or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Religious Absurdity Vol 1: "I'm not gay. Go ahead, measure my asshole."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Religious Absurdity Vol 1: "I'm not gay. Go ahead, measure my asshole." - Page 4

post #121 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Who decides what's necessary?



So basically, communism or socialism. Got it.



The invisible "asshole" doesn't threaten torture in case one fails. He offers forgiveness for failing.



Gays have every right to love each other and be together, hence my support for civil unions. They don't have the right to redefine what marriage is for the remaining 90 to 95% of the population.

I never understood this argument. They aren't redefining anyone else's marriage. Your marriage does not change one iota when gays get married. You are literally unaffected. Your marriage doesn't suddenly become gay. Unless you want it to...then that's your right. Do you not want gay marriage legal because you are afraid it will trigger in you a cock binge of epic proportions?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #122 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So the principle you endorse here, people who love each other, aren't harming another party and just want to be happy is the only thing that matters? No matter the configuration, age and number of parties? Is that what you endorse?

As long as it involves consenting adults, polygamy is fine.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #123 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

As long as it involves consenting adults, polygamy is fine.

That spoke to much more than polygamy and stop hiding behind society with that consent game.

Were homosexual relationships wrong when society did not grant them the right to consent to the actions that defined them as homosexual? Did they only become "fine" with you by court decision? Stop cowering.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #124 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That spoke to much more than polygamy and stop hiding behind society with that consent game.

Were homosexual relationships wrong when society did not grant them the right to consent to the actions that defined them as homosexual? Did they only become "fine" with you by court decision? Stop cowering.

I don't know where this idea that I'm cowering is coming from. As long as two or more adults consent to participate in a relationship, I have no problem with it and I have no problem with the state recognizing it. You are the one who seems to be alternatively frothing and cowering over arguments that have been refuted thousands of times before or nuances to language that just don't exist beyond the boundaries of your ridiculous head.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #125 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Make sure to tell us which island to avoid when you lash out too far at the end. Also tell us who cornered Anders Breivik since the insane rationales that you spit out for treating people in a sub-human manner fall right in line with his craziness. I suppose he was just the cornered animal striking out against the "multikulti's" who should be yelling at themselves for his shootings.

Dude, get help.

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. My ideas are to provide universal healthcare to everyone, allow any consenting adult to marry any other(s), and to promote scientific advancement for the benefit of all of humanity. The only way those ideas sound extreme or insane is for you, yourself, to be fucking extreme and fucking insane in the first place.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #126 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't know where this idea that I'm cowering is coming from. As long as two or more adults consent to participate in a relationship, I have no problem with it and I have no problem with the state recognizing it. You are the one who seems to be alternatively frothing and cowering over arguments that have been refuted thousands of times before or nuances to language that just don't exist beyond the boundaries of your ridiculous head.

The concept of consent and nuance associated with it does not exist in my head. You've not answered the question. Did homosexual relationships only become "fine" to you when the courts ruled against sodomy laws? Plus there are ranges of consent and they shift all the time. A 12 year old girl can consent to her own health care with regard to sexual matters and drug counseling. She cannot consent though to have a wart removed. Depending upon the state she can consent to sexual relationships provided the party isn't too much older than her or even marriage before the age of consent at the federal level for most matters. She can still be an adult and not consent to certain items like having a drink.

Are you not fine with an 18 year old having a drink in their own home as an example because the state won't allow them to consent to those actions?

Stop using state endorsement to hide your own bias. It is cowardly. Discuss what is right and wrong and not what the state endorses or doesn't. In 45 or so states you'd be the guy hating gay marriage because the state doesn't permit adults to consent to it and thus it is wrong using your ridiculous reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. My ideas are to provide universal healthcare to everyone, allow any consenting adult to marry any other(s), and to promote scientific advancement for the benefit of all of humanity. The only way those ideas sound extreme or insane is for you, yourself, to be fucking extreme and fucking insane in the first place.

They are empty platitudes. Scientific advancement, the atomic bomb was quite the scientific advancement. This is bumper sticker reasoning. I'm sure you could provide universal health care if you just used the scientific advancement of bullets and guns to purge all those wonderful sub-humans who don't agree with your plan to benefit all of humanity. You can't see how ridiculous it sounds because your so pissed off at anyone who believes in a religious messiah because they might not agree with your reasoning to be a messiah yourself for all humankind.

Deliver us into utopia and free us from suffering oh mighty BR! Punish the sub-humans who withhold their brains and livelihood and desire to use them for their own benefit instead of the benefit of society. Use those scientific advancements to adjust their perspective a little and if it won't be adjusted what are a few broken eggs when making the omelet of utopia.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #127 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I never understood this argument. They aren't redefining anyone else's marriage. Your marriage does not change one iota when gays get married. You are literally unaffected. Your marriage doesn't suddenly become gay. Unless you want it to...then that's your right. Do you not want gay marriage legal because you are afraid it will trigger in you a cock binge of epic proportions?

I didn't claim it affected my marriage. I said it redefines marriage. You can pretend that gay marriage was a common thing throughout history and has been accepted by everyone except government, but you'd be wrong. Civilization on the whole defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. What gay marriage proponents want is to change that definition, and not just in government. I don't support that for the reasons I detailed:
  • It's not a clear cut civil rights issue, like race is.
  • It starts down a slippery slope of altering the definition for other groups.
  • Governments can recognize gay unions without changing the definition of marriage.
  • The government should not participate in redefining a cultural and religious institution.

Those are my reasons. I support civil unions. I am also done defending myself to you. It is not my job to argue against your demented vision, which I've detailed below.

BR's Credo
  • All opponents of gay marriage are wrong.
  • All opponents of gay marriage are bigoted.
  • All opponents of gay marriage are hateful.
  • All opponents of gay marriage are pushing their religion on someone else

and...
  • BR "has morals."
  • BR is the moral judge of this planet.
  • People who have traditional morals are actually immoral.
  • Fuck! Stupid! Bigot! Racist! Poor hating! Cock. Balls!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #128 of 221
I'm a long-time-married heterosexual with no homosexual tendencies (that I'm aware of )

But I fail to see why I should care if two homosexuals wish to live together the same way my wife and I do. Why should I feel it's necessary to stop that?... It certainly doesn't diminish OUR relationship.
My marriage doesn't have anything to do with anyone's "god" ... It's a pact between two consenting adults (we happen to be of different sexes) that's recognized by the state for legal/taxation purposes. What is the reason that two men or two women (or even polygamous relationships) shouldn't be afforded the same rights??? ... "Civil Union" or "Marriage" is just a matter of semantics. THEY MEAN THE SAME THING!!!

The only place where those terms have different meanings is within a religion... And our government is not supposed to be cowed by religion.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #129 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I didn't claim it affected my marriage. I said it redefines marriage. You can pretend that gay marriage was a common thing throughout history and has been accepted by everyone except government, but you'd be wrong. Civilization on the whole defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. What gay marriage proponents want is to change that definition, and not just in government. I don't support that for the reasons I detailed:

Setting aside for a moment that I disagree with your statement that marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman for thousands of years...

Assuming your premise that it "redefines" marriage as true, and taking into account that you "didn't claim it affected [your] marriage," why the fuck does it matter so much to you then? Have we, as a society, never redefined anything? Have definitions not evolved over time (sometimes becoming more inclusive in the process)?

I don't understand your objection. You're saying gays can't get married because it dilutes the English language? Is that really your argument here?

Fuck, your political team has redefined a shit ton of words. Here's a few:
  • Liberal
  • Social Justice
  • Socialism
  • Rich
  • Fair
  • Compromise
  • Revenue

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #130 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The concept of consent and nuance associated with it does not exist in my head. You've not answered the question. Did homosexual relationships only become "fine" to you when the courts ruled against sodomy laws? Plus there are ranges of consent and they shift all the time. A 12 year old girl can consent to her own health care with regard to sexual matters and drug counseling. She cannot consent though to have a wart removed. Depending upon the state she can consent to sexual relationships provided the party isn't too much older than her or even marriage before the age of consent at the federal level for most matters. She can still be an adult and not consent to certain items like having a drink.

It has to do with brain and social development. You're simply wrong on this issue. Homosexuality was never a consent issue.

And the answer is yes, if through human development, we reach an age where a twelve year old can take full responsibility to matters of his or her sexual behavior, perhaps the age of consent as defined will be reduced; or perhaps a twenty year old becomes less able to make an informed decision, and the age of consent could be increased (as it has been in the past). And yes, it is up to the courts -- through scientific advice -- to decide either an age threshold or another threshold based on some as of yet undiscovered measurable criteria (a far better method, in my opinion).

The thing you're doing on this is ignoring the part science plays in this. It is not simply the opinion of society, as you are trying to suggest.

But legal (not social) construct or not, there is still the issue of consent. Homosexual sex is not a consent issue. Underage sex is. Inter-species sex is as well. It is simply impossible for someone who is intellectually honest to deny this.

And you're wrong about animals as well. Bestiality is a consent issue. A dog may want to fuck your wife because of a biological urge, but it still cannot communicate to us in any way that it is making an intelligent decision whether or not it should do so for its own good, or having considered all the possible consequences. In other words, it cannot consent.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the meaning of consent in this context. It means mutual consent. Your wife can consent, but the dog cannot (due to the inability to communicate). Your priest can consent, but the altar boy cannot (due to the relative cognitive inability to make informed, independent decisions). Two gay men can both consent.
post #131 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It has to do with brain and social development. You're simply wrong on this issue. Homosexuality was never a consent issue.

Well the strident proclamations that I'm wrong really don't do much to address the matter. The reality is that the American Psychological Association used to declare Homosexuality a disorder. The reality is that various states outlawed the actions necessary to engage in homosexual relations and that homosexual advocacy groups challenged these laws. Lawrence vs. Texas is not something I am simply wrong on. It is not something I made up. The ruling follows the same legal reasoning as that related to marriage and comes to the same conclusions with regard to legitimate state interest and declaring that procreation, historical understanding and majority desires are not considered compelling state interests.

Consent is nothing more than the state defining their interests and declaring you are "fine" with consent is nothing more than you expressing your historical understandings or siding with majority interests. Stop cowering behind consent and discuss this matter openly.

Quote:
And the answer is yes, if through human development, we reach an age where a twelve year old can take full responsibility to matters of his or her sexual behavior, perhaps the age of consent as defined will be reduced; or perhaps a twenty year old becomes less able to make an informed decision, and the age of consent could be increased (as it has been in the past). And yes, it is up to the courts -- through scientific advice -- to decide either an age threshold or another threshold based on some as of yet undiscovered measurable criteria (a far better method, in my opinion).

Do you really think rights should be subject to the whims of a a judge in a particular state? Why are you shunning your responsibility to advocate and express what you believe and what is right or wrong here? You come down so hard on others who won't express their views in other threads and here you are hiding in the worst possible fashion. It's no different than a president who hands his leadership off to a commission to make recommendations rather than being where the buck stops.

Courts for now have found more often against homosexual marriage than for it. Does that mean they are right and you support their decisions?

Quote:
The thing you're doing on this is ignoring the part science plays in this. It is not simply the opinion of society, as you are trying to suggest.

To be polite, you are high as a kite. You are condemning people for enforcing their prejudice by declaring it comes from a book of fables. Meanwhile you have your own circle of prejudice albeit slightly wider than the first circle that you refuse to even DEFINE because you are cowering behind the concept of court rulings and consent to define what is right or wrong. You refuse to even state what you would do if in disagreement with the court. You've ignore the entire history or ruling brought up and dismissed them as a made up matter declaring they never existed.

Courts never ruled that African-Americans were property. I'm making shit up.
Courts never ruled that separate but equal is fine. I'm making shit up.
Courts have ruled that the Patriot Act is legal so you must support it.
Courts have ruled that Guantanamo can remain open so you must support that.

I could go on but really, you're talking nonsense and hiding so you don't have to discuss and attempt to justify your own prejudices. There is no way to justify them beyond historic precedent, societal interest often related to conception and majority rule. The court has found against that reasoning which means they have found against matters you may or may not support as they haven't been challenged in court yet.

Quote:
But legal (not social) construct or not, there is still the issue of consent. Homosexual sex is not a consent issue. Underage sex is. Inter-species sex is as well. It is simply impossible for someone who is intellectually honest to deny this.

It is you who are being dishonest here. Underage sex is only a consent issue because no court has found against the right of the state to withdraw consent. I've also cited multiple example historical and present day that involve adults that you simply ignore.

Prostitution is between consenting adults. It is a crime and the desire of the parties to consent to it is denied. Are you saying that because the courts have upheld this, that it is scientific, right and you support it? Sodomy was no different until Lawrence vs. Texas.

Stop hiding. Stop being a coward. Answer the questions put to you on these points and stop repeating yourself while ignoring the points made.

Quote:
And you're wrong about animals as well. Bestiality is a consent issue. A dog may want to fuck your wife because of a biological urge, but it still cannot communicate to us in any way that it is making an intelligent decision whether or not it should do so for its own good, or having considered all the possible consequences. In other words, it cannot consent.

Wrong. Animals do not have rights. When people are charged in crimes related to them, they do not put the animal up on the stand as a victim. They are not the accuser to be faced. It is not about intelligence, it is about the majority deciding right and wrong. Just like any other rights group, if they wanted to press the matter, and had enough money, the reasoning that has been found in Lawrence vs. Texas is right there. You can see how it would go. I'm familiar with the case because I believe it too broad. Why is gay marriage legal in some states and not in others, because parties haven't brought suit in those states yet. (They are likely still working through the system.) Why is fucking dogs not legal yet? You have to ask yourself who is funding the suits, who is bringing them forward and who wants to go public with it.

While still cowering behind the "consent" issue there, let us not forget Roe v. Wade. I suppose you didn't support abortion before it and if it was ruled against tomorrow I guess you'd be the one picketing Planned Parenthood.

Quote:
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the meaning of consent in this context. It means mutual consent. Your wife can consent, but the dog cannot (due to the inability to communicate). Your priest can consent, but the altar boy cannot (due to the relative cognitive inability to make informed, independent decisions). Two gay men can both consent.

I really could give a crap what you want to discuss with regard to what you imagine the definition to be. The reality is that two gay men could not consent in the past. Two gay men cannot consent to marry right now in roughly 40+ states. You refuse to discuss the deeper issue of consent being a proxy for societal endorsement. You simply hide behind the issue and repeat yourself.

Society has declared that gay men cannot consent to getting married in 40+ states. Per your reasoning, you support this, do not disagree with it, consider it to be sound science and do not wish to challenge the matter.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #132 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well the strident proclamations that I'm wrong really don't do much to address the matter. The reality is that the American Psychological Association used to declare Homosexuality a disorder. The reality is that various states outlawed the actions necessary to engage in homosexual relations and that homosexual advocacy groups challenged these laws. Lawrence vs. Texas is not something I am simply wrong on. It is not something I made up. The ruling follows the same legal reasoning as that related to marriage and comes to the same conclusions with regard to legitimate state interest and declaring that procreation, historical understanding and majority desires are not considered compelling state interests.

Consent is nothing more than the state defining their interests and declaring you are "fine" with consent is nothing more than you expressing your historical understandings or siding with majority interests. Stop cowering behind consent and discuss this matter openly.



Do you really think rights should be subject to the whims of a a judge in a particular state? Why are you shunning your responsibility to advocate and express what you believe and what is right or wrong here? You come down so hard on others who won't express their views in other threads and here you are hiding in the worst possible fashion. It's no different than a president who hands his leadership off to a commission to make recommendations rather than being where the buck stops.

Courts for now have found more often against homosexual marriage than for it. Does that mean they are right and you support their decisions?



To be polite, you are high as a kite. You are condemning people for enforcing their prejudice by declaring it comes from a book of fables. Meanwhile you have your own circle of prejudice albeit slightly wider than the first circle that you refuse to even DEFINE because you are cowering behind the concept of court rulings and consent to define what is right or wrong. You refuse to even state what you would do if in disagreement with the court. You've ignore the entire history or ruling brought up and dismissed them as a made up matter declaring they never existed.

Courts never ruled that African-Americans were property. I'm making shit up.
Courts never ruled that separate but equal is fine. I'm making shit up.
Courts have ruled that the Patriot Act is legal so you must support it.
Courts have ruled that Guantanamo can remain open so you must support that.

I could go on but really, you're talking nonsense and hiding so you don't have to discuss and attempt to justify your own prejudices. There is no way to justify them beyond historic precedent, societal interest often related to conception and majority rule. The court has found against that reasoning which means they have found against matters you may or may not support as they haven't been challenged in court yet.



It is you who are being dishonest here. Underage sex is only a consent issue because no court has found against the right of the state to withdraw consent. I've also cited multiple example historical and present day that involve adults that you simply ignore.

Prostitution is between consenting adults. It is a crime and the desire of the parties to consent to it is denied. Are you saying that because the courts have upheld this, that it is scientific, right and you support it? Sodomy was no different until Lawrence vs. Texas.

Stop hiding. Stop being a coward. Answer the questions put to you on these points and stop repeating yourself while ignoring the points made.



Wrong. Animals do not have rights. When people are charged in crimes related to them, they do not put the animal up on the stand as a victim. They are not the accuser to be faced. It is not about intelligence, it is about the majority deciding right and wrong. Just like any other rights group, if they wanted to press the matter, and had enough money, the reasoning that has been found in Lawrence vs. Texas is right there. You can see how it would go. I'm familiar with the case because I believe it too broad. Why is gay marriage legal in some states and not in others, because parties haven't brought suit in those states yet. (They are likely still working through the system.) Why is fucking dogs not legal yet? You have to ask yourself who is funding the suits, who is bringing them forward and who wants to go public with it.

While still cowering behind the "consent" issue there, let us not forget Roe v. Wade. I suppose you didn't support abortion before it and if it was ruled against tomorrow I guess you'd be the one picketing Planned Parenthood.



I really could give a crap what you want to discuss with regard to what you imagine the definition to be. The reality is that two gay men could not consent in the past. Two gay men cannot consent to marry right now in roughly 40+ states. You refuse to discuss the deeper issue of consent being a proxy for societal endorsement. You simply hide behind the issue and repeat yourself.

Society has declared that gay men cannot consent to getting married in 40+ states. Per your reasoning, you support this, do not disagree with it, consider it to be sound science and do not wish to challenge the matter.

It's clear that you simply don't understand what something being a consent issue means. Your point on prostitution proves this. It's clearly not a consent issue, never has been, and you bringing it into this argument makes it clear that you're mixing up consent with legality.
post #133 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's clear that you simply don't understand what something being a consent issue means. Your point on prostitution proves this. It's clearly not a consent issue, never has been, and you bringing it into this argument makes it clear that you're mixing up consent with legality.



Go back several posts. I already addressed that. You're chasing your tail at this point to avoid addressing the matter.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #134 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



Go back several posts. I already addressed that. You're chasing your tail at this point to avoid addressing the matter.

You already addressed the fact that I'm talking about the issue of consent, meaning what people (and animals) can make a reasonably mature, informed, independent decision about what they allow others to do to them, and that such consent has to be mutual, and you're talking about something else entirely?
post #135 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

I'm a long-time-married heterosexual with no homosexual tendencies (that I'm aware of )

But I fail to see why I should care if two homosexuals wish to live together the same way my wife and I do. Why should I feel it's necessary to stop that?... It certainly doesn't diminish OUR relationship.
My marriage doesn't have anything to do with anyone's "god" ... It's a pact between two consenting adults (we happen to be of different sexes) that's recognized by the state for legal/taxation purposes. What is the reason that two men or two women (or even polygamous relationships) shouldn't be afforded the same rights??? ... "Civil Union" or "Marriage" is just a matter of semantics. THEY MEAN THE SAME THING!!!

The only place where those terms have different meanings is within a religion... And our government is not supposed to be cowed by religion.

Two different arguments. I don't care if two homosexuals live the way I do either. In fact, I want them to have the same rights I do in that regard. What I oppose is pushing their views onto society by redefining one of its oldest institutions. Civil unions are the way to go. It gives everyone the rights they deserve without attempting to have the government redefine a societal norm.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #136 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Setting aside for a moment that I disagree with your statement that marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman for thousands of years...

Might as well put it aside, because you're wrong. Most societies have defined it this way.

Quote:

Assuming your premise that it "redefines" marriage as true, and taking into account that you "didn't claim it affected [your] marriage," why the fuck does it matter so much to you then? Have we, as a society, never redefined anything? Have definitions not evolved over time (sometimes becoming more inclusive in the process)?

I "claimed" that because it doesn't. But I do take issue with redefining the pillars of modern society without very clear reasons and serious consideration. I am concerned about what other societal institutions will be redefined for political reasons or current trends. I also think it sets a terrible precedent. If we can redefine the institution of marriage for this reason, we can redefine it for other reasons. It won't matter what the reason is, really. We can just find some evidence that some people are born a certain way and with certain tendencies. Then we can redefine marriage again, or anything else for that matter. Today it's gay marriage, tomorrow it's polygamy and bigamy. After that, perhaps we'll show that the brains of pedophiles are different at birth. So we'll them to marry children . Now I realize, there is no mass movement supporting these things. But there could be. And what is the difference between them and gay marriage?

Quote:

I don't understand your objection. You're saying gays can't get married because it dilutes the English language? Is that really your argument here?

Nice try. That one's been used for years. Yes, it's a word. It's a word with meaning.
Quote:

Fuck, your political team has redefined a shit ton of words. Here's a few:
  • Liberal
  • Social Justice
  • Socialism
  • Rich
  • Fair
  • Compromise
  • Revenue


I'm pretty sure your team has done the redefining on those. Here is the Democratic version:
  • Statist
  • Equality of outcome
  • Government
  • People that make more than $200,000 a year.
  • Take from those that produce
  • Compromise
  • Taxes
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #137 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You already addressed the fact that I'm talking about the issue of consent, meaning what people (and animals) can make a reasonably mature, informed, independent decision about what they allow others to do to them, and that such consent has to be mutual, and you're talking about something else entirely?

Everyone can read what you have ducked and failed to address. They can see the cowardice in the writing. I'm more than happy to let it stand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Two different arguments. I don't care if two homosexuals live the way I do either. In fact, I want them to have the same rights I do in that regard. What I oppose is pushing their views onto society by redefining one of its oldest institutions. Civil unions are the way to go. It gives everyone the rights they deserve without attempting to have the government redefine a societal norm.

Government redefines norms all the time. Employment, that used to be a norm and they did away with that. Solvency, they did away with that norm as well. Rule of law, another concept they've gotten rid of as well.

It's time to shrug SDW. Marriage is the most ridiculous contract out there today as defined by the government. You've been divorced so you should know and understand that no-fault divorce is in no form biblical. If marriage is a commitment then it shouldn't be easier to get out of than your cell phone contract.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #138 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Might as well put it aside, because you're wrong. Most societies have defined it this way.



I "claimed" that because it doesn't. But I do take issue with redefining the pillars of modern society without very clear reasons and serious consideration. I am concerned about what other societal institutions will be redefined for political reasons or current trends. I also think it sets a terrible precedent. If we can redefine the institution of marriage for this reason, we can redefine it for other reasons. It won't matter what the reason is, really. We can just find some evidence that some people are born a certain way and with certain tendencies. Then we can redefine marriage again, or anything else for that matter. Today it's gay marriage, tomorrow it's polygamy and bigamy. After that, perhaps we'll show that the brains of pedophiles are different at birth. So we'll them to marry children . Now I realize, there is no mass movement supporting these things. But there could be. And what is the difference between them and gay marriage?



Nice try. That one's been used for years. Yes, it's a word. It's a word with meaning.

So in essence you are making a slippery slope argument. If we can redefine marriage to include gay couples, OH GOD WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT? See, you really haven't gotten to the root cause though. We've redefined plenty of things in our nation.

We redefined what it meant to be a person--black people now count as FULL people rather than 3/5. That was a real redefinition--but it was a progressive one so there was nothing wrong with it.

We redefined what the right to vote means. It used to mean white male land-owner. Now it means any citizen over 18. That was a real redefinition as well.

And frankly, those two examples--what it means to be a person and the right to vote--are greater pillars of our society than marriage is.

Be honest. Why is the redefinition of marriage, when we clearly have precedents to redefine terms to be more inclusive, so bad? What is your real issue with redefining THIS word? Is it that gays are icky and immoral? Is that it?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #139 of 221
Thread Starter 
Holy shit, I didn't even see your ridiculous jump to pedophilia. Really? REALLY? Consent. Consent is the difference. You REALLY can't see that? REALLY?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #140 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Holy shit, I didn't even see your ridiculous jump to pedophilia. Really? REALLY? Consent. Consent is the difference. You REALLY can't see that? REALLY?

If we can redefine marriage, why can't we redefine, say, the age of consent?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #141 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If we can redefine marriage, why can't we redefine, say, the age of consent?

Or who can consent or what to what they can consent.... yeah I've been chasing this down for pages now. They'll plead ignorance by claiming your ignorant and pick a fight.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #142 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If we can redefine marriage, why can't we redefine, say, the age of consent?

Go ahead. Base it on science and cognitive psychology. I see you largely ignored everything else I said though.

But since you are against redefining things let's go back to the days when blacks were 3/5 of a person and women couldn't vote. You know, because words have meanings.

Nice try at a dodge, but you still fail at it. This issue still boils down to the fact that you think gays are icky and immoral and you'll twist and bob and weave and do anything you can to oppress them.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #143 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Go ahead. Base it on science and cognitive psychology. I see you largely ignored everything else I said though.

Prove it is based on those concepts now. You are the one claiming the current age is based on science and cognitive psychology. Prove it. How can it be when it varies from 12 to 25 depending upon the circumstance being presented which have absolutely no rhyme or reason to them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #144 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Prove it is based on those concepts now. How can it be when it varies from 12 to 25 depending upon the circumstance being presented which have absolutely no rhyme or reason to them.

Move those goalposts. We're talking about gay marriage between consenting adults. You want to have this scientific debate? Go for it. In another thread. And after you give gays the rights they deserve.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #145 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Move those goalposts. We're talking about gay marriage between consenting adults. You want to have this scientific debate? Go for it. In another thread. And after you give gays the rights they deserve.

The goalposts are not moved. If you are going to declare that gay marriage must be adopted because societal interest cannot override individual rights when societal interest is based off majority rule, historical precedent and procreation concerns you cannot ignore those very concerns when that is what is used to determine what is a consenting adult. It is you who have moved the goalposts!

The legal definition of entering adulthood usually varies between ages 16–21, depending on the region in question. Some cultures in Africa define adult at age 13.

According to Jewish tradition, adulthood is reached at age 13 (the age of the Bar Mitzvah), for Jewish boys, for example, are expected to demonstrate preparation for adulthood by learning the Torah and other Jewish practices. The Christian Bible and Jewish scripture has no age requirement for adulthood or marrying, which includes engaging in sexual activity. The age of consent for sexual relations in the Vatican is 13,[citation needed] the age when many girls achieve menses, and are thus reproductive and therefore physically capable of marriage and childbirth. However, the Vatican does not allow sex outside of marriage.[6] The 1983 Code of Canon Law states, "A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age, and likewise a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age, cannot enter a valid marriage".[7] According to The Disappearance of Childhood by Neil Postman, the Christian Church of the Middle Ages considered the age of accountability, when a person could be tried and even executed as an adult, to be age 7.

In most of the world, including most of the United States, parts of the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Wales), India and China, the legal adult age is 18 (historically 21) for most purposes, with some notable exceptions:

The United Kingdom: Scotland (16)
British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Yukon Territory in Canada; Nebraska and Alabama in The United States, and South Korea (19)
Indonesia and Japan (20)


Hello and welcome to the reality that what is used to define consenting adult is also what was used to define traditional marriage and you cannot ignore it in one instance and apply it in another.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #146 of 221
Thread Starter 
You are not contesting the age of consent with regard to heterosexual couples. We are simply saying that you take the existing marriage framework and apply it to gay couples. Your argument would hold water if you were railing against the age of consent with regard to heterosexual marriage--but you aren't. So stop it. This is a big diversion.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #147 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are not contesting the age of consent with regard to heterosexual couples. We are simply saying that you take the existing marriage framework and apply it to gay couples. Your argument would hold water if you were railing against the age of consent with regard to heterosexual marriage--but you aren't. So stop it. This is a big diversion.

What makes you think I'm not contesting the age of consent with regard to heterosexual couples? When did I ever say that it would only apply to homosexual couples? Stop making up strawmen. I've been quite clear that all that has moved is the circle of prejudice. Folks like yourself (and actually myself since as I noted I did not vote for Prop 8 and have always support homosexual marriage when passed by legislature) are declaring your slightly widened circled to be better because it isn't based off a book of fairy tales written down by men from an invisible voice from the sky. Yet when asked examine whether your own reasoning avoids such problems you refuse.

The reason you refuse is because your reasoning utterly fails. The concept of consent, who can agree to what and at what age is based off exactly the same rationales as traditional marriage.

Your reasoning, YOUR REASONING BR is exactly the same as the "religious nutters". The foundation of it is the dark ages. There is no enlightenment to it. You'll condemn them but won't look in the mirror at yourself.

This thread and the rationale for it is PURE HYPOCRISY. If you want to move beyond that hypocrisy then look at the HISTORY of age of consent and do exactly what you demand, make consent something based off individual rights, not a bunch of nonsense and declare those rights to be correct regardless of what the majority or a court might currently say.

Anything less is cowardice.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #148 of 221
Thread Starter 
Essentially you want to make a MAJOR overhaul to the whole idea of consent and prefer to hold up the rights of homosexuals in the process. If you want to go through and make that major overhaul, fine. That's another discussion. But in the meantime, put in a fair stop-gap solution to give gays the same rights as straights.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #149 of 221
That the age of consent differs between jurisdictions is in no way an argument against the fact that the age of consent is greatly determined by scientific study of cognitive psychology. Logic, anyone?
post #150 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Essentially you want to make a MAJOR overhaul to the whole idea of consent and prefer to hold up the rights of homosexuals in the process. If you want to go through and make that major overhaul, fine. That's another discussion. But in the meantime, put in a fair stop-gap solution to give gays the same rights as straights.

Have you seriously fallen down and hit your head? Where do you keep pulling these strawmen from? The point of the thread is RELIGIOUS ABSURDITY. Where have I said ANYTHING about holding up gay marriage?

I am pointing out a RELIGIOUS ABSURDITY. You refuse to discuss it because you ENDORSE IT. You are no different than the "religious nutters" that you use as the premise of the thread. Kicking the can from the word marriage to consenting adults in no form or fashion changes the basis of the reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That the age of consent differs between jurisdictions is in no way an argument against the fact that the age of consent is greatly determined by scientific study of cognitive psychology. Logic, anyone?

Complete lack of logic on your part is more like it. The age of consent is in no form or fashion based primarily on science. Looking at historical examples and looking at science, when can someone consent to having sex Tonton? You keep claiming to be the arbiter of all things science so name it for me oh enlightened one. What age or event should determine one's right to consent to sexual matters?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #151 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Go ahead. Base it on science and cognitive psychology. I see you largely ignored everything else I said though.

But since you are against redefining things let's go back to the days when blacks were 3/5 of a person and women couldn't vote. You know, because words have meanings.

Nice try at a dodge, but you still fail at it. This issue still boils down to the fact that you think gays are icky and immoral and you'll twist and bob and weave and do anything you can to oppress them.

Arguments involving civil rights and women's rights don't relate well to this topic. Those are cases where the groups involved had no choice whatsoever. No one chooses their gender (at birth) nor their race. But there is at least SOME element of choice in this matter. There is certainly choice with regard to polygamy and pedophilia.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #152 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Arguments involving civil rights and women's rights don't relate well to this topic. Those are cases where the groups involved had no choice whatsoever. No one chooses their gender (at birth) nor their race. But there is at least SOME element of choice in this matter. There is certainly choice with regard to polygamy and pedophilia.

Everyone can choose whether or not to have sex. Gays cannot, however, choose not to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, or to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. Their life would suck if celibacy, or living a lie, is their only choice, wouldn't it?
post #153 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Everyone can choose whether or not to have sex. Gays cannot, however, choose not to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, or to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. Their life would suck if celibacy, or living a lie, is their only choice, wouldn't it?


I disagree. While many cannot, some can...and do.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #154 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree. While many cannot, some can...and do.

Then they're not gay. They're bisexual. And, even according to your admission, should we say "fuck you" to the many who cannot?
post #155 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Then they're not gay. They're bisexual. And, even according to your admission, should we say "fuck you" to the many who cannot?

And who gives a shit if it's a choice anyway? If you choose to love and commit to another consenting adult (go away Trumpet, you're off topic), why should you be stopped?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #156 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Then they're not gay. They're bisexual. And, even according to your admission, should we say "fuck you" to the many who cannot?

According to whom....you? Bisexuality is not fully understood. Some don't believe it even really exists. And what about people who are hetero and then become gay later? I work with someone like this. She dated a man for 6 years...now she's with a woman and she ID's as "gay." This is what I'm talking about. Sure, we can argue about whether she "chose" her orientation or whether she "discovered" it, but there is at least some element of choice involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And who gives a shit if it's a choice anyway? If you choose to love and commit to another consenting adult (go away Trumpet, you're off topic), why should you be stopped?

Why stop at one adult then? Why not two? Or ten? The answer is that all of it is redefining the institution of marriage. And if we redefine it for gays, we have to redefine it for just about any group in the future, including polygamists. In fact, since you argue that any two consenting adults should be able to get married, why can't I marry my sister? This is what happens when we start fucking with the meaning of established societal pillars.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #157 of 221
Thread Starter 


Heading to work...no time to really reply. However, an actual facepalm was produced here. Between the homophobia, nosiness, and slippery slopes...just wow.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #158 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post



Heading to work...no time to really reply. However, an actual facepalm was produced here. Between the homophobia, nosiness, and slippery slopes...just wow.

Homophobia? Nosieness? [sic]
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #159 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And who gives a shit if it's a choice anyway? If you choose to love and commit to another consenting adult (go away Trumpet, you're off topic), why should you be stopped?


You're bigotry posing as science is always on topic. Your biases based of history and religious precedent are on topic for this thread. Sorry if you want to hide from them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #160 of 221
Bringing incest into this does produce a massive facepalm. Science not spoken here. Ignorance abounds.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Religious Absurdity Vol 1: "I'm not gay. Go ahead, measure my asshole."