When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

[Wreckem]

I don't think that gays fall under the qualifiers to be married.
Getting married is not a right. They can be gay all they want, that is their personal choice.

Man + Woman = Qualified

Man + Man = Not Qualified

Woman + Woman = Not Qualified

That is my opinion, I don't hate them I just do not agree the lifestyle. Just because I don't agree with your liberal ideas doesn't make me wrong.

Actually marriage has been deemed a fundamental right.

And eventually you and everyone else that disagrees with gay marriage will have to accept it. Just like the racists that decried inter-racial marriage.

 

[Wreckem]

Personaly, I think the government should stop being in the marriage business and drop to just the civil union business. Marriage should also be a federal issue, as marriage has to be portable between the states. If you are part of a gay civil union in New York and enter PA, you cease to be a legal couple. That is stupid.

I also think, since we are visiting the issue of removing limitations on forming a civil union, that we should remove all limitations except the age one and a slight derivation on the genetic distance one. Polygamy...what is the justification for imprisoning these people? If a brother and sister are both sterile, what is the justification for denying them the same rights as well (genetic defects are a good reason to deny if they are not sterile...the odds are way too high to risk it).

Thats because the DOMA. The DOMA allowed states to not abide by the constitution and let states not recognize certain public records(gay marriage licenses). How the DOMA is constitutional I don't know. It clearly is a statutory law that supercedes the constitution.

For the record a straight marriage from say Texas, is recognized by every other state. Its just gay marriages in certain states are not regonized in other states.

 

[HAL9000]

I don't think that gays fall under the qualifiers to be married.
Getting married is not a right. They can be gay all they want, that is their personal choice.

No it isn't.


OP, this kind of stuff sickens me. It's insane. I hate gay bashing, how these morons get popular in the US of A is beyond me. "Objectionable"... Ugh sickening.

 

[cybrsage]

No it isn't.

It depends on if he means gay desire or gay actions. Most people do not differentiate between the two and therefor cause much confusion.

Gay desire is not a choice. Gay actions are. In this way, they are just like heterosexual extramarital desire vs heterosexual extramarital action.

 

[HAL9000]

It depends on if he means gay desire or gay actions. Most people do not differentiate between the two and therefor cause much confusion.

Gay desire is not a choice. Gay actions are. In this way, they are just like heterosexual extramarital desire vs heterosexual extramarital action.

Being gay, and denying how you feel is the wrong bit, hiding it is the wrong bit. Extramarital affairs hurt people. Being gay doesn't.

 

[JSt0rm]

It depends on if he means gay desire or gay actions. Most people do not differentiate between the two and therefor cause much confusion.

Gay desire is not a choice. Gay actions are. In this way, they are just like heterosexual extramarital desire vs heterosexual extramarital action.

But you cant legislate your religion on people.

Extramarital affairs between consenting adults arent illegal.

 

[cybrsage]

You're making shit up again.

We will never know, he refuses to actually state his view.

However, the other two selections are not any more effective:

unreasonable = It is not unreasonable to expect people to do the right thing

unsupported = It is not unsupported.

So far, nothing fits. I went with the most likely selections since all the others are blatantly wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

Cybrsage I'm curious, the bible tells me that I should stone my child to death if it is disrespectful, do you condone that?

This requires some information first, as it is not as cut and dry as it may appear.

First, the family involved (I will use you from here out since that is your example) must be Jewish and therefor bound by the law else it does not apply.
Second, the child must be found guilty in a religious court, which cannot exist today due to the loss of semicha. Thus, without a judgement there can be no penalty.
Third, child in this instance means adult child - which is age 13 and older. Younger than that, the child is not bound by The Law yet.
Fourth, parents used it as a threat, but instead actually banished children from the home who refused to stop being complete and utter pricks. Much like today when parents call the cops on their own kid and have the kid taken away because they are impossible to control.

However, if the first three were met, then the punishment would be allowed to be carried out on the child. The child would also know this to be the case.

 

[cybrsage]

But you cant legislate your religion on people.

Extramarital affairs between consenting adults arent illegal.

Never claimed them to be. Legal and right are not always the same thing.

 

[cybrsage]

Being gay, and denying how you feel is the wrong bit, hiding it is the wrong bit. Extramarital affairs hurt people. Being gay doesn't.

You are basing your view on a personal opinion. It has no more merit than mine does. You consider mine to be wrong because you disagree with it for XYZ reasons. I consider yours to be wrong because I disagree with it for XYZ reasons.

 

[HAL9000]

You are basing your view on a personal opinion. It has no more merit than mine does. You consider mine to be wrong because you disagree with it for XYZ reasons. I consider yours to be wrong because I disagree with it for XYZ reasons.

I disagree with it, because it is an empirically provable fact that people don't choose who they are attracted to.

 

[cybrsage]

I disagree with it, because it is an empirically provable fact that people don't choose who they are attracted to.

You are one of those who pretend attraction means they have no choice but to act on that attraction. Will you admit they do not have to act on their attraction? Are you able to do that? Or do you think gays have no choice but to sleep with every man/woman they see who they think is attractive?

Assuming you actually think gays have the ability to not act on their desires - like every other sane human can do, then I need to ask you to stop pretending desire and acting on that desire are the same thing. Gays are not animals, they are rational human being like the rest of us.

With that in mind, do you see why your statement makes no sense?

 

[HAL9000]

You are one of those who pretend attraction means they have no choice but to act on that attraction. Will you admit they do not have to act on their attraction? Are you able to do that? Or do you think gays have no choice but to sleep with every man/woman they see who they think is attractive?

Assuming you actually think gays have the ability to not act on their desires - like every other sane human can do, then I need to ask you to stop pretending desire and acting on that desire are the same thing. Gays are not animals, they are rational human being like the rest of us.

With that in mind, do you see why your statement makes no sense?

I accept that people can choose to have sex or not, I accept that you cannot choose who you are sexually attracted to.

Now what's your point?

 

[HeXen]

No it isn't.


OP, this kind of stuff sickens me. It's insane. I hate gay bashing, how these morons get popular in the US of A is beyond me. "Objectionable"... Ugh sickening.

i blame religion and ignorance.

 

[HAL9000]

i blame religion and ignorance.

Religion does breed ignorance.

 

[mattpegher]

You are one of those who pretend attraction means they have no choice but to act on that attraction. Will you admit they do not have to act on their attraction? Are you able to do that? Or do you think gays have no choice but to sleep with every man/woman they see who they think is attractive?

Assuming you actually think gays have the ability to not act on their desires - like every other sane human can do, then I need to ask you to stop pretending desire and acting on that desire are the same thing. Gays are not animals, they are rational human being like the rest of us.

With that in mind, do you see why your statement makes no sense?

Your argument as I see it is that gays are ethically allowed to be attracted to anyone they find themselves attracted too but not ethically allowed to engage in a relationship with that person? Do they not have the same right to engage in mutually consenting relationships like any other person? Do you feel that heterosexual couples should not engage in felatio, or cunnilingus, or female anal penetration, male anal penetration? Because these acts are performed by heterosexual couples and the government does not get involved.

Most of the empiric data suggests that homosexuality is not behavioral but a natural non-pathologic process this suggests that they "are made that way". Therefore God made homosexuals, and therefore going against their nature would be going against the will of God. Therefore God wants gays and lesbians to pair bond with the same sex. Some would argue that God is engaged in a form of population control by creating gays.

I am a heterosexual physician that has a small percentage of my patients who are gay or lesbian. I feel that it is as unethical to disallow gays to benefit from the same legally binding pair bond as the rest of society. I find it no different than interracial marriages.

And before you liken it to other "alternative sexual desires", the key is we are talking about two, mutually consenting mature adults.

 

[Broheim]

This requires some information first, as it is not as cut and dry as it may appear.

First, the family involved (I will use you from here out since that is your example) must be Jewish and therefor bound by the law else it does not apply.
Second, the child must be found guilty in a religious court, which cannot exist today due to the loss of semicha. Thus, without a judgement there can be no penalty.
Third, child in this instance means adult child - which is age 13 and older. Younger than that, the child is not bound by The Law yet.
Fourth, parents used it as a threat, but instead actually banished children from the home who refused to stop being complete and utter pricks. Much like today when parents call the cops on their own kid and have the kid taken away because they are impossible to control.

However, if the first three were met, then the punishment would be allowed to be carried out on the child. The child would also know this to be the case.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

doesn't say anything about the rule only applying to jews, the age of the child or a religious court.

 

[cybrsage]

i blame religion and ignorance.

Religion does breed ignorance.

Humanity breeds ignorance.

 

[zsdersw]

Humanity breeds ignorance.

... of which all religions are an example.

 

[cybrsage]

doesn't say anything about the rule only applying to jews, the age of the child or a religious court.

A US law does not say it only applies to humans which are within the boundaries of the United States. Yet we both know these are requirements for most US laws.

You have to start with knowing what a covenant is. A covenant is an agreement between two (or more) parties. Each side has their own requirements and expectations which have to be met. Anyone who is not a party to the agreement is not bound by the agreement. If you sign an agreement for your rent, I am not bound by your agreement - only you and the landlord are bound by it since you both agreed to it.

The rule is a religious one, I am sure you agree on that without me needing to explain it. Since it is religious, a religious court would be needed to find guilt and proclaim punishment. You do not think it was mob rule anarchy, do you?

To be a judge on a religious court, you had to first be recommended for it, second you had to accept, and third you had to receive semicha. Semicha is a direct passing on of the power to sit on the court by someone who is already authorized to sit on the court. A modern semi-related thing is the swearing in of the President. He has to be physically present with the SC Justice in order to be sworn in.

 

[cybrsage]

... of which all religions are an example.

Of which all non-religious views are an example.

 

[dank69]

Of which all non-religious views are an example.

All of them?

 

[cybrsage]

Your argument as I see it is that gays are ethically allowed to be attracted to anyone they find themselves attracted too but not ethically allowed to engage in a relationship with that person?

Correct. No more than a human and animal can ethically engage in a sexual relationship. I added the word sexual to your sentence since that is the subject we are discussing.

Do they not have the same right to engage in mutually consenting relationships like any other person?

Legally or ethically? Legally, yes. Ethically, no.

Most of the empiric data suggests that homosexuality is not behavioral but a natural non-pathologic process this suggests that they "are made that way". Therefore God made homosexuals, and therefore going against their nature would be going against the will of God. Therefore God wants gays and lesbians to pair bond with the same sex. Some would argue that God is engaged in a form of population control by creating gays.

No. You have some strange views. People are born with the predisposition towards alcoholism. If a person born this way begins to drink at all, they will become an alcoholic. Your view is that this person SHOULD be an alcoholic, otherwise they are denying their nature. That is stupid.

We expect people to deny their nature all the time. That is a requirement for any society to exist. Saying it is not is silly.

I am a heterosexual physician that has a small percentage of my patients who are gay or lesbian. I feel that it is as unethical to disallow gays to benefit from the same legally binding pair bond as the rest of society. I find it no different than interracial marriages.

Your ethical view is not more important than my ethical view. The reason you say it is more important is because it is YOUR view.

And before you liken it to other "alternative sexual desires", the key is we are talking about two, mutually consenting mature adults.

You put extreme limitations on the discussion. Why not limit it to two, mutually consenting mature opposite sex adults isntead? It is not much more limiting then the limits you placed on it.

As I said, legally I find no reason not to create the new rights for the new type of civil union. Ethics and legality are not always the same thing.

 

[cybrsage]

All of them?

All of them which were created by humans are examples of things created by humans.

I thought that was obvious.

 

[zsdersw]

All of them which were created by humans are examples of things created by humans.

I thought that was obvious.

All religions were created by humans, too.