This is the best speech on gay marriage

[admiralsnackbar]

Aha.

But they do have control over who they get in bed with.

Choice.

[Spawn]

Can somebody tell me how supposedly redefing marriage to include gays is somehow going to lead to the destruction of America?

[MiamiHeat]

but I'm gonna hang out with my girlfriend for awhile. You have fun, now.

[MiamiHeat]

Can somebody tell me how supposedly redefing marriage to include gays is somehow going to lead to the destruction of America?

I don't believe it would lead to the destruction of America, so that's a loaded question.

[Ignignokt]

Miami Heat is owning this place.

[Spawn]

I don't believe it would lead to the destruction of America, so that's a loaded question.

Then what's the big deal?

[AussieFanKurt]

Miami Heat is owning this place.

[MiamiHeat]

Then what's the big deal?

there are many atheist anti-redefine marriage explanations on the web

[spursncowboys]

So now you're saying ex-gays go against natural law? By becoming straight, I presume? Do you see how this undermines your original position by suggesting that natural law can't be violated? Or that if it can, it occurs on an individual level when somebody goes against their essential nature, be they essentially gay or essentially straight?

Am I missing something? /shrug

Sorry, failed attempt to shorten example. I meant example-gays.

[spursncowboys]

miami heat is owning this place.

+1

[admiralsnackbar]

Nice So does this make me a Cambodian freedom-hating polygamist who doesn't know what kind of political system he lives in?

[admiralsnackbar]

and really, you aren't helping the sexualist cause by implying they are hedonistic, primal sexual pervert's who can't control themselves.

and lastly, I really don't care about sexuals and their choices. I just don't want to redefine marriage.

I'm actually making the case that you and Liberace are the same, you just happen to be attracted to different things. Does that make you a hedonistic pervert? Probably not. You just like what you like.

[admiralsnackbar]

Sorry, failed attempt to shorten example. I meant example-gays.

OK, that makes more sense. I guess I don't know what you mean by natural law, then. In philosophy, natural law is usually a system of rules determined based on observing nature (Hobbes, Darwin, Hume) or idealizing pre-social states of human society (Rousseau, Locke, and maybe even Kant, on a metaphysical level). Or do you have your own take?

[George Gervin's Afro]

The premise of the dead enders gay philosophy is that the lifestyle is a choice.

It's not a choice so you fail


You do realize that don't you?

[baseline bum]

I can imagine a B2B and baseline bum back in the 1700's, asking :

"Who are we to define what freedom is? You act as if it was yours to define"

Bull . You don't believe in freedom. You believe in the government forcing your belief.

[jacobdrj]

Why does the 'state' have 'license' granting power over marriages to begin with?


If we can clarify that point we can move on to the rest of the discussion.

[jacobdrj]

Bull . You don't believe in freedom. You believe in the government forcing your belief.

Nobody was questioning the definition of freedom. Those guys were questioning whether non-Euros were people, and therefore en led to freedom like people, or freedom like animals.

[admiralsnackbar]

Why does the 'state' have 'license' granting power over marriages to begin with?


If we can clarify that point we can move on to the rest of the discussion.

Because there is no other en y that has the authority to administrate and regulate contracts between people.

[mogrovejo]

It's a cover for sexuals to feel normal and be 'accepted' by society.

Notice how they do NOT want their own ins ution with all of the same rights.

bull .

True.

[mogrovejo]

Because there is no other en y that has the authority to administrate and regulate contracts between people.

Really? I'd guess that marriage has been around way before the modern state. And I strongly suspect that every day millions of contracts are celebrated without any kind of interference from the state.

[mogrovejo]

is there an argument to demonstrate that sexuality is a choice? in all cases? indubitably so?

I don't know about sexuality. But sexual acts are certainly a choice. But what's the point? It's not like people want to criminalize sexual sex.

[CuckingFunt]

I don't know about sexuality. But sexual acts are certainly a choice. But what's the point? It's not like people want to criminalize sexual sex.

No.

They just want to ensure that a large community is denied the same legal rights as the rest of the population.

Which stigmatizes/marginalizes the LGBTQI community.

Which in turn creates an environment in which existing prejudices are legitimized by law and, therefore, encouraged to grow.

Which, finally, produces a segment of the population, no matter how small, who DO want to criminalize sexual sex (which, for the record, could be argued already occurs, especially when you consider how unevenly anti-sodomy laws have been enforced).

It's all connected.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, we as a country look back on segregation laws and the Jim Crow south as a dark time in our country's history; as extreme to the point of being absurd. It's not because we all magically became enlightened at some point within the last few decades, though. As legal rights become more equally distributed, successive generations become more and more tolerant.

[baseline bum]

True.

Garbage.

[mogrovejo]

No.

They just want to ensure that a large community is denied the same legal rights as the rest of the population.

Which stigmatizes/marginalizes the LGBTQI community.

Which in turn creates an environment in which existing prejudices are legitimized by law and, therefore, encouraged to grow.

Which, finally, produces a segment of the population, no matter how small, who DO want to criminalize sexual sex (which, for the record, could be argued already occurs, especially when you consider how unevenly anti-sodomy laws have been enforced).

It's all connected.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, we as a country look back on segregation laws and the Jim Crow south as a dark time in our country's history; as extreme to the point of being absurd. It's not because we all magically became enlightened at some point within the last few decades, though. As legal rights become more equally distributed, successive generations become more and more tolerant.

I'm not sure how using the coercive power of the state to change the world-view or the beliefs of individuals is a goal of merit. Generally that's the modus operandi of totalitarian states.

[MiamiHeat]

I'm not sure how using the coercive power of the state to change the world-view or the beliefs of individuals is a goal of merit. Generally that's the modus operandi of totalitarian states.

seems like CuckingFunt has been humbled

nice post