do you?
whats so different from marriage then?
whats so scared about the word "marriage" that it must be protected as something that was defined the way we practice it only a few hundred years ago?
if its a case of only granting marrige to how YOU define it, do you then feel as if any marriage that came into place anyother way should not be considered legal in the US? should i then tell my hindu doctor that his marriage that was arranged by his parents in india is now null and void because since it was arranged and doesn't meet the christian definition of what marriage is, its not legal in the US?
but i'm not even a beatnik or a tree hugger, quite far from it, texan through and through, just believe in logic. like common ing sense logic. which can go hand in hand with morals and character.
i wish there was a party that shared all my views, but that should be a whole other thread..........
Was a right taken away? I did read it. I don't think you understood it. I find it a little silly being called a name that a liberal authoritarian populist would fit the description so much easier. You are the one not wanting to discuss it. YOu are the one treating anyone with a different view as yours as evil or dimwitted. This isn't high school and we are not a bunch of school girls.You post articles you don't agree with as the logic to support your view?
You really didn't read it, did you? Congrats on being a member of the mouse school of anti-intellectualism.
How's this for some logic then
1) sexuality is a health hazard. Scientifically and medically proven.
2) sexual relationships cannot be a real family because they cannot produce any children of their own.
3) sexual males usually turn out to be effeminate. What a coincidence the high pitched 'girly' s all talk the same.
4A) sexuality is still a sexual orientation. A source of pleasure. There has been no scientific evidence for being 'born different'
4B) If A was true, that they WERE 'born different', then that would mean it's a defect of nature, just like a mental illness, a chemical imbalance in the brain, a stunted leg, a third arm. Nature programmed us to mate male-female. If they were bi-sexual, then it would just be a perverse source of sexual pleasure, but at least they still enjoyed the opposite sex. Completely gay people though, are a walking contradiction.
5) There is evidence that a significant portion of sexuals reject their own gender assigned by nature. Sometimes a male in a male-male coupling will behave like a female and even go so far as to get a sex change. or a Female in a Female-Female coupling goes for a sex change to be a man. There is a deeper psychological influence involved, a rejection of themselves, which is unhealthy.
6) There is evidence that environment influences who turns out to be 'gay'.
should I continue?
no, i don't think I won't.
Your only answer to all of this will be "but....but.. it's WRONG TO DENY THEM!!!! *cries* it's just not OK, i mean, it feels wrong. They just want to be together *cries* can't we just do whatever we want to do?"
No, we can't do whatever we want to do.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 11-04-2009 at 09:22 PM.
Yeah because the advancement and normalcy of sexuality is progressing our culture. Tell that to the Greeks.
Your article is incredibly dimwitted. The right to not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation by the federal or any state government is being taken away. I call you an idiot because you're posting equating equal protection under law to forcing one person into marrying against his will; garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. How the are you going to call me an authoritarian when you think it's government's duty to push your goddamn religion down our throats? You don't even believe in the ing first amendment and you're going to call me an authoritarian, you sucker?
And no, I don't treat everyone with a different view as evil or dimwitted. There are lots of intelligent conservatives here like Phenomenaul, 101A, MarcusBryant, Winehole, Extra Stout, etc here. You're not one of them.
my god man, i thought you said you were married at 19, not that you are 19...
by that logic sex is a health hazard, not just the kind of a -sexual variaty, did you know that something like 86% of the worlds population gets some sort of STD at one point in their life so if you use that, then NO ONE but a 14% can get married
fail.
so if person a has a child, decides to become true to their self and tell their partner that they are gay with person b, then person a and b have no child?2) sexual relationships cannot be a real family because they cannot produce any children of their own.
by that logic, i hope you don't have any step kids you have to disown tonight...
fail.
? what does this have to do with the question of marriage?
3) sexual males usually turn out to be effeminate. What a coincidence the high pitched 'girly' s all talk the same.
prejuduce much?
fail.
[QUOTE]
never said there was either, said it was debated as opposed to the two other choices4A) sexuality is still a sexual orientation. A source of pleasure. There has been no scientific evidence for being 'born different'
um, so do you read a lot of L.Ron or something? where is you're proof for this?
4B) If A was true, that they WERE 'born different', then that would mean it's a defect of nature, just like a mental illness, a chemical imbalance in the brain, a stunted leg, a third arm. Nature programmed us to mate male-female. If they were bi-sexual, then it would just be a perverse source of sexual pleasure, but at least they still enjoyed the opposite sex. Completely gay people though, are a walking contradiction.
how is choosing to live your life different unhealthy? so by that logic, all people should just be some grey middle of everything...not a very fun world...
5) There is evidence that a significant portion of sexuals reject their own gender assigned by nature. Sometimes a male in a male-male coupling will behave like a female and even go so far as to get a sex change. or a Female in a Female-Female coupling goes for a sex change to be a man. There is a deeper psychological influence involved, a rejection of themselves, which is unhealthy.
but very nazi of you indeed.
but once again, what the does this have to do w/gay marriage?
i never said that, i just said it doesn't affect me either way, so who am i to trample someones right to be happy? who am i to ask what other people do in their own homes...and the right has been saying the left has been facist as of late?.......6) There is evidence that environment influences who turns out to be 'gay'.
should I continue?
no, i don't think I won't.
Your only answer to all of this will be "but....but.. it's WRONG TO DENY THEM!!!! *cries* it's just not OK, i mean, it feels wrong. They just want to be together *cries* can't we just do whatever we want to do?"
No, we can't do whatever we want to do.
haha premature ejaculation from jefreey toobin at cnn. already saying this is a big deal even though its early that this won out. oops
Im as conservative as it gets, but what is the big ing deal about gays getting married? How on earth does that threaten the republic?
lol @ teh gays pwned once more
Having lived there 3 years, I can assuredly say that's almost exactly the issue, ironic as it sounds. They are a conservative state, but only socially/morally speaking. Fiscally they have more in common with France than, say, the Southern states. Big government, socialized medicine, crushing taxes... it's the worst of both worlds, politically.
It doesn't. It's sort of what people have instead of morality now. Hating teh gheys.
Or druggies. Or immigrants. Or minorities. Or any other convenient scapegoat for our collective decadence and failure.
I think it's funny how there is video proof that Obama does not support gay marriage yet gays still support him.
The people of Maine should be happy. For one day, their state was in the news and was being talked about. Now it goes back into the abyss of states that people don't really care about or talk about that much.
The state should have no role in joining people together other than a bureaucratic one as far as paperwork for taxes/etc is concerned.
The slippery slope argument not only in and of itself but also because it assumes that the current situation is correct, which it is not (that being the government having a direct role in marriage).
You will also find that incest and 'one man-many women' hook-ups occur outside of marriage regularly. Aside from a rise in genetic defects due to recessive trait emergence and women being put in a submissive role while passing around STDs, there is nothing wrong with those scenarios.
As are smoking, heterosexuality, driving, drinking, and stepping outside a bunker. Society does not forbid things on their minuscule inherit danger alone.1) sexuality is a health hazard. Scientifically and medically proven.
Consider the millions of foster parents and infertile heterosexual couples that consider themselves to be a real family. The fertility of a couple plays no bearing in marriage after 4000 BC.2) sexual relationships cannot be a real family because they cannot produce any children of their own.
Ad hominem3) sexual males usually turn out to be effeminate. What a coincidence the high pitched 'girly' s all talk the same.
Yes there is. There is also evidence for it arising from social constructs. sexuality obviously has multiple factors as to its origin.4A) sexuality is still a sexual orientation. A source of pleasure. There has been no scientific evidence for being 'born different'
"Defects of nature" as you put it have the same standing as everyone else. What instinct does plays no role in anything of importance, because nature programmed us with free will to override it. Our duty to reproduce is of no significance in an overpopulated world in which technology allows us to artificially select ourselves.4B) If A was true, that they WERE 'born different', then that would mean it's a defect of nature, just like a mental illness, a chemical imbalance in the brain, a stunted leg, a third arm. Nature programmed us to mate male-female. If they were bi-sexual, then it would just be a perverse source of sexual pleasure, but at least they still enjoyed the opposite sex. Completely gay people though, are a walking contradiction.
It is a rejection of a part of oneself which is not consistent with what the brain expects itself to be. You also assert that it is unhealthy, yet all people reject aspects of themselves over their development.5) There is evidence that a significant portion of sexuals reject their own gender assigned by nature. Sometimes a male in a male-male coupling will behave like a female and even go so far as to get a sex change. or a Female in a Female-Female coupling goes for a sex change to be a man. There is a deeper psychological influence involved, a rejection of themselves, which is unhealthy.
See 4A.6) There is evidence that environment influences who turns out to be 'gay'.
Almost your entire argument consists of straw men that are not even correct in themselves and ad hominem attacks against gays. Honestly, I hope that was some kind of failure of a troll job.
This is correct logic:
1. All Lakerfans deny collusion
2. Bob is a Lakerfan
3. From 1 and 2, Bob denies collusion
You might want to practice before bothering to reply with another army of straw men. Your goal should also be to tie your point into gay marriage instead of stating random factoids about sexuality in order to show some non-existent chain of logic that "refutes" the last three words that someone posted in a sentence about themselves that had little to do with the topic.
It's so ridiculous that gay people can't marry. Religion is at the root of it, as usual. Religion is the single largest barrier to social progression, always has been, always will be
If they want contractual bonds, then let them draw them up through lawyers or go for civil unions. I will vote for civil unions, but not to change the definition of marriage.I love how gay people want a stable coupling, and conservatives are like " no! You gays must live in sin with no official bonds!"
Washington state passed a "Everything but Marriage" act Tuesday.
Sounds like John McCain.
That's a good idea.
Freedom is just a word.
And the cons ution ain't nothin' but a gott-damn piece of paper.
They should just get rid of the "e" if they want to be taken serious.
To be fair, Politicians are just using the "Social Progression" as a means of gaining more power. They don't really care about you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
