or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ignorance about what "harms children"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ignorance about what "harms children" - Page 3

post #81 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
So. looking at this from a different perspective, if the definition of something is OPPRESSIVE, then that definition needs to be changed.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, remember, "All men are created equal" excluded blacks, because according to the definition at the time, blacks were not men. Somewhere along the line, that definition, fortunately got changed. It's time to change the (govenrnment's) definition of marriage then. Your religion can define it however the fuck they want. And so can mine.

Oh stop. "Oppressive?" No one is being oppressed. For one thing, making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country.

Secondly, and hear me well: Being gay is not comprable to being a minority race because...at least for some people...there is an element of choice involved..

Have a nice day.
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 #82 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh stop. "Oppressive?" No one is being oppressed. For one thing, making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country.

Secondly, and hear me well: Being gay is not comprable to being a minority race because...at least for some people...there is an element of choice involved..

Have a nice day.


Oh SDW! Do you notice how many of my posts begin with that?

You're going to break the needle on the idiotometer with this one.

-----------------------------------------------------------

" making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Only in your " Bizzaro World ".



You know. The one where there are really WMD somewhere in the sands of Iraq. George Bush's numbers aren't really that bad. And we should feel good about him because he's just a nice man out to help us. Selling snake oil door to door.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #83 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
So since lack of gay marriage affects you in now way whatsover you can't voice an complaint about it.

Enjoy your own asinine reasoning applied toward you? Good enjoy.



You've obviously overestimated your own importance again.



Think about the fact that you, Mr. Tolerant in your own overinflated stature, have to use the phrase gay marriage because you, I, and everyone else understand that marriage means man and woman. You have to apply gay to modify the word marriage to a new understanding.

Also you apply the criteria of harm to justify keeping the definition of marriage I already have instead of substituting another. I don't have to prove harm. I don't believe homosexual people are going to harm me. That criteria is your own. I've stated quite clearly that my criteria is the right to self-govern. I don't have to prove harm to receive that right. I don't even have to prove an interest. It is an inalienable right.



You are correct that I am not saying that. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have to piss to mark some territory of interest to be able to express my views about how society should run. I also don't have to be afraid, claim harm or express some sort of fear. Your views are the antithesis of democracy. The right to self-govern isn't granted in instances where you have an interest or don't or where someone wants to claim you shouldn't have a say because they think it isn't about you.



First it has nothing to do with me or my marriage.

I've stated clearly in this thread and others that taking one form, especially one with so much historical and religious baggage and trying to make it one size fits all is very unproductive. Heterosexual couples are abandoning marriage already for the exact reason that many of them no longer fit in nor desire the traditional constraints it demands. They don't want man as breadwinner, woman as caregiver and these roles assigned for life. Yet watch the marriage break-up and watch the family courts attempt to impose those exact roles.

It is more productive to discuss how to get the government to accept multiple relationship types rather than arguing that everyone should find a way to be stuffed into one word.



I have known many gay people who were married. When they married, they had to follow the exact same criteria I did when I got married. As for adopting a child, last I checked only Florida totally bans gay adoption. California allows joint adoption and most others allow adoption by a single gay parent with a secondary process to add the partner as a second parent. It isn't illegal but does involve a bit more work. I can't imagine someone not being allowed to see their loved one in a hospital. So many people simply live together now who are hetero as well as homosexual that there are loads of domestic partner laws.

You can leave your property to whomever you want with a will. You don't have to be married. You can leave it to your cat. As for if specific instructions, estates can be contested even if married and even with a will. Marriage wouldn't resolve that matter, but estate planning would.

As for your rights, you may have overestimated them. Try dying and watch as your girlfriend and ex-wife both fight over your estate.



Yes. I think you must be watching too many early 80's movies or something.

I'll hit the rest in the morning.

Nick

God another one of those long posts.

Well :

-----------------------------------------------------------

" I've stated clearly in this thread and others that taking one form, especially one with so much historical and religious baggage and trying to make it one size fits all is very unproductive. Heterosexual couples are abandoning marriage already for the exact reason that many of them no longer fit in nor desire the traditional constraints it demands. They don't want man as breadwinner, woman as caregiver and these roles assigned for life. Yet watch the marriage break-up and watch the family courts attempt to impose those exact roles. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

So the situation must fit the individual? Well we are in agreement with that.

As long as the same options are available to everyone.

That means marriage also.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #84 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Now you're switching argument topics because you've seen you can't win the first. The point we were arguing was the government allowing gay marriage recognition based on a hypothetical religion that required it. I've clearly shown that 1) No such religion exists, beyond mere "tolererance" of homosexuality and 2) It would create the mother of all slippery slopes.

Excuse me? Required? Allows is the word. And, you haven't shown that no such religion exists. You've proclaimed that none do without any evidence.
http://www.religious-coalition.org/
They represent a number of denominations. Ouch. What's that sound? Oh yeah, your entire argument falling apart.

And don't start in with your slippery slope dog bullshit argument again. DOGS CANNOT CONSENT! DOGS CANNOT CONSENT! GET THAT THROUGH HEAD! DOGS CANNOT CONSENT!

Quote:
But now you want to argue that the government should have nothing to do with religion. Fine. We still have to call the legal process of marriage something, be it Civil Union or be it "Two Person Cohabitation with Rights of Survivorship." It still has to be defined as something. So let's say we have a law that says "any two persons" can be engaged in this committment? This creates some problems.

First, by removing religion, you've now removed the committment before God, family and friends. Any two people can now show up at a courthouse, declare that they want to be "married" or "unionized" or whatever, and that's that. They can then get all benefits from "marriage." You want to become a legal citizen? No problem! You want to get medical benefits from your "spouse?" No problem! You don't even need to be a member of the opposite sex! I can marry my friend Dave, and still live with my "wife and family." After all, maybe Dave makes less money than my "wife" does, which will help me tax wise. We already have a high divorce rate. What do you think it will be like when this goes through? Those are just a few examples. We shouldn't take religion out of "marriage." The government now and has always legally sanctioned the holy unity between a man and woman...from any religion. Now what you want to do is extend that right to any two people, regardless of gender AND regardless of relgious committment? I realize two members of the opposite sex can now get a purely legal marriage, but now we want to go a step further?

You think people would flock to get civil unions? Are you fucking kidding me? As it stands guys often get financially fucked for getting married. You think just friends Dave and Bob really want community property? Yeah, right.

 

“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 #85 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR

By the way, do you like Lesbian porn? As a heterosexual male, the only correct answer to that is yes.

Since nobody else has answered that, I'll say "yes".


Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well since tonton claims that kids are taught that being gay is wrong, that child could develop serious issues resulting from his/her own moral judgement of the parents.

Do you really think the human psyche is that malleable? Dysfunctional families don't produce dysfunctional children, and there's no reason to believe that a gay family would be any more than a little bit disfunctional.
post #86 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh stop. "Oppressive?" No one is being oppressed. For one thing, making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country.

Secondly, and hear me well: Being gay is not comprable to being a minority race because...at least for some people...there is an element of choice involved..

Have a nice day.

I'm sure tons of gays would choose to be heterosexual if they could be. It sure brings a lot less trouble into your life.
post #87 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
I'm sure tons of gays would choose to be heterosexual if they could be. It sure brings a lot less trouble into your life.

Yeah, with people like SDW in this world, I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay.

 

“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 #88 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Yeah, with people like SDW in this world, I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay.

Suicidals, I guess.
post #89 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
As long as the same options are available to everyone.

That means marriage also.

The same options for marriage are available to everyone.

Duh.
post #90 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The same options for marriage are available to everyone.

Duh.


Don't play coy Chris. You know what I meant.


Duh!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #91 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You know what I meant.

Say what you mean. You want there to be additional options.
post #92 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The same options for marriage are available to everyone.

Duh.

100% false.

A heterosexual can marry the one they are in love with.

A homosexual cannot.

Don't ignore that difference, (I'll ignore the "i" word here)!!!!!

Is marriage not about love?
post #93 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
100% false.

You are, yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
A heterosexual can marry the one they are in love with.

Within the bounds (restrictions) of the law, yes.

If I loved my 1st cousin enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved my sister enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved my mother enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved my daughter enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved my mother enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved a married woman enough to want marry her, can I?
If I am 10 years old and I loved a woman enough to want marry her, can I?
If I am 10 years old and I loved a girl enough to want marry her, can I?
If I loved a minor girl enough to want marry her, can I?
(I am currently married) If I loved another woman enough to want marry her, can I?

A person cannot simply marry anyone they love.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
A homosexual cannot.

They certainly can, within the bounds (restrictions...the very same restrictions that everyone else lives under) of the law.
post #94 of 248
That's like saying back in the early 1900s women could participate in the election process just like everyone eles within the bounds of the law or that black people in the 40s could attend school just like everyone else within the bounds of the law...except in both of those cases as well as homosexuals today, you have to be something you aren't in order to be equal. Women would have had to be men, blacks would have had to be white, and gays now have to be straight to be treated equally (but the restrictions were the same for everyone so it has to be fair!!)


Get off your bigoted high horse, Chris. Bounds of the law my ass.

 

“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 #95 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Bounds of the law my ass.

What I illimunated was simply that the right to marry a particular person is not simply predicated on one person's love for another. There are boundaries and restrictions (for all persons). You can whine and cry all you want. But that is a simple fact of the law. If you don't like it change it (through the normal, legal, legislative processes at the disposal of all citizens).

P.S. From a legal perspective, "love" really has nothing to do with marriage.
post #96 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Excuse me? Required? Allows is the word. And, you haven't shown that no such religion exists. You've proclaimed that none do without any evidence.
http://www.religious-coalition.org/
They represent a number of denominations. Ouch. What's that sound? Oh yeah, your entire argument falling apart.

And don't start in with your slippery slope dog bullshit argument again. DOGS CANNOT CONSENT! DOGS CANNOT CONSENT! GET THAT THROUGH HEAD! DOGS CANNOT CONSENT!



You think people would flock to get civil unions? Are you fucking kidding me? As it stands guys often get financially fucked for getting married. You think just friends Dave and Bob really want community property? Yeah, right.

BR...try and listen here. Please. I specifically pointed out that we were NOT talking about religions that "allow" gay marriage. We were talking about hypothetical religions that *require* gay marriage as part of church doctrine. If such a religion existed, and it does not, the government would be preventing the practice of said religion.

You can also dismiss the problems with a civil union scenario of you like, but it's irresponsible to do so. Anyone could "marry" anyone else legally. There are certain advantages of marriage that anyone could then partake in...whether they wanted to spend their lives together or not.
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 #97 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Since nobody else has answered that, I'll say "yes".



Do you really think the human psyche is that malleable? Dysfunctional families don't produce dysfunctional children, and there's no reason to believe that a gay family would be any more than a little bit disfunctional.

He asked. I was just pointing out the possiblity.
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 #98 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
That's like saying back in the early 1900s women could participate in the election process just like everyone eles within the bounds of the law or that black people in the 40s could attend school just like everyone else within the bounds of the law...except in both of those cases as well as homosexuals today, you have to be something you aren't in order to be equal. Women would have had to be men, blacks would have had to be white, and gays now have to be straight to be treated equally (but the restrictions were the same for everyone so it has to be fair!!)


Get off your bigoted high horse, Chris. Bounds of the law my ass.

Being gay is not like being black. I'll keep saying it until you get it through your head.
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 #99 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Being gay is not like being black. I'll keep saying it until you get it through your head.

A religion doesn't have to REQUIRE something for it to fall under the 1st amendment. Get it through your head. And being gay makes very little sense being a choice. Sure, someone theoretically could choose to be with only someone of the same sex but why on earth would anyone choose to be discriminated against? The attraction is simply something people are born with. So, in that sense, yes it is like being black.

 

“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 #100 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
And being gay makes very little sense being a choice. Sure, someone theoretically could choose to be with only someone of the same sex but why on earth would anyone choose to be discriminated against?

Still using this tired old (poor) argument?

Quote:
Originally posted by BR
The attraction is simply something people are born with. So, in that sense, yes it is like being black.

That is an unproven hypothesis held by some. Regardless though, the government has clearly demonstrated its willingness, ability and "right" regulate certain behaviors and relationships.
post #101 of 248
And the government has previously displayed a willigness to kill native americans, steal land, start preemptive wars, condone slavery, and consider a person to be 3/5th of a person. Great justification there, Chris.

 

“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 #102 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Still using this tired old (poor) argument?


No, really. Tell me why anyone would choose a life like that.

 

“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 #103 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
A religion doesn't have to REQUIRE something for it to fall under the 1st amendment. Get it through your head. And being gay makes very little sense being a choice. Sure, someone theoretically could choose to be with only someone of the same sex but why on earth would anyone choose to be discriminated against? The attraction is simply something people are born with. So, in that sense, yes it is like being black.

In a sense, it does. The government cannot prevent you from practicing your religion. If you can demonstrate that a particular religion requires one to practice gay marriage as part of that religion's doctrine, then the argument becomes a bit different.

I have a good example. My religion (baptized Lutheran, practicing non-denominational) allows the euthanization of animals (others do not, from my understanding). If the government outlaws such a practice, it's not interfering. However, if my religion *required* me to euthanize an animal at a certain age for whatever reason, and the government outlawed it, it would be violating my religious freedom. My religion can allow many things. That doesn't mean I have to practice them to be truly faithful to that religion.

Even if your argument holds up, you're back to advocating gay marriage on religous freedom grounds. Interesting how you started there, switched arguments and then came back to this one. I say again, absurd arguments aside: If we allow gay marriage on religous grounds, we're going to have to allow the definition of marriage to change for anyone who has a "religous" justification. That applies or potentially applies to bigamy, polygamy, incestual relationships and perhaps even adults marrying minors.
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 #104 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
No, really. Tell me why anyone would choose a life like that.

You don't get it, do you?

It doesn't really matter if I cannot come up with such a reason. The absense of such a reason is not proof that it is not a choice.
post #105 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You don't get it, do you?

It doesn't really matter if I cannot come up with such a reason. The absense of such a reason is not proof that it is not a choice.

Why do you get to decide that it's a choice?

 

“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 #106 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
In a sense, it does. The government cannot prevent you from practicing your religion. If you can demonstrate that a particular religion requires one to practice gay marriage as part of that religion's doctrine, then the argument becomes a bit different.

I have a good example. My religion (baptized Lutheran, practicing non-denominational) allows the euthanization of animals (others do not, from my understanding). If the government outlaws such a practice, it's not interfering. However, if my religion *required* me to euthanize an animal at a certain age for whatever reason, and the government outlawed it, it would be violating my religious freedom. My religion can allow many things. That doesn't mean I have to practice them to be truly faithful to that religion.

Even if your argument holds up, you're back to advocating gay marriage on religous freedom grounds. Interesting how you started there, switched arguments and then came back to this one. I say again, absurd arguments aside: If we allow gay marriage on religous grounds, we're going to have to allow the definition of marriage to change for anyone who has a "religous" justification. That applies or potentially applies to bigamy, polygamy, incestual relationships and perhaps even adults marrying minors.

No, I haven't switched arguments at all. I'm saying that your arguments don't hold up on two fronts. Anyway, we are going in circles at this point. It really does sicken me that people like you can't just fucking live and let live.

 

“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 #107 of 248
++
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #108 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Why do you get to decide that it's a choice?

I don't.

Why do you get to decide it isn't a choice?
post #109 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I don't.

Why do you get to decide it isn't a choice?

Deciding it is a choice results in discrimination.

Deciding it either is a choice or that it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not results in equality.

Do the math. Bigot.

 

“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 #110 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Deciding it is a choice results in discrimination.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But you cannot start backwards ("well if we say it is a choice then people might discriminate") to arrive at your conclusions ("therefore we shouldn't say it is a choice").

The "choice-ness" exists independent of wether people may or may not discriminate based on it.

Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Deciding it either is a choice or that it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not results in equality.

You are so completely confused on this, I don't even know where to begin.

I'll simply say that the government clearly) does not treat all choices equally and (clearly) does discriminate about certain choices, and (clearly) does not allow liberty for all choices.

Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Bigot.

You just can't argue the issue can you? It is easier to go ad hominem. You just lost.
post #111 of 248
I didn't lose. Gay people lost thanks to bigots like you who simply can't come up with a reason other than "IT'S A MAN AND A WOMAN OMG YOU MIGHT MARRY A DOG!"

You still can't quantify how gay marriage infringes upon the rights of anyone.

 

“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 #112 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh stop. "Oppressive?" No one is being oppressed. For one thing, making gay marriage legal is surely not going to change the majority of the population's opinion on the topic. It might even increase anti-gay sentiment. It might actually increase real oppression in this country.

Secondly, and hear me well: Being gay is not comprable to being a minority race because...at least for some people...there is an element of choice involved..

Have a nice day.

You can choose to marry a brunette or a redhead or a blonde. But as soon as you want to marry someone with the same plumbing all of a sudden you don't have choice anymore. People make choices all the time and frankly even if being gay was a choice it still shouldn't make a lick of difference. Gay marriage doesn't infringe upon your rights. However, disallowing gay marriage infringes upon theirs.

 

“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 #113 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If I loved my 1st cousin enough to want marry her, can I?

No, because there is an extremely high probability that offspring produced from such a union will have life-threatening mutations, and there is a good possibility that a union between such persons would produce offspring, even if that wasn't the intention.

NEXT...

Quote:
If I loved my sister enough to want marry her, can I?

See above.

NEXT...

Quote:
If I loved my mother enough to want marry her, can I?

See above.

NEXT...

Quote:
If I loved my daughter enough to want marry her, can I?

(Do you detect a pattern here? Repetition just makes you look like an idiot... repeatedly.)

NEXT...

Quote:
If I loved my mother enough to want marry her, can I?

Um... I think you said that one already.

NEXT...

Quote:
If I loved a married woman enough to want marry her, can I?

If they can iron out the difficulty in polygamy laws to account for economic and psychological concerns, you should be able to. There are no economic or psychological concerns in a same sex union.

NEXT...

Quote:
If I am 10 years old and I loved a woman enough to want marry her, can I?

No, because there is a high probability that at that age a person has not developed the independent decision-making ability to consent, and there's no way to prove that they have, so statistically speaking we have to assume that they have not.

NEXT...

Quote:
If I am 10 years old and I loved a girl enough to want marry her, can I?

See the above.

NEXT...

Quote:
If I loved a minor girl enough to want marry her, can I?

More repeated idiocy.

NEXT...

Quote:
(I am currently married) If I loved another woman enough to want marry her, can I?

A person cannot simply marry anyone they love [if there are no scientific reasons to prohibit such a union -- unless they are gay].

So it's time to make the change.
post #114 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Being gay is not like being black. I'll keep saying it until you get it through your head.

And you'd keep missing the point.

In terms of genetics, yes it is. It is not something someone who is gay can control. Bisexuals can control it, but they shouldn't have to under a system of equality.
post #115 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And you'd keep missing the point.

In terms of genetics, yes it is. It is not something someone who is gay can control. Bisexuals can control it, but they shouldn't have to under a system of equality.

I still don't understand why it's such an affront to people like Chris or SDW. How the hell does it hurt them so much that they vehemently fight against 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 #116 of 248
I think Chris, you would win more supporters if you just told-the-truth

We know you follow the Bible strictly. We also know, that as parallels the ancient pagan religions, Christianity is an update to the religions of solar worship AND fertility.

Fertility was a much reverred gift from the Gods, women were special, wombs were special, sperm was special, birth was special and life was special.

Your bigotry towards Gays, if you're ignorant of the origins and history of the Bible, stems from the fact, that homosexuality does not produce life.

Its the same reason Christians have strong opinions on birth-control, stem cell research, abortion, marriage etc.

And the reason its offensive to God, is because God personifies qualities that lead to the creation of life. A cycle of regeneration. Its exactly the only possible meaning to everlasting life.

There is no fucking bigger reward for people who shout their gobs off for Gods (supposed bigotrous) message. The only eternal life you'll get is by having children.

GO READ REVELATIONS 22.

Its a fucking celebration of the Ejaculation. Not in a perverse sence, but in the sense that it is the final process before life is created. If you want to find out what happens after REV 22, you just go back to the beginning of the book. God is infinte right? So is the account of life. The Bible is an account of the life cycle. Not an excuse to pour hatred or judgement on people.
post #117 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
bigots like you

And again. Just admit that you have run out of "arguments" are now down to name calling.
post #118 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
A person cannot simply marry anyone they love

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
A heterosexual can marry the one they are in love with.

A homosexual cannot.
post #119 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And you'd keep missing the point.

In terms of genetics, yes it is. It is not something someone who is gay can control.

1. This is an unproven hypothesis. You should stop asserting it as indisputable fact.

2. "Black" (gender, eye color, hair color, height, etc.) is not a behavioral characteristic.
post #120 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
No, I haven't switched arguments at all. I'm saying that your arguments don't hold up on two fronts. Anyway, we are going in circles at this point. It really does sicken me that people like you can't just fucking live and let live.

First you injected yourself into a point that I was debating with tonton. That point was that no religion requires gay marriage as a matter of doctrine. Secondly, we were discussing the point about government redefining marriage on those hypothetical religious grounds. When you realized that you couldn't win either of those arguments, you switched the argument to "we should separate marriage as a religous act, and allow civil unions as a legal act." Then you started back on religon allowing gay marriage as opposed to requring it, Simultaneously, you returned to attacking the slippery slope argument I posed, the very same one that said government redefining marriage on religous grounds would create many 1st amendment problems.


Quote:
It really does sicken me that people like you can't just fucking live and let live.

Ahh. Finally. That is really what this is about. It would be a lot easier if you just came out and said that. But no...you chose to try and make a legal and logical argument for gay marriage, and lost. That's because your argument was intellectually dishonest to begin with. You want gay marriage and you don't care how it happens, so long as it becomes legal.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ignorance about what "harms children"