Why are so many Republicans intolerant and hateful?

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: azazyel
MSUEngineer-

This looks like something you'd support...

http://www.newswatch50.com/entertainmen...d=8D8F4984-70D9-41AD-8872-D0E0AEDC0997

Unmarried Couple Denied Right to Move In

A Missouri couple say they were denied an occupancy permit for their new home because they're not married.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving have been together for 13 years and have three children, ages 8, 10 and 15, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The couple are appealing the occupancy permit denial from the Black Jack, Mo., board of adjustment, which requires people living together to have blood, marriage or adoption ties. Loving is not the father of Shelltrack's oldest child.

I was basically told, you can have one child living in your house if you're not married, but more than that, you can't, Shelltrack told the newspaper.

This is about the definition of family, not if they're married or not, Mayor Normal McCourt said. It's what cities do to maintain the housing and to hold down overcrowding.

Of course he doesn't agree with it. There are no homosexuals involved.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: MSUEngineer

No I don't agree with the town. But, you are completely missing what I am arguing. The federal government should not actively promote promiscuous lifestyles. This is what it would be doing if it legalized homosexual marriage. Finally, you're pulling the old trick of putting the other person down in a debate because you do not know how to defend what you believe.

Oh please, do you really think that the government should promote any type of lifestyle? Do you really believe that the government should regulate marriage in any way? The only reason that I have come up with for why the government is involved w/ marriage in the first place is for the distribution of wealth. That's it.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: MSUEngineer

No I don't agree with the town. But, you are completely missing what I am arguing. The federal government should not actively promote promiscuous lifestyles. This is what it would be doing if it legalized homosexual marriage. Finally, you're pulling the old trick of putting the other person down in a debate because you do not know how to defend what you believe.

are you even attempting to have a coherent stance??

call me crazy, but it sounds like you're claiming that homosexuals are promiscuous. firstly, you haven't even begun to prove that that is true. secondly, even if it were true, then it follows that you would support legislation to deny rights to all promiscuous people. but you wouldn't, would you?

and about your claim that homosexuality leads to AIDs - it doesn't! unprotected an@l sex causes AIDs. so what you're really saying is that people who having an@l sex should be protected from themselves. logically, you would support legislation that denys rights to all people, hetero or homo, that engages in unprotected an@l sex. but you wouldn't, would you?

hmmm, is "anal" blocked on here? guess not. oh well

oh yeah... MSUEngineer shouldn't consider joining the debate club on campus.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: MSUEngineer
No I don't agree with the town. But, you are completely missing what I am arguing. The federal government should not actively promote promiscuous lifestyles. This is what it would be doing if it legalized homosexual marriage. Finally, you're pulling the old trick of putting the other person down in a debate because you do not know how to defend what you believe.

How does legalizing marriage promote promiscuity? I would think it would do the opposite, that is, promote exclusivity.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: MSUEngineer
No I don't agree with the town. But, you are completely missing what I am arguing. The federal government should not actively promote promiscuous lifestyles. This is what it would be doing if it legalized homosexual marriage. Finally, you're pulling the old trick of putting the other person down in a debate because you do not know how to defend what you believe.

How does legalizing marriage promote promiscuity? I would think it would do the opposite, that is, promote exclusivity.

He's obviously thinking that heterosexual marriage never involves promiscuity. This BS about marriage being sacred is just that, BS. Divorce rates in this country are around 50%, we see shows on tv like "who wants to marry a midget", Britney Spears gets married for 24 hours. Yep, sure seems sacred to me. I'm willing to bet that when (yes I said when, not if) gay marriage is legal, that divorce rates will go down. Reason, they've had to work and fight for that right. When people do that they tend to appreciate it a little more than when it just gets handed to them.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: MSUEngineer
No I don't agree with the town. But, you are completely missing what I am arguing. The federal government should not actively promote promiscuous lifestyles. This is what it would be doing if it legalized homosexual marriage. Finally, you're pulling the old trick of putting the other person down in a debate because you do not know how to defend what you believe.

How does legalizing marriage promote promiscuity? I would think it would do the opposite, that is, promote exclusivity.

Yeah it would promote exclusivity, and more importantly individual rights. MSUEngineer, are you against individual rights?

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
Hey genius, what do you think almost all of our laws are based off of? Our entire society is influenced greatly by Christianity, including YOU, the self proclaimed theist hater.

Uh, it is?

I thought most of the Founding Fathers were deists or even atheists?

The founding fathers are not the founders of our society, they formed our government. Our society's roots go way farther back...

In other words, we should go back to Aristotelion ethics and the Greek model of life as that is the widely acknowledged beginning of western thought? Unless you go all the way back, you will find that the roots of everything that followed were born from those who came before them. Our society has been one slow shift in geography and values that has spanned millenia and it is impossible to determine with any precision where one society that follows from another begins and the fading one ends. Any judgement on that would be abitrary and meaningless.

Funny thing about the Ancient Greeks and homosexuality though...

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
Hey genius, what do you think almost all of our laws are based off of? Our entire society is influenced greatly by Christianity, including YOU, the self proclaimed theist hater.

Uh, it is?

I thought most of the Founding Fathers were deists or even atheists?

The founding fathers are not the founders of our society, they formed our government. Our society's roots go way farther back...

In other words, we should go back to Aristotelion ethics and the Greek model of life as that is the widely acknowledged beginning of western thought? Unless you go all the way back, you will find that the roots of everything that followed were born from those who came before them. Our society has been one slow shift in geography and values that has spanned millenia and it is impossible to determine with any precision where one society that follows from another begins and the fading one ends. Any judgement on that would be abitrary and meaningless.

Funny thing about the Ancient Greeks and homosexuality though...

They invented western thought and ....... buggery.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: MSUEngineer
No I don't agree with the town. But, you are completely missing what I am arguing. The federal government should not actively promote promiscuous lifestyles. This is what it would be doing if it legalized homosexual marriage. Finally, you're pulling the old trick of putting the other person down in a debate because you do not know how to defend what you believe.

How does legalizing marriage promote promiscuity? I would think it would do the opposite, that is, promote exclusivity.

Dang it. I was reading his crap at work and want to post exactly what you did! :thumbsup:


MSU if you don't mind answering MonkeyKs and my question.

How does legalizing marriage promote promiscuity in homosexual partners?

(I'll give you a hint........ It doesn't :laugh: )


So were you just mistaken or is your opposition to gay marriage not based on "promoting an unsafe lifestyle"?

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: MSUEngineer
No I don't agree with the town. But, you are completely missing what I am arguing. The federal government should not actively promote promiscuous lifestyles. This is what it would be doing if it legalized homosexual marriage. Finally, you're pulling the old trick of putting the other person down in a debate because you do not know how to defend what you believe.

How does legalizing marriage promote promiscuity? I would think it would do the opposite, that is, promote exclusivity.

Yeah it would promote exclusivity, and more importantly individual rights. MSUEngineer, are you against individual rights?

Why does he hate america?

 

[Pens1566]

I bet he won't be back to tell us. Continue discussion.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: coolkatz321Let me start off by saying that I am not gay, but I do have a problem with people who are against gay marriage.

And you or they are "intolerant and hateful". If these are your values, why aren't you standing by them?

George Bush hates gays- you can try to deny this all you want, but it's pretty obvious to me. He doesn't want gays to adopt children, and then gives an even worse reason than that.

Non sequitur.

I saw Rick Santorum talk about gay marriage, an I felt it was pretty disgusting what he was saying. He claimed that the household wouldn't be a good one with two members of the same sex as parents. Well what about all the domestic abuse that happens in this country? Isn't it possible that a child could lead a perfectly normal life with 2 members of the same sex as parents?

Comment about domestic abuse is irrelevant, or if anything promotes the need for intolerance by saying some sorts of families are bad.

I think Republicans need to give it up and stop all the hate.

Hate has nothing to do with the points you mentioned.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Abraxas

In other words, we should go back to Aristotelion ethics and the Greek model of life as that is the widely acknowledged beginning of western thought? Unless you go all the way back, you will find that the roots of everything that followed were born from those who came before them. Our society has been one slow shift in geography and values that has spanned millenia and it is impossible to determine with any precision where one society that follows from another begins and the fading one ends. Any judgement on that would be abitrary and meaningless.

Funny thing about the Ancient Greeks and homosexuality though...

They invented western thought and ....... buggery.

Oh very much so. Some things about the sexuality of the Ancient Greeks would make our Conservative Christian friends' heads explode if proposed today.

For example, in Sparta, homosexuality wasn't merely optional, it was mandatory. All young men were trained in homosexual relationships.

 

[Paratus]

I would like to hear a legitmate reason behind banning gay marriage.

The US government sees fit to subsidize marriage, over other co-habitation modes, with tax breaks (er penalties), special laws, and what not to promote societal stability. Married couples have higher earnings, have certain healt benefits, etc. Why shouldn't this apply to same sex couples as well? It would benefit the US the same as hetero couples.


This is not real hard to see here folks.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Paratus
I would like to hear a legitmate reason behind banning gay marriage.

The US government sees fit to subsidize marriage, over other co-habitation modes, with tax breaks (er penalties), special laws, and what not to promote societal stability. Married couples have higher earnings, have certain healt benefits, etc. Why shouldn't this apply to same sex couples as well? It would benefit the US the same as hetero couples.


This is not real hard to see here folks.

But, we can't let that happen!! it would spread teh gay !! :shocked:

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Paratus
I would like to hear a legitmate reason behind banning gay marriage.

The US government sees fit to subsidize marriage, over other co-habitation modes, with tax breaks (er penalties), special laws, and what not to promote societal stability. Married couples have higher earnings, have certain healt benefits, etc. Why shouldn't this apply to same sex couples as well? It would benefit the US the same as hetero couples.


This is not real hard to see here folks.

But, we can't let that happen!! it would spread teh gay !! :shocked:

I do wonder how much of it really is people thinking that.

I'm a married guy living in Texas and have heard that more than a few times.


(also reminds me of this bit from Stripes
Recruiter: Now, are either of you homosexuals?
John Winger: You mean like flaming? Or part time?
Recruiter: Well, it's a question we have to ask of all our new recruits.
Russell Ziskey: No, we're not homosexual, but we are willing to learn

 

[Pens1566]

There isn't a valid reason. Its treating a human being as less than a human being, and not affording them the same rights as others.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Paratus
I would like to hear a legitmate reason behind banning gay marriage.

The US government sees fit to subsidize marriage, over other co-habitation modes, with tax breaks (er penalties), special laws, and what not to promote societal stability. Married couples have higher earnings, have certain healt benefits, etc. Why shouldn't this apply to same sex couples as well? It would benefit the US the same as hetero couples.

This is not real hard to see here folks.

Acting in support of sexual deviance does not promote societal stability but rather further erodes the basis of society creating a non-society which is just the totality of individuals.

 

[Abraxas]

And what do you mean by deviant beyond "gay"? Deviant from what exactly?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Paratus
I would like to hear a legitmate reason behind banning gay marriage.

The US government sees fit to subsidize marriage, over other co-habitation modes, with tax breaks (er penalties), special laws, and what not to promote societal stability. Married couples have higher earnings, have certain healt benefits, etc. Why shouldn't this apply to same sex couples as well? It would benefit the US the same as hetero couples.

This is not real hard to see here folks.

Acting in support of sexual deviance does not promote societal stability but rather further erodes the basis of society creating a non-society which is just the totality of individuals.

And how is this "sexual deviance" any different from social deviant behavior like, drinking, smoking, hunting (you're killing animals...thats pretty deviant)

should we outlaw drinking/smoking/hunting too?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Paratus
I would like to hear a legitmate reason behind banning gay marriage.

The US government sees fit to subsidize marriage, over other co-habitation modes, with tax breaks (er penalties), special laws, and what not to promote societal stability. Married couples have higher earnings, have certain healt benefits, etc. Why shouldn't this apply to same sex couples as well? It would benefit the US the same as hetero couples.

This is not real hard to see here folks.

Acting in support of sexual deviance does not promote societal stability but rather further erodes the basis of society creating a non-society which is just the totality of individuals.

N0 it doesn't - it promotes respect for others..

We could just move towards some strict law that beheads gays..

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Paratus
I would like to hear a legitmate reason behind banning gay marriage.

The US government sees fit to subsidize marriage, over other co-habitation modes, with tax breaks (er penalties), special laws, and what not to promote societal stability. Married couples have higher earnings, have certain healt benefits, etc. Why shouldn't this apply to same sex couples as well? It would benefit the US the same as hetero couples.

This is not real hard to see here folks.

Acting in support of sexual deviance does not promote societal stability but rather further erodes the basis of society creating a non-society which is just the totality of individuals.

The gist of your post seems to be that people would not be "homogenous" and therefore we wouldn't be a society?

I'm just not seeing it. Who determines deviancy between two consenting adults? Are yous asking for a nanny state where the government polices sexuallity between consenting adults?

Not sure where you going with that.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Paratus
I would like to hear a legitmate reason behind banning gay marriage.

The US government sees fit to subsidize marriage, over other co-habitation modes, with tax breaks (er penalties), special laws, and what not to promote societal stability. Married couples have higher earnings, have certain healt benefits, etc. Why shouldn't this apply to same sex couples as well? It would benefit the US the same as hetero couples.

This is not real hard to see here folks.

Acting in support of sexual deviance does not promote societal stability but rather further erodes the basis of society creating a non-society which is just the totality of individuals.

Wouldn't "sexual deviance" be something different from each person would consider normal? Such as, oh, I dunno, preachers having sex with hookers? Male heterosexuals sexually abusing young boys?

Seems homosexual activity is not deviating when the person is a homosexual.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
How does standing up for the traditional view of marriage make one hateful and intolerant?

Making laws based on christianity is wrong. We are a secular nation and it is time we act like it. To many repubs supporting Christian laws over the rights of humanity. Religious laws will never be compatible with democracy. Religious law are full of bigotry and hate.

So you have no problem with Rape, Murder, and Robbery?


Oh yes...and lying. Thats ok to.

These things are not Christian laws! In fact the Bible makes no sense. Because according to the Bible if you can justify that it's God's will, then you can justify murder. Eye for and eye and all that!

Most morality in human nature actually <gasp> existed BEFORE christianity or Judaism. OMG (goodness, not god for that G), how can that be? Pay attention to the concept of evolution and look at the behavior of social animals. Humans are a social animal. In a pack of social animals it is not a good thing to kill other members of the pack, it's customary to protect the weaker members to a degree, pack members that have taken a mate usually do not mate with other members after that, and members of a pack would not steal from other members. It's not Christianity causing this behavior you twits, it's standard animalistic social behavior that has itself evolved into something more complex as humans themselves have evolved into something more complex. Stop trying to pull your religion into and and saying that everyone should follow your religion's laws.

Hell if everyone followed Christianity's laws, I'd be breaking the law by shaving my head(Leviticus 19:27), and I should be in trouble for wearing something that is 40% cotton, 60% polyester (Leviticus 19:19).

Look at non judeo christian societies and you will find plenty of wars, murder and human sacrifice.

Humans are very territorial...including possesions, land and mates.

We have a lust for blood.

Yes and this is usually done in the name of some other religion. As long as theist create laws based on their religion we as a people can never trully be free.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: jesusfr3ak4evr
Nice post. As my screen name suggests, I'm what most of you would consider a conservative Republican Christian, while I consider myself a moderate leaning toward the Republican side.

Half of political forums(and that might be an understatement) simply bash the current president, with a few who try to defend him and are placed under strong pressure. I believe a large reason many of the liberal views are not implemented is because of our political system. The Founding Fathers deliberately made political change a slow and incremental process.

My view is, if you so strongly disagree with our nation's views [on gay rights, abortion, and other social issues], move to Canada. The U.S. is the most Christian nation(even though it doesn't seem like it) in the western world; that won't last much longer as contemporary youth are rebelling against the previous generations. And FYI, I'm a senior in public high school under a liberal curriculum, yet I still hold these views.

"Liberal" curriculum...

What, are you offended by science, math, english and shop class? :roll:

Our students are learning anything but that in a radical leftist enviroment. It is not liberal at all. Liberalism is not widespread anymore. The people on this forum who claim to be liberals are not. If the radical leftists who control our learning centers taught the stuff you listed, our country would be in a much better shape.