Reply With Quote
I believe sexuals do not choose to be sexual.
No, that's actually what he does. It would make my life considerably less stressful if McDonald's made a McGreenBean.So we all should be treated like children and told what to think by 'mother' government. Makes perfect sense.
And this whole disagreement I have with the "other side of the coin" is that our definition of what makes someone a sexual...whether an inherent trait or a learned behavior...is obviously different. A question that I had asked which you had answered to begin with that made the rest of scathing tirade completely unnecessary.
I feel that it's an inherent trait, which would put it in the same category as race in a sense. You feel it's a chosen behavior, which would not. That was enough, I didn't need help connecting the dots.
I have never tried to inflict my own beliefs on anyone except for my children, in which case it's not so much as *inflict* but to teach them to be open-minded and tolerant of people that are different than them, for whatever reason. Excuse me if I don't think that's a bad way to be.
I believe sexuals do not choose to be sexual.
Then I misunderstood?
Yes.
Judging from the response I got I really don't think I did.
I think my response was rather appropriate.
The 10% already pays for the 90%, but apparently that is okay as long as we make sure that then 90% doesn't have to pay for the 10%.No. Which is why they should be free to enjoy those nasty things if they like, so long as I am not required to assist it directly. Actually, to extend it, the 10% that like brussel sprouts shouldn't be forced to pay for what the other 90% like to do as I, like a few other sane individuals, don't believe that the Leviathan should be involved in deciding what we can and cannot eat, as well as forcing us into recognizing and assisting the consumption of foods which we find undesirable.
That wouldn't be like discrimination or anything.
Ironically, I really have no strong opinion on this subject...mainly because I don't feel like anything is being forced on me, that I'm being forced to accept anything. And since I have no desire to enter into a sexual relationship it doesn't affect me on the other side of the argument either. I'm sure there were an awful lot of folks pissed off and feeling like their "rights" were being infringed with desegregation laws, too...and I honestly don't see the difference between the two. To each their own, I guess.
And here again is the classic Marcus Bryant logic.I'd say a good place to start is your desire to see the government impose a definition of marriage upon someone who is a "Christian." The Cons ution protects the rights of all the last time I checked, even those in a given "majority" group.
He has a problem with people "imposing" some non-Christian definition of marriage on Christians, but no problem with protecting a Christian definition that applies to and is accepted by non-Christians.
If you would re-read the thread you will notice that I oppose any state definition of marriage. You would also notice that I have no problem with "gay marriage" just like I have no problem with any other bas ized form of marriage, provided it is a private contract and again, not a state imposed definition.
So the next time you want to criticize my argument at least have the courtesy (or should I say the honesty) to represent it correctly.
Until then, suck a fat one you fat little nosy jealous er.
Good day.
-MB
I've taken the courtesy to read your argument several times in the countless threads on this subject, and each time it is highlighted by the following:
There has only been 1 group pushing for changing the definition of marriage, and that is the Anti-Gay Marriage group. I've yet to see your criticizism of the state definition proposed by the Anti-Gay Marriage crowd, only a continued stance against the non-existent definition proposed by the Pro-Gay Marriage crowd.Also if we are going to change the definition of marriage based upon how people then I am for plural marriages and every other possible combination.
Actually I take that back, on page 4 (which I admittedly skipped over for the most part) you allude to the fact that the bans do not solve, but only add to the problem. But then you seemingly turn around and support the bans as a way to cir vent the judicial process. But perhaps straight marriages should also be banned to prevent a Gay business owner from having to provide health insurance for his straight employee's spouses just because he wants to provide insurance for his gay employees.
Why is the forced acceptance of straight marriage (the status quo) any less worse than the forced acceptance of gay marriage? You seem willing to protect that status quo ahead of accepting any challenges to it.
Thanks again for the childish insults. I always get a kick out of knowing I can count on your tendency to make personal attacks on someone you've never met.
If gay marriage were legal in TX, I'd dump Jess and propose to Scott
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
