substance abuse, and offer (non-religious) solutions to the substance abuser (or alcoholic). So is that right or wrong? If you are concerned about being brainwashed, then you should really watch where you are pointing your finger - as they say "you point 1 finger at me leaves 3 pointing back at you" and you are the one with the strong religious opinions which you are trying to force onto others. The government that your paranoid fundie mind is so scared of is the government that is (fairly successfully) protecting the people from religious coercion.

There is no scientific evidence that says homosexuality is evil or that it is a criminal action (a sin). A certain religion or two say it's a sin, but the government can not say it is a crime without some rationale besides religious belief (because religion is SEPARATE from the state) for saying so. If the government makes a pronouncement tomorrow that all unmarried non-virgins must be tried and stoned to death if found guilty, it Must have some rationale for saying so besides "because the Bible tells me so."

There are Christian Churches, and maybe other religions, too, that are willing to marry homosexual couples. The only thing stopping those couples from being married is the state. Also, to be married, it is not required by the state that the couple be a part of any religion. Since the government has no reason to discriminate against homosexuality, since it has no reason to say "homosexuality" is a crime, then how is it just for the government to discriminate based on gender when licensing couples (two individuals who wish to enter a contract together) to marry?