Politics/Homosexuals/Religion...

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: palindrome

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
*First time P & N Poster*

I just turn on Larry King a while ago and the debate continues. Gays. There's a religious guy on there yapping about whatever and saying "Gays are not the way of God!" and sh!t..

I swear the next time I see religion on political news Im going to snap!!! What's the reason behind this?? What the hell ever happened to "Church and State".. I dont care what your friggen religion says, no one should. Especially politics.

There's been 1000s of polls, and most if not all say American's don't mind Gays as long as they don't bother them.. So what the heck is the big deal?? I say this to religion: Go cry to your Gods.. because you have no place in politics..

*Amid financial set-backs and other reasons.. *

Just an FYI, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. At the most, its implied, but it definitely is not written anywhere in our Constitution or Amendments. If I'm not mistaken, the term "church and state" was from a letter from Thomas Jefferson back in the day, but I could be wrong. Also, keep in mind, in this time period there were real witch hunts and many fundamentalist Christians. I'm not saying there aren't any of those, in a matter of speaking, nowadays. I'm just saying that these are different times and hopefully we as americans can get past religious discrepancies as long as the government isn't directly endorsing it for political gain.

The history of the separation is pretty interesting. I'm super busy today but when I get a bit more time I'll summarize it on here just for amusement. In short, no it isn't explicit within the Constitution, but it is implied there and has been accepted by SCOTUS, thereby establishing it. Yes Jefferson is one to have discussed the wall of seperation, but no he did not coin the 'church and state' phrase - that phrase was very common in political treatises already. Furthermore there was much discussion about this issue at the conventions and various political publications of the day. The most fundamental statement of truth that can be made about it all is that the founders purposefully did not include any explicit religious statements or procedures within the government. All items of religious nature have been added subsequently.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually before that had everything to do with how whites precieved blacks. My views are indifferent to the sexual orentaiton - it has to do with gender.

I boggle at the clueless things some people say. Sexual orientation in the current discussion is about - wait for it - gender.

You cannot argue how you are against same-gender marriage and then say your opinion has nothing to do with sexual gender orientation. You can try, an look silly; again.

You're completely lacking in any argument, throwing out irrelevant side issues, with only the following gobbledygook to try to articulate denying rights to fellow citizens:

Yin-Yang, or dichotomy of two differences coming togather and forming a single unit.

They are two human beings, who are made differently than you by falling in love with their own gender, who have the same needs for love, compansionship, etc.

You are so blinded by ideology that you are wanting to deny them the same basic right you have to marry.

Sigh...they do have the right to marry. Where does it say anywhere - that some can not get married?

You are unaware that in 49 of 50 states, there are laws on the books saying that marriage is restricted to opposite genders? What kind of question did you post

Ok, let me clarify, is the a law ANYWHERE in this country that says: if you are gay, you can not marry?

You can't even see how absurd you sound with the attempt to address this extraordinarily serious issue with 'Yin-Yang' pulled freshly out of *your* orafice.

Its not a new concept, be around for thousands of years - maybe expand your horizons a little bit. Two halves making a whole - been in both eastern and western thought for some time.

But it is also reinforcement of thousands of years of civilation and millions of years of evolution. Male and female.

It's always amusing when the ignorant attempt condescension. Annoying, irritating, but a bit amusing.

Your utterly ignorant attempt to put lipstick on the pig of your bigotry by name-dropping the phrase 'Yin-Yang' over it received my criticism, which was not based on lack of familiarity with Yin-Yang, but rather familiarity and pointing out how terrible your application of it was.

Since you need it spelled out, I'll do some spelling.

Human nature is more complicated than black and white qualities. Yin Yang is a useful concept for all kinds of complementary qualities - and it does not prove a thing on gay marriage, because YOU fail to grasp the human qualities involved. There are people who are mentally one gender and physically another (check the science), there are masculine and feminine gay men, there are masculine and feminine gay women, there are asexual people, and many other things needing more consideration than your 8-letter argument.

Gay relationships can *have* a masculine and feminine yin-yang, for example. You just embarrass yourself when you say 'yin yang' as your whole argument.

But i'm reffering to seperation along the very basic gentic level.

And there was no name calling. Name-calling is without substance. Calling Nixon an abuser of power, calling Clinton a cheater - these are not 'name-calling'.

So its okay to name call then? Dully noted. Since you displayed ignorce on where simple things such as the concept of yin-yang and couldn't even find the correct % of gay people in the united states - i guess it wouldn't be name calling to call you:

ignorant.

or maybe piss-poor google skillz - drat, but thas not a name
[/quote]

No, you would simple be saying something false because of your own ignorance. You mistook a criticism of your terrible misuse of the phrase Yin-Yang and made a wtong assumption from the criticism; and now you make an attack with nothing to support it about he percent of gays in America. I don't know where that came from, but I'll bet I've done a lot more research on the topic than you have - and one thing you would know, if you did a little more research, is how widely the estimates vary.

You're wrong, and looking foolish the more you try to attack out of your errors.

I'm ignorang on countless things, and have no shame to say so, but not the things you are wrongly spewing.

Calling people who demanded 'seperate but equal', who demanded 'white and black' drinking fountains, is not name-calling.

And calling someone who denies equal rights to a group for no reason other than an irrational view of that group a bigot is not name-calling, either.
[/quote]


Wait equal rights or new rights? Last time i checked no one has had the right to marry the same sex. I don't have the right to marry a man (i'm male btw), so how are you claiming equal rights?

If you want something new, why not be honest and ask for it.
[/quote]

Just wow. Are you that confused? The ban on slavery gave former slaves a new right, and it gave them equality. The two are not exclusive.

The current law has unjustified discrimination. Removing that discrimination would give gays equality on marriage, and the new equal right to marry.

What is confusing for you?

Yes, the word bigot can be name-calling. Saying that if you oppose reperations you're automatically a bigot, if the thought of gay sex digsusts you you're a bigot - name-calling.

Those are not the case with your immoral harming of other people who are gay.

Too old people banging away - isn't exactly appealing, same with fat people sex. Does that make me a bigot against those people? honestly i don't care what people do, or who they do it with. And just becaus i don't want to know the details, makes me a bigot? you are very strange.
[/quote]

As I said, there's no problem with your being disgusted by gay sex. That may make you bigoted or not, I'm unsure; I'm a bigot too, if it does.

However, choosing to prevent them from the equal right to marry certainly is an acto of bigotry, and it is immoral.

Why you are so confused that you respond to the issue of denying equal marital rights with not wanting to watch fat people have sex, well, watching you argue is like fat sex.[/quote]

Because, and i quote:

if the thought of gay sex digsusts you you're a bigot

Your words not mine. Not trying to confuse the issue, but your the one making that claim not me. I was just trying to clarify if the same logical applies to other groups of people having sex. I mean if a person finds it un appealing, then they are considered a "bigot' toward that group. Like i said - your very strange.

 

[Craig234]

Ok, let me clarify, is the a law ANYWHERE in this country that says: if you are gay, you can not marry?

Wow, I have to repeat this for a third time to you. I'll just put the same explanatory analogy I wrote earlier in this thread again:

This comes up a lot among the bigots who oppose gay marriage, so I'll comment on it.

Analogy: gay marriage and inter-racial marriage. Inter-racial marriage was illegal in 13 states as late as 1967, until overturned by the 'Loving' ruling (love the name, huh).

The fallacy is when you place discrimination into the law, and then say wanting the discrimination removed is wanting special treatment.

Consider: "A marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race".

Mixed couple says, "hey, wait a second! That's discrimination!"

Bigot says, "No, it's not. You have the *same rights* to marry anyone of the opposite gender and same race that anyone else has. No discrimination.

You want to get to marry someone outside the law of a different race - you want special treatment!"

Mixed couples says, "But not everyone is in love with someone of a different race - the definition is discriminatory."

But i'm reffering to seperation along the very basic gentic level.

No, you are posting half-ass gobbledygook throwing out 'yin-yang' and 'genetics' to try and hope it sounds like you have justification for your discrimination, when you don't.

This is very common among bigots - they look for innocent-sounding explanations for the discrimination.

For example, I was watching some old Edward R. Murrow last night, from 1955, and he showed a clip interviewing a southern Senator who was explaining why he opposed the admission of Hawaaii as a state. He gave a hysterical answer about their being a communist economy there.

Then, he showed a clip interviewing someone else about the Senator, who explained that the Senator's real objection was that he didn't like the dark-skinned people, and didn't want to admit a whole state full of them. You see that sort of thing a lot. You say nothing against the issues as laid out on the discrimination here.

Yes, the word bigot can be name-calling. Saying that if you oppose reperations you're automatically a bigot, if the thought of gay sex digsusts you you're a bigot - name-calling.

You got it backwards. I was saying you are NOT a bigot for feeling that way.

The topic came up of when 'bigot' is and is not name-calling, and I was laying out some cases for each. In the list of cases where it is name-calling, because it's not accurate, I used the example of if someone called you a bigot for feeling disgusted by same-gender sex. You are not a bigot for feeling that way. It's when you put the discrimination in the law.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Most of America doesn't want the gay agenda perpertuated. Just look at the votes.

This isn't something people want.

My state is proposing bills to prevent most of the gay agenda and I'm quite proud of my representatives.

And that would make you a fvcking scumbag.

Imagine if it was the other way around (hypothetically), and you were one of the straights who wasnt allowed to marry the woman you love, or have visitation rights at the hospital, were prevented from adopting a child, etc... How the fvck would that make you feel, a$$hole?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Gender is now a surgical choice. Without a DNA test, who is male or female? My old dictionary defines marriage as an intimate union, state of legal union. No one man, one woman or sacred ceremony mentioned. MaCarthyism born again with a new enemy and will be remembered as the same political sickness.

 

[thraashman]

I forgot about this thread after my initial post in it. Since then the idiot argument of polygamy vs gay marriage has come up. So I'm going to do a list as to why the legal argument is different between these two.

Reasonable arguments against polygamy:
1. Insurance. Most companies are obligated to provide spousal insurance to their employees. By adding the ability to have multiple spouses you place an unfair financial burden.
2. Inheritance. In the situation where no will exists, inheritance among heirs becomes more complicated when you factor in multiple spouses, the children of spouses and so on
3. Exclusivity. Marriage is an exclusive state. Once in it you cannot be in it again. Like a light switch, once turned on you cannot turn on the light again until you turn it off first.
4. Morality - Scratch that one, I said reasonable arguments, and we do not legislate morality in this country.

Those are just the initial thoughts that jumped in my head. Given time I could come up with many more.

Reasonable arguments against gay marriage:
1. .. ..... Um .... Hmmmm ... ok
2. well ... ummmm ... yeah.

Ok, so I've got nothing for this one. It's not that I can't think of any reasonable arugments, it's that no intelligent person can have a reasonable argument against it.