Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1788

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We know that it is a very dangerous lifestyle, both emotionally and physically. And we also know that there is no such thing as “safe” anal sex, even with a condom.

Let’s say you’re 100% right.

Given all of that, don’t you think that a formal legally binding union (call it marriage or a civil union, either way is fine) with financial and social consequences would encourage people to stay together? [/quote]

What part about that last sentence didn’t you understand?

1789

[quote]forlife wrote:

Now we’re back to the slippery slope fallacy. [/quote]

If it were a fallacy then I would agree. But as prevously stated a polygamist is currently suing the state of Nevada for the right to marry. So how is it a fallacy to think that if gay marriage were legalized polygamist would want the same rights?

In addition to this there are many liberals (such as yourself) running around very worried about government spying on its own citizens (see NSA debate on another thread). And why are they doing this?

Many think that it will lead to a loss of rights.

And why?

Because they know that one move in a certain direction leads to other moves in that same direction…AND THEY ARE CORRECT!

1790

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So the problem with same sex marriage is not the union or rights given, it is that it removes some of the moral foundation on which the country was built.

I believe the Constitution was written to support equality rather than discrimination. The founding fathers differed significantly in their definition of what constituted “morality”, and this is one of the main reasons why they did not attempt to specifically define morality in the Constitution.[/quote]

Ha ha…no where in thier wildest dreams did any of the founding fathers ever imagine that two men having anal sex (or any kind of sex) should in any way be legitimized by the government.

I ask you again: what stops polygamists and those practicing incest from demanding and recieving the same rights?

And from there there are a whole bunch of other ways to go…None are good.

1791

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So the problem with same sex marriage is not the union or rights given, it is that it removes some of the moral foundation on which the country was built.

I believe the Constitution was written to support equality rather than discrimination. The founding fathers differed significantly in their definition of what constituted “morality”, and this is one of the main reasons why they did not attempt to specifically define morality in the Constitution.

Ha ha…no where in thier wildest dreams did any of the founding fathers ever imagine that two men having anal sex (or any kind of sex) should in any way be legitimized by the government.

I ask you again: what stops polygamists and those practicing incest from demanding and recieving the same rights?

And from there there are a whole bunch of other ways to go…None are good.

[/quote]

Even if–and this ridiculous hypothetical to an asinine argument–polygamy was made legal…what would it bother you?

Besides, I would think a Bible humper such as yourself would favor polygamy. It does ocur in the book, doesn’t it?

1792

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So the problem with same sex marriage is not the union or rights given, it is that it removes some of the moral foundation on which the country was built.

I believe the Constitution was written to support equality rather than discrimination. The founding fathers differed significantly in their definition of what constituted “morality”, and this is one of the main reasons why they did not attempt to specifically define morality in the Constitution.

Ha ha…no where in thier wildest dreams did any of the founding fathers ever imagine that two men having anal sex (or any kind of sex) should in any way be legitimized by the government.

I ask you again: what stops polygamists and those practicing incest from demanding and recieving the same rights?

And from there there are a whole bunch of other ways to go…None are good.

Even if–and this ridiculous hypothetical to an asinine argument–polygamy was made legal…what would it bother you?

Besides, I would think a Bible humper such as yourself would favor polygamy. It does ocur in the book, doesn’t it?
[/quote]

That’s one (and only one) thing that separates us.

You can rationalize anything by saying “what does that have to do with you?”

But what does that really mean?

If someone kills a person on the streets of NYC today, what does that have to do with you?

That does not effect you directly, so why do you care?

Why do you care if someone screws his dog down the street from you?

That does not effect you directly right?

In fact, nation wide there are very few things that DIRECTLY EFFECT you, so then everything is okay?

That seems to be the pathetic liberal argument huh?

It’s all about what sort of world that you want to live in! And the ultimate effect it has and will have on all of us, and future generations.

Even though you do not draw any of your standards from the Bible I’m sure that you have some standards.

And if you think that because there is no immediate direct effect on your life, that means that there is no long term indirect or direct effect then you are quite wrong.

1793

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So the problem with same sex marriage is not the union or rights given, it is that it removes some of the moral foundation on which the country was built.

I believe the Constitution was written to support equality rather than discrimination. The founding fathers differed significantly in their definition of what constituted “morality”, and this is one of the main reasons why they did not attempt to specifically define morality in the Constitution.

Ha ha…no where in thier wildest dreams did any of the founding fathers ever imagine that two men having anal sex (or any kind of sex) should in any way be legitimized by the government.

I ask you again: what stops polygamists and those practicing incest from demanding and recieving the same rights?

And from there there are a whole bunch of other ways to go…None are good.

Even if–and this ridiculous hypothetical to an asinine argument–polygamy was made legal…what would it bother you?

Besides, I would think a Bible humper such as yourself would favor polygamy. It does ocur in the book, doesn’t it?

That’s one (and only one) thing that separates us.

You can rationalize anything by saying “what does that have to do with you?”

But what does that really mean?

If someone kills a person on the streets of NYC today, what does that have to do with you?

That does not effect you directly, so why do you care?

Why do you care if someone screws his dog down the street from you?

That does not effect you directly right?

In fact, nation wide there are very few things that DIRECTLY EFFECT you, so then everything is okay?

That seems to be the pathetic liberal argument huh?

It’s all about what sort of world that you want to live in! And the ultimate effect it has and will have on all of us, and future generations.

Even though you do not draw any of your standards from the Bible I’m sure that you have some standards.

And if you think that because there is no immediate direct effect on your life, that means that there is no long term indirect or direct effect then you are quite wrong.

[/quote]

As always, you make false analogies and set up strawman arguments.

Gay marriage is not equivalent to murder. It (gay marriage) is a contract entered into by two people willingly. Murder…well, one peson didn’t sign his name, did he?

So, you have no argument, especially in light of the fact that Massachusetts couples have been getting married for a while now and–HORRORS!–nothing has happened to society. In fact, MA has a lower divorce rate than most of the states in the so-called “Bible Belt.”

Try again.

1794

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So the problem with same sex marriage is not the union or rights given, it is that it removes some of the moral foundation on which the country was built.

I believe the Constitution was written to support equality rather than discrimination. The founding fathers differed significantly in their definition of what constituted “morality”, and this is one of the main reasons why they did not attempt to specifically define morality in the Constitution.[/quote]

None of the founding father’s belief systems supported same sex marriage or sex for that matter. They also made their beliefs known in the DOI by mentioning God by name.

Also, everyone is equal with the current system. Any man can marry any woman. So it is equal for all. You just want to change the system to offer a different or new “right”; the right to marry anyone and anything as a sex partner. THAT is a new right that is not part of the system. So nothing is currently be denied you. You want something new.

1795

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So the problem with same sex marriage is not the union or rights given, it is that it removes some of the moral foundation on which the country was built.

I believe the Constitution was written to support equality rather than discrimination. The founding fathers differed significantly in their definition of what constituted “morality”, and this is one of the main reasons why they did not attempt to specifically define morality in the Constitution.

Ha ha…no where in thier wildest dreams did any of the founding fathers ever imagine that two men having anal sex (or any kind of sex) should in any way be legitimized by the government.

I ask you again: what stops polygamists and those practicing incest from demanding and recieving the same rights?

And from there there are a whole bunch of other ways to go…None are good.

Even if–and this ridiculous hypothetical to an asinine argument–polygamy was made legal…what would it bother you?

Besides, I would think a Bible humper such as yourself would favor polygamy. It does ocur in the book, doesn’t it?

That’s one (and only one) thing that separates us.

You can rationalize anything by saying “what does that have to do with you?”

But what does that really mean?

If someone kills a person on the streets of NYC today, what does that have to do with you?

That does not effect you directly, so why do you care?

Why do you care if someone screws his dog down the street from you?

That does not effect you directly right?

In fact, nation wide there are very few things that DIRECTLY EFFECT you, so then everything is okay?

That seems to be the pathetic liberal argument huh?

It’s all about what sort of world that you want to live in! And the ultimate effect it has and will have on all of us, and future generations.

Even though you do not draw any of your standards from the Bible I’m sure that you have some standards.

And if you think that because there is no immediate direct effect on your life, that means that there is no long term indirect or direct effect then you are quite wrong.

[/quote]

You know Zeb, it’s that extremely “caring” view of the Left that says “live and let die”. That is the ultimate freedom, letting everyone destroy themselves. I guess we should legalize suicide as well. I mean after all, who are we to stop people from doing what they want.

And they call Conservatives uncaring! What a joke!

1796

[quote]harris447 wrote:

As always, you make false analogies and set up strawman arguments.

Gay marriage is not equivalent to murder. It (gay marriage) is a contract entered into by two people willingly. Murder…well, one peson didn’t sign his name, did he?[/quote]

No, you have missed the point entirely. I am not comparing the two. I am merely suggesting that no matter what goes on somewhere else it does not have much DIRECT IMMEDIATE EFFECT on you. But that doesn’t mean that it is something that we should all embrace either.

[quote]So, you have no argument, especially in light of the fact that Massachusetts couples have been getting married for a while now and–HORRORS!–nothing has happened to society. In fact, MA has a lower divorce rate than most of the states in the so-called “Bible Belt.”

Try again.[/quote]

Since YOU brought it up.

The folks in Mass. have gotten together a petition and are going to overturn that gay marriage law in 2008. I just posted the article on another post you can review it if you like.

It boils down to what sort of society that you want to live in. And I know YOU don’t care what’s going on relative to various moral issues. But others who are more family oriented, older and more moderate are very much opposed to gay marriage and I don’t see that changing. The reason for this is that unlike you they can easily see that changing a 5000+ year old societal norm for less than 1% of the population is a very bad idea.

And as I have stated numerous times, it will not end with “gay marriage.” As a polygamist has already brought suit against the state of Nevada for the right to marry.

(Remember 70% of all Americans are against gay marriage. That means that many democrats as well as most republicans are against it. In fact, it’s only the most liberal folks like you who are for it.)

1797

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

You know Zeb, it’s that extremely “caring” view of the Left that says “live and let die”. That is the ultimate freedom, letting everyone destroy themselves. I guess we should legalize suicide as well. I mean after all, who are we to stop people from doing what they want.

And they call Conservatives uncaring! What a joke!

[/quote]

You know Lorisco, you have hit the nail on the head.

After posting statistic after statistic clearly pointing out the dangers (physical and emotional) associated with homosexuality it is almost shocking that anyone who states that they “care” about this segment of the population would want to promote that sort of activity.

But then again the politically correct left has no shame…and they prove it time and time again!

1798

I don’t know how any of you right winged religious wackos could think there is something wrong with two men ram-rodding each other. I mean, its completely normal and natural - heck if monkeys do it, we should too. Besides, where the heck do you think babies come from!!!

1799

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:

As always, you make false analogies and set up strawman arguments.

Gay marriage is not equivalent to murder. It (gay marriage) is a contract entered into by two people willingly. Murder…well, one peson didn’t sign his name, did he?

No, you have missed the point entirely. I am not comparing the two. I am merely suggesting that no matter what goes on somewhere else it does not have much DIRECT IMMEDIATE EFFECT on you. But that doesn’t mean that it is something that we should all embrace either.

So, you have no argument, especially in light of the fact that Massachusetts couples have been getting married for a while now and–HORRORS!–nothing has happened to society. In fact, MA has a lower divorce rate than most of the states in the so-called “Bible Belt.”

Try again.

Since YOU brought it up.

The folks in Mass. have gotten together a petition and are going to overturn that gay marriage law in 2008. I just posted the article on another post you can review it if you like.

It boils down to what sort of society that you want to live in. And I know YOU don’t care what’s going on relative to various moral issues. But others who are more family oriented, older and more moderate are very much opposed to gay marriage and I don’t see that changing. The reason for this is that unlike you they can easily see that changing a 5000+ year old societal norm for less than 1% of the population is a very bad idea.

And as I have stated numerous times, it will not end with “gay marriage.” As a polygamist has already brought suit against the state of Nevada for the right to marry.

(Remember 70% of all Americans are against gay marriage. That means that many democrats as well as most republicans are against it. In fact, it’s only the most liberal folks like you who are for it.)

[/quote]

Not true. Once again, you’re lying to prove your bigoted point.

60% of Americans are against gay marriage. This number has dropped every time they take a survey. Why?

Because the generation coming up doesn’t care about this issue. In fact, they see it as a non-issue. They look around and see the gay people in their families (remember, gays can be “family-oriented” as well), and refuse to deny them equal rights.

Another thing: where do you get this 5,000 year old societal norm thing from? Until quite recently, marriages were arranged for money, power, blood, etc. Should we go back to that?

You call yourself a traditionalist. Fine. Traditionalists were also against desegragation and women’s suffrage. History is against you here.

1800

I had a vision last night. Harris and forlife were involved in a beautiful physical relationship. There were lube, rubbers, and sex toys all around, and Professor X was snapping pictures.

It all happened in the land of lollypops, and Harris found a new use for his eye-patch as the game of tag the fag with the one-eyed monster ensued. And to finish the vision, they all took a dip in the chocolate pond.

A beautiful vision it was.

1801

[quote]ZEB wrote:
What part about that last sentence didn’t you understand?[/quote]

You mean this sentence?

That has nothing to do with my question. All you did was repeat the points you’ve made throughout this thread, without touching on what I am asking. Here it is again:

[quote]Don’t you think that a formal legally binding union (call it marriage or a civil union, either way is fine) with financial and social consequences would encourage people to stay together?
[/quote]

I’m not asking if you approve of homosexuality. I’m not asking if you think it is disgusting, sinful, and unsafe. I’m asking if you agree that a formal legally binding union with financial and social consequences would encourage people to stay together.

1802

[quote]ZEB wrote:
If it were a fallacy then I would agree. But as prevously stated a polygamist is currently suing the state of Nevada for the right to marry. So how is it a fallacy to think that if gay marriage were legalized polygamist would want the same rights?[/quote]

Polygamists have been asking for the right to marry long before Stonewall. Your slipperly slope logic is fallacious because you have failed to show a causal relationship between A and B. Clearly, there is no causal relationship since polygamists have sought the right to marry independent of the gay rights movement.

The two issues can be treated separately in the very same way the issue of allowing interracial marriages was treated separately.

1803

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ha ha…no where in thier wildest dreams did any of the founding fathers ever imagine that two men having anal sex (or any kind of sex) should in any way be legitimized by the government.
[/quote]

Where in their wildest dreams did the founding fathers ever imagine that women and blacks should be able to vote or that a black man and a white woman should be allowed to marry? Even among themselves, there was significant disagreement on what constituted morality.

They were wise enough not to try defining morality by their own personal standards, and not to enforce that personal definition on others.

1804

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It boils down to what sort of society that you want to live in.[/quote]

You keep saying this, as if it justifies treating others unfairly. What sort of society did the southern bigots want to live in prior to the civil war? What sort of society did the misogynists of the early 20th century want to live in?

Personally, I want to live in a society where people have the right and liberty to pursue happiness by their own definition rather than by a definition imposed by others. No matter how the fundamentalists try to spin it, gay marriage is not going to affect -your- marriage in the slightest.

Society has survived nicely since interracial marriages were allowed, and it will be the same with gay marriage. Regardless of whether or not the law is overturned in Massachusetts, you can’t deny that in the two years since gay marriage has been allowed, not a single straight couple has been hurt in the process. In fact, Massachusetts currently has the LOWEST DIVORCE RATE IN THE COUNTRY.

1805

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It boils down to what sort of society that you want to live in.

You keep saying this, as if it justifies treating others unfairly. What sort of society did the southern bigots want to live in prior to the civil war? What sort of society did the misogynists of the early 20th century want to live in?

Personally, I want to live in a society where people have the right and liberty to pursue happiness by their own definition rather than by a definition imposed by others. No matter how the fundamentalists try to spin it, gay marriage is not going to affect -your- marriage in the slightest.

Society has survived nicely since interracial marriages were allowed, and it will be the same with gay marriage. Regardless of whether or not the law is overturned in Massachusetts, you can’t deny that in the two years since gay marriage has been allowed, not a single straight couple has been hurt in the process. In fact, Massachusetts currently has the LOWEST DIVORCE RATE IN THE COUNTRY.[/quote]

You tell em foreskin, i mean, forlife. Forget all those silly arguments about procreation and family. After all, we are all just a bunch of monkeys who were born to hump. And, let’s face it - if it’s got a hole, then it’s just beggin to be poked with the sausage.

Yes, that includes cats, cereal boxes, and the gas tank to your car, so enjoy!

1806

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m asking if you agree that a formal legally binding union with financial and social consequences would encourage people to stay together.[/quote]

That’s right man, you need to put these crazy dudes in their place. And, when he tells you that it would encourage more people to go try homo poop-pounding monkey love, you tell him that he’s full of crap.

Just because society embrases or accepts a behavior or lifestyle doens’t mean it will grow. I mean, we’ve got less drunks, fat people, and welfare cases in this country than ever! Eat that you crazy goofballs!

Then, tell him that he has latent homosexual tendencies, heh, heh, heh. It’s obviously true because anyone who is so against ram-rodden must be a closet ram-rodder.

1807

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:

As always, you make false analogies and set up strawman arguments.

Gay marriage is not equivalent to murder. It (gay marriage) is a contract entered into by two people willingly. Murder…well, one peson didn’t sign his name, did he?

No, you have missed the point entirely. I am not comparing the two. I am merely suggesting that no matter what goes on somewhere else it does not have much DIRECT IMMEDIATE EFFECT on you. But that doesn’t mean that it is something that we should all embrace either.

So, you have no argument, especially in light of the fact that Massachusetts couples have been getting married for a while now and–HORRORS!–nothing has happened to society. In fact, MA has a lower divorce rate than most of the states in the so-called “Bible Belt.”

Try again.

Since YOU brought it up.

The folks in Mass. have gotten together a petition and are going to overturn that gay marriage law in 2008. I just posted the article on another post you can review it if you like.

It boils down to what sort of society that you want to live in. And I know YOU don’t care what’s going on relative to various moral issues. But others who are more family oriented, older and more moderate are very much opposed to gay marriage and I don’t see that changing. The reason for this is that unlike you they can easily see that changing a 5000+ year old societal norm for less than 1% of the population is a very bad idea.

And as I have stated numerous times, it will not end with “gay marriage.” As a polygamist has already brought suit against the state of Nevada for the right to marry.

(Remember 70% of all Americans are against gay marriage. That means that many democrats as well as most republicans are against it. In fact, it’s only the most liberal folks like you who are for it.)

Not true. Once again, you’re lying to prove your bigoted point.

60% of Americans are against gay marriage. This number has dropped every time they take a survey.[/quote]

Actually the reverse of what you say is true. Does that mean that YOU are lying, or just mistaken, and want to believe what coincides with your own views?

"Public opposition to “marriages” between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.
When asked whether they thought same-sex “marriages” should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they (gay marrieages) should not (be legalized).

Twenty-eight percent said same-sex “marriages” should be valid and 4 percent had no opinion. The survey of 443 adults was conducted March 18 to 20."

And it seems that two years ago the numbers were more in favor of gay marriage.

You guys are losing ground.

Read all about it: