Civil Rights for Gays, Women, Blacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:

Puritanical? Do you even know what that means? I do not care what two people do with their genitals. I am not a bigot, I take offense to that. However, I do care that I do not want the institute of Marriage to be ruined by it being stained. Yes, in this democracy (what is left) majority rules, no minorities do not get to establish rule.

I know what puritanical means.

What exactly is it then, because I am sure I am not. :smiley:

Heterosexual couples stain the “institution of Marriage” quite regularly.

And you still haven’t answered my question of how it effects you. “Staining” marriage isn’t a reason.

Why do you assume everything has to be a personal issue, it affects all married people by making a mockery of marriage.[/quote]

Ever watch an episode of Cops? Heterosexual marriages can “stain” the institution of marriage through there behavior just as efficiently as any gay couple could.

And you have yet to give me a logical reason how gay marriage effects you?

122

[quote]Dustin wrote:

And what right does the state of Kansas have to deny people marriage?[/quote]

Is this a serious question?

123

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
aussie486 wrote:

Go brother chris!

             if you were the religious man in my neck of the woods I'd go to one of your sermons, good to see the lord stepping up and swinging!

I do not know if you are being sarcastic or what, [/quote]

Not at all, admire your passion, all the best.

124

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:

And what right does the state of Kansas have to deny people marriage?

Is this a serious question?
[/quote]

It was.

Now please “edumukate” me on why a government can tell two consenting adults that they can’t marry.

And please come up with a better reason than gay marriage will “stain” the institution of marriage, which has been the basis of some previous arguments.

125

[quote]Dustin wrote:

It was.

Now please “edumukate” me on why a government can tell two consenting adults that they can’t marry.

And please come up with a better reason than gay marriage will “stain” the institution of marriage, which has been the basis of some previous arguments.[/quote]

You asked whether a government can, not whether a government should. A government - more precisely, a state government - most certainly can pick and choose what relationships it affords the distinction of marriage.

If two people want to have a private ceremony and call themselves “married”, no one will stop them - but they aren’t entitled to any formal recognition or any of the benefits of marriage unless the state has authorized it.

Sorry to inform. On a related note, just because you declare yourself a four star general on your blog doesn’t mean you are entitled to command the US army. Same principle.

126

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

You asked whether a government can, not whether a government should.
[/quote]

I’m aware that a state government has this power and they enforce it. Thanks for reminding me.

That’s not what I was asking. My question was:

Can you answer this?

127

[quote]Dustin wrote:

And what right does the state of Kansas have to deny people marriage?

Can you answer this?[/quote]

Sure, already did.

A state has both a vested (positive and natural) right and a constitutional right to deny some people the legally recognized institution of marriage. The entire point of marriage is that it sets aside a type of relationship to the exclusion of others for public policy reasons. The people, by and through the state they vested their power in, commits to a definition and enforces that definition.

128

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A state has both a vested (positive and natural) right and a constitutional right to deny some people the legally recognized institution of marriage. [/quote]

Why?

And how is it “Constitutional” to say this group of consenting adults can marry but this group can’t? Sounds quite the opposite of constitutional.

Brother Chris and yourself have not given me a single (logical) reason why two consenting homosexual adults cannot marry.

Because “government A” said so is not a reason. What would be harmful about the state recognizing gay marriage?

129

[quote]Dustin wrote:

And how is it “Constitutional” to say this group of consenting adults can marry but this group can’t? Sounds quite the opposite of constitutional.[/quote]

No it doesn’t. Your version of “constitutional” is a personal version you made up, not anything based in reality. That doesn’t cut it - the Constitution has actual words and historical principles.

“Unconstitutional” does not and has never meant “seems unfair to me”.

No one is saying two homosexuals can’t conduct a ceremony and exchange vows. They can call it “marriage” if they want to. But their ceremony and vows don’t create a “marriage” in the eyes of the law unless the state permits it.

Entire multi-page threads have gone through this over and over. Avail yourself if you have spare time.

Different question - now you are asking whether a state should recognize gay marriage.

Short answer? It undermines traditional marriage by privileging another relationship as “equal” when, for the purposes of the public policy marriage was created to superintend, is not equal.

Been said, over and over. Do a search.

130

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[…]because you sound a little queer to be living in Oklahoma. Unless you are one of those fucking broke back mountain hands that all the LA queers are drooling over because you wear a cowboy hat and boots.[…]

And not to forget:
Brother Chris wrote:[…]How about I kill you because you’re fucking annoying.[…][/quote]

Wow, have seldom seen such a meltdown (and I’ve been on PWI for a long time) - and am surprised this went through the moderators (well, actually, not). Not even Mick28 goes that low.

I would respectfully ask you to reflect on those statements - it would help you to understand some our reactions towards you. However annoyed you may be, especially the latter statement breaks all the rules of debate.

Moreover, you’ve just shot an own goal by falling into exactly the kind of behaviour some of us call bigotted, and some of us (eg. the homosexuals among us) have rightfully feared for a long time. Obviously, this may be just some Internet tough guy act - but that doesn’t excuse your behaviour. Only you can do that.

Makkun

131

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Makavali my friend, there are other environmental theories which apply to homosexual men. Things such as having a domineering mother and distant father are only two.

Feeling ostracized as a child (for whatever reason). Also, being molested as a child can lead to homosexuality later in life.

However, none of the above guarantee that you will in fact become a homosexual. Just like growing up in poverty doesn’t guarantee that you will stay in poverty, however the possibility is far greater that you will.

These environmental condition’s make just as much sense (in fact more so) than the genetic theory which has never been proven. I don’t see what difference it makes because once someones sexuality is established it is difficult to change. It has been done by many, but it is not an easy proposition. My heart goes out to those who are not satisfied with their sexuality and want to change it. from what I’ve read the long-term commitment must be there along with an excellent therapist.

Anyway, as a personal observation and very unscientific I would say that 90% of all homosexual men that I have known (Friends from school and past jobs that I’ve held) did indeed fall into these environmental conditions.
[/quote]

I see. It’s just that I could apply a lot of that (with the exception of things like molestation) to myself, and yet I’m heterosexual through no choice of my own.

That said, I agree that environment plays a factor in determining sexuality.

132

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Makavali my friend, there are other environmental theories which apply to homosexual men. Things such as having a domineering mother and distant father are only two.

Feeling ostracized as a child (for whatever reason). Also, being molested as a child can lead to homosexuality later in life.

However, none of the above guarantee that you will in fact become a homosexual. Just like growing up in poverty doesn’t guarantee that you will stay in poverty, however the possibility is far greater that you will.

These environmental condition’s make just as much sense (in fact more so) than the genetic theory which has never been proven. I don’t see what difference it makes because once someones sexuality is established it is difficult to change. It has been done by many, but it is not an easy proposition. My heart goes out to those who are not satisfied with their sexuality and want to change it. from what I’ve read the long-term commitment must be there along with an excellent therapist.

Anyway, as a personal observation and very unscientific I would say that 90% of all homosexual men that I have known (Friends from school and past jobs that I’ve held) did indeed fall into these environmental conditions.
[/quote]

I see. It’s just that I could apply a lot of that (with the exception of things like molestation) to myself, and yet I’m heterosexual through no choice of my own.

That said, I agree that environment plays a factor in determining sexuality.

133

[quote]makkun wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
[…]because you sound a little queer to be living in Oklahoma. Unless you are one of those fucking broke back mountain hands that all the LA queers are drooling over because you wear a cowboy hat and boots.[…]

And not to forget:
Brother Chris wrote:[…]How about I kill you because you’re fucking annoying.[…]

Wow, have seldom seen such a meltdown (and I’ve been on PWI for a long time) - and am surprised this went through the moderators (well, actually, not). Not even Mick28 goes that low.

I would respectfully ask you to reflect on those statements - it would help you to understand some our reactions towards you. However annoyed you may be, especially the latter statement breaks all the rules of debate.

Moreover, you’ve just shot an own goal by falling into exactly the kind of behaviour some of us call bigotted, and some of us (eg. the homosexuals among us) have rightfully feared for a long time. Obviously, this may be just some Internet tough guy act - but that doesn’t excuse your behaviour. Only you can do that.

Makkun[/quote]

I think it’s full of win. It shoots himself in the foot and lets me know what I’m dealing with.

134

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[…]because you sound a little queer to be living in Oklahoma. Unless you are one of those fucking broke back mountain hands that all the LA queers are drooling over because you wear a cowboy hat and boots.[…]

And not to forget:
Brother Chris wrote:[…]How about I kill you because you’re fucking annoying.[…]

[/quote]

This is the kind of “Christianity” that has people scared and pissed at christians, hell at Kansans in general. Think about the disservice you just did to your brothers.

135

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:

Puritanical? Do you even know what that means? I do not care what two people do with their genitals. I am not a bigot, I take offense to that. However, I do care that I do not want the institute of Marriage to be ruined by it being stained. Yes, in this democracy (what is left) majority rules, no minorities do not get to establish rule.

I know what puritanical means.

What exactly is it then, because I am sure I am not. :smiley:

Heterosexual couples stain the “institution of Marriage” quite regularly.

And you still haven’t answered my question of how it effects you. “Staining” marriage isn’t a reason.

Why do you assume everything has to be a personal issue, it affects all married people by making a mockery of marriage.

Ever watch an episode of Cops? Heterosexual marriages can “stain” the institution of marriage through there behavior just as efficiently as any gay couple could.

And you have yet to give me a logical reason how gay marriage effects you?
[/quote]

I have already explained this in other threads. From now on my official statement of the question of gay marriage:

I, Brother Chris, hold true in my belief (heaven forbid I say as the truth) Constitutionally there is no warrant for gays to be allowed to be married, the issue of gay marriage and benefits should be decided by individual states. I however disagree with gay marriage because by forlife’s definition I believe in a fairy tale, and Mak’s definition the space genie that is an old white man with a white beard. Which I do not claim nor agree with that there is any fairy tale or space genies that look like an old white man with a white beard that I believe in.

That all people no matter race, creed, sex, and/or sexual orientation should not be denied any public facilities/housing/benefits/public office. However, anybody with private facilities/housing/benefits/businesses can discriminate against whomever requests or is in position to be placed in these places, if whoever so chooses.

That marriage is formality brought from the old testament (into America), taken from all societies that held strong because of it. So, as of now, hopefully everyone can understand that, in my belief, in the Kingdom of the World, gay marriage is fine. By the Kingdom of God, who I choose over the Kingdom of the World, gay marriage is incorrect. And as I stand here today, I will interject always until proven otherwise, biblically, that gay marriage should not be allowed in any of the states I reside until the majority of the people of capable mind and of voting age choose that it shall be allowed.

Summary:
No constitutional basis.
State Issue.
By society gay marriage should be allowed, I do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings because they can’t do something.
I do not condone homosexual behavior, and I think gay marriage would encourage people to do that behavior.
Biblically homosexual behavior is a sin.

Fair enough?

136

[quote]Dustin wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

A state has both a vested (positive and natural) right and a constitutional right to deny some people the legally recognized institution of marriage.

Why?

And how is it “Constitutional” to say this group of consenting adults can marry but this group can’t? Sounds quite the opposite of constitutional.

Brother Chris and yourself have not given me a single (logical) reason why two consenting homosexual adults cannot marry.

Because “government A” said so is not a reason. What would be harmful about the state recognizing gay marriage?[/quote]

Because people of government A said that they can say so.

137

[quote]makkun wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
[…]because you sound a little queer to be living in Oklahoma. Unless you are one of those fucking broke back mountain hands that all the LA queers are drooling over because you wear a cowboy hat and boots.[…]

And not to forget:
Brother Chris wrote:[…]How about I kill you because you’re fucking annoying.[…]

Wow, have seldom seen such a meltdown (and I’ve been on PWI for a long time) - and am surprised this went through the moderators (well, actually, not). Not even Mick28 goes that low.

I would respectfully ask you to reflect on those statements - it would help you to understand some our reactions towards you. However annoyed you may be, especially the latter statement breaks all the rules of debate.

Moreover, you’ve just shot an own goal by falling into exactly the kind of behaviour some of us call bigotted, and some of us (eg. the homosexuals among us) have rightfully feared for a long time. Obviously, this may be just some Internet tough guy act - but that doesn’t excuse your behaviour. Only you can do that.

Makkun[/quote]

Alright mother :wink: I was giving him shit, there was no melt down. Him coming from a “conservative” state, I thought I would have fun. I didn’t know people’s feelings would be hurt. If anyone’s feelings were hurt, I am sorry that was not my intent and I retract any statement that was not productive to the debate. If you look I asked if he came from Texas, any self respecting resident of Oklahoma would rather be called a queer (unless they are homophobic), than a Texan.

Not that being from Texas is a bad thing, unless you are in Oklahoma.

Edit: The statement towards forlife was because he was comparing Catholics who have already received our licks and still do to being a homosexual, and the fact every time I say something he picks the most obscure thing to pull out and put a what if in front of. I have and my family has dealt with discriminate because we are Catholics (from business deals to jobs to being able to buy property).

138

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I think it’s full of win. It shoots himself in the foot and lets me know what I’m dealing with.[/quote]

It was not supposed to be an ending statement. As I said above I was giving shit to the guy because he was from Oklahoma, as you can see I opened with it.

And even if I was not just giving the guy shit, you have none the less (you and forlife both) continue to mock my faith and beliefs.

139

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
… and Mak’s definition the space genie that is an old white man with a white beard.[/quote]

Admittedly, it could actually be a china teapot.

140

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:

I think it’s full of win. It shoots himself in the foot and lets me know what I’m dealing with.

It was not supposed to be an ending statement. As I said above I was giving shit to the guy because he was from Oklahoma, as you can see I opened with it.

And even if I was not just giving the guy shit, you have none the less (you and forlife both) continue to mock my faith and beliefs. [/quote]

Of course that justifies saying “I should kill you”. What was I thinking?

Of course, Muslim terrorists never say that.

You have no right to legislate your beliefs on others who do not share said belief. The Church and State are separated. If you want to deny gay marriage in your Church, please do. If you want to make a secular argument like TB23, then feel free to do so.

But saying I vote against this because I find it “immoral” is fucking retarded.