Gay marriage and the death of freedom:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Unanswered questions:
- Should a societies sexual conduct and marriage be defined by the prevailing morality of the society?
[/quote]
Prevailing as in “held by most”? OK.
Not held by most in Southern states. Not held by most Republicans - not by a longshot. But they’ve been overruled by the federal courts haven’t they? Doesn’t matter what they want in their own state.[/quote]
I took “the society” to mean “the country.” Maybe I shouldn’t have (I wasn’t following the conversation up to that point.) And it doesn’t matter if most Republicans hold this belief – if we’re talking about “prevailing,” they get counted too, and if they lose out, that’s just math.
But either way, I don’t really care that much about whether or not Alabamans can gay marry. I’m fine with things as they are, though I’m amused at the anti-GM side’s inability to produce an argument that doesn’t get shredded in minutes.
Should popular opinion be the sole basis for law?
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Should popular opinion be the sole basis for law?[/quote]
It depends on the law. If the law involves TAKING the rights away from people, then probably not. If it involves GRANTING rights and protections then probably so.
Allowing homosexual couples to legally marry and granting them the same rights, privileges and tax advantages as heterosexual married couples does not, IN ANY WAY, infringe on the rights of those who currently hold the privilege.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Unanswered questions:
- Should a societies sexual conduct and marriage be defined by the prevailing morality of the society?
[/quote]
Prevailing as in “held by most”? OK.
Not held by most in Southern states. Not held by most Republicans - not by a longshot. But they’ve been overruled by the federal courts haven’t they? Doesn’t matter what they want in their own state.[/quote]
I took “the society” to mean “the country.” Maybe I shouldn’t have (I wasn’t following the conversation up to that point.) And it doesn’t matter if most Republicans hold this belief – if we’re talking about “prevailing,” they get counted too, and if they lose out, that’s just math.
But either way, I don’t really care that much about whether or not Alabamans can gay marry. I’m fine with things as they are, though I’m amused at the anti-GM side’s inability to produce an argument that doesn’t get shredded in minutes.[/quote]
And it is always the same arguments. A reason exists why gay marriage has essentially won in the court of public opinion. The opposition arguments make no logical sense. Some places have had gay marriage for a while now and we can already see the bullshit of the “well now everyone will just marry a DVD argument.” Let states decide is the logical point, but even that is a matter of time as the court of public opinion has drastically shifted and continues to shift. Tellingly, Republicans have started to move away from this fight as they already see the writing on the wall. And actually it makes me tend to really like the GOP’s chances more in 2016. Social issues is where Democrats have made hay for a while. The GOP isn’t stupid and knows when to cut its losses. The left will have a much more difficult time if they can’t play the culture war battle card.
[quote]H factor wrote:
And it is always the same arguments.
[/quote]
Of course it is. We’re hardly going to think up new arguments just because gays and enablers don’t agree with our position.
Yep. And the reason is that existential nihilism has brought about an era of hedonism, permissiveness and organised deviancy.
They make perfect sense. You just don’t agree with them.
Actually no. I have given examples as have others here of this happening already. There are historical examples too. NAMBLA piggy backing off the gay successes in the 70’s. The only reason the mainstream gay “rights” movement distanced themselves from NAMBLA was due to the negative publicity.
Here’s one of the “new frontiers” in the sex rights movement:
“Equality For All” - “zoophile rights” they call it.
Others have given recent examples of polygamy - in one recent case three women got “married” to each other:
So you’re being deliberately dishonest here aren’t you? There’s an example right there, right now of the slippery slope of blue state lunacy. Three lesbians “marrying” themselves. And you’ve got the chutzpah to sit there and mock people who are legitimately concerned about this shit. I raise serious and legitimate concerns about the activities of radical LGBT groups in schools and you and smh just fob it off as an “isolated incident”. I raise legitimate concerns about radical legislation permitting drag queens to use female toilets; about radical LGBT groups encouraging children for fuck’s sake to “explore their gender identity” and cross dress at schools. These same groups who initiate children into their activism with the “day of silence” subversion. These same groups that target and harass Christian pastry workers and any other Christians they can find; backed by radical “civil rights” groups; using radical affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation to harass Christians - taking every opportunity to mock them; to mock Christianity and to make a mockery of marriage. And you’ve got the gall to call me a “hater?”
Yes, I know it’s a lost cause and that Western countries will continue to sink into the moral sewer. Why do you think traditional Muslims hate the West so much? Every time they watch a Western TV show or see an American advertisement they’re subjected to filth. I can understand why they don’t want their countries Westernised and why they hate American and Western culture. I’d want to stop that shit from corrupting my country too if I was in their position.
Interesting choice of words. Profaned the temple? Check. Weighed and found wanting? Check. Persians and Medes? They’re on their way.
Edited
Who wants to take a bet that the gay radicals will start hammering away at age of consent laws next? I mean, 40% of convicted sex offenders are gay/bi yet they only make up 2-3% of the population. What does that tell you? It tells me that age of consent laws are homophobic and that they unfairly target the LGBT community. We can’t have that can we? Besides, “age” and “consent” are really abstract and fluid like gender. We can’t just pick an arbitrary age limit and say that anyone who goes below it is a criminal right? Think of all the pederasts…- sorry, I mean “LGBT people” in prison just because of who they “love”.
From tolerance to acceptance to preference. This is their strategy.
To deconstruct our country, the Left needs a breakdown of the institutions that form our county: family, church and the schools.
Fair to say they have made progress. This “movement” is not so much as gay rights, it’s about transforming an institution.
Look at the template known as Europe.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Who wants to take a bet that the gay radicals will start hammering away at age of consent laws next? I mean, 40% of convicted sex offenders are gay/bi yet they only make up 2-3% of the population. What does that tell you? It tells me that age of consent laws are homophobic and that they unfairly target the LGBT community. We can’t have that can we? Besides, “age” and “consent” are really abstract and fluid like gender. We can’t just pick an arbitrary age limit and say that anyone who goes below it is a criminal right? Think of all the pederasts…- sorry, I mean “LGBT people” in prison just because of who they “love”.[/quote]
Precisely.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Who wants to take a bet that the gay radicals will start hammering away at age of consent laws next? I mean, 40% of convicted sex offenders are gay/bi yet they only make up 2-3% of the population. What does that tell you? It tells me that age of consent laws are homophobic and that they unfairly target the LGBT community. We can’t have that can we? Besides, “age” and “consent” are really abstract and fluid like gender. We can’t just pick an arbitrary age limit and say that anyone who goes below it is a criminal right? Think of all the pederasts…- sorry, I mean “LGBT people” in prison just because of who they “love”.[/quote]
SM we are already seeing that. See some of the recent cases involving male teachers having sex with their female students. Even the judges are claiming the victim bears the blame now based on her behavior and state of mind. Leftist lawyers claiming the victim “wasn’t no ordinary 14 year old” and “mature beyond her years”.
Remarkable.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Who wants to take a bet that the gay radicals will start hammering away at age of consent laws next? I mean, 40% of convicted sex offenders are gay/bi yet they only make up 2-3% of the population. What does that tell you? It tells me that age of consent laws are homophobic and that they unfairly target the LGBT community. We can’t have that can we? Besides, “age” and “consent” are really abstract and fluid like gender. We can’t just pick an arbitrary age limit and say that anyone who goes below it is a criminal right? Think of all the pederasts…- sorry, I mean “LGBT people” in prison just because of who they “love”.[/quote]
Precisely. [/quote]
lol that’s some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
And it is always the same arguments.
[/quote]
Of course it is. We’re hardly going to think up new arguments just because gays and enablers don’t agree with our position.
Yep. And the reason is that existential nihilism has brought about an era of hedonism, permissiveness and organised deviancy.
They make perfect sense. You just don’t agree with them.
Actually no. I have given examples as have others here of this happening already. There are historical examples too. NAMBLA piggy backing off the gay successes in the 70’s. The only reason the mainstream gay “rights” movement distanced themselves from NAMBLA was due to the negative publicity.
Here’s one of the “new frontiers” in the sex rights movement:
“Equality For All” - “zoophile rights” they call it.
Others have given recent examples of polygamy - in one recent case three women got “married” to each other:
So you’re being deliberately dishonest here aren’t you? There’s an example right there, right now of the slippery slope of blue state lunacy. Three lesbians “marrying” themselves. And you’ve got the chutzpah to sit there and mock people who are legitimately concerned about this shit. I raise serious and legitimate concerns about the activities of radical LGBT groups in schools and you and smh just fob it off as an “isolated incident”. I raise legitimate concerns about radical legislation permitting drag queens to use female toilets; about radical LGBT groups encouraging children for fuck’s sake to “explore their gender identity” and cross dress at schools. These same groups who initiate children into their activism with the “day of silence” subversion. These same groups that target and harass Christian pastry workers and any other Christians they can find; backed by radical “civil rights” groups; using radical affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation to harass Christians - taking every opportunity to mock them; to mock Christianity and to make a mockery of marriage. And you’ve got the gall to call me a “hater?”
Yes, I know it’s a lost cause and that Western countries will continue to sink into the moral sewer. Why do you think traditional Muslims hate the West so much? Every time they watch a Western TV show or see an American advertisement they’re subjected to filth. I can understand why they don’t want their countries Westernised and why they hate American and Western culture. I’d want to stop that shit from corrupting my country too if I was in their position.
Interesting choice of words. Profaned the temple? Check. Weighed and found wanting? Check. Persians and Medes? They’re on their way.
Edited[/quote]
SexMachine -classy name, by the way, really highlights the purity of your moral compass- I get the impression you’ve never actually met a gay person.
I’m gay. Ask me anything you want. I can tell you why I want to marry my boyfriend of two and a half years, why I want a kid (or two…but no more), and why I think I would make a fantastic father and husband.
Then you can tell me why you think that’s wrong.
It’s an actual opportunity for discussion with someone gay marriage would actually affect.
[quote] Ironskape wrote:
SexMachine -classy name, by the way, really highlights the purity of your moral compass-
[/quote]
SexMachine is not a boast; it’s the name of a character played by Sam Raimi in From Dusk Till Dawn.
I’ve met plenty of gay people. I’ve even discussed gay marriage with another gay poster on this forum.
Why tell me? I’m not interested in your sex life.
You haven’t said anything yet.
And I can tell you why I think a “family” with gay “parents” is far from ideal and why such “families” are often dysfunctional. I wouldn’t support two straight guys raising children and I sure as hell don’t support two gay men raising children. If you think you’d make a fantastic father and husband then I’d recommend you get married…er, to a woman I mean.
I didn’t say “wrong”. If you really want children and to be a good father why not give them a normal upbringing with a mother?
As I said, I’ve discussed this before with gay people. Some even oppose gay marriage. Not all gays are radicals you know.
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
SexMachine -classy name, by the way, really highlights the purity of your moral compass- I get the impression you’ve never actually met a gay person.
I’m gay. Ask me anything you want. I can tell you why I want to marry my boyfriend of two and a half years, why I want a kid (or two…but no more), and why I think I would make a fantastic father and husband.
Then you can tell me why you think that’s wrong.
It’s an actual opportunity for discussion with someone gay marriage would actually affect.
[/quote]
This can’t be a real post…it just can’t be. Regardless of whether it is or not, I would love to hear why you want a child(or two…). Why would someone with a genetic and inalienable(not my belief, but I believe that this is the common argument) attraction to other men desire children, which his natural inclinations obviously don’t permit him to produce?
The question is a serious one, and it’s coming from someone who has no problems with state-sanctioned gay marriage. I do, however, have a problem with a gay couple raising an adopted child-a situation that could obviously not naturally occur.
(*If a man produces a child with a woman, then decides that he is gay and ends up divorcing/leaving the woman, then I don’t have any issue with the man retaining the same parental rights as any other divorced man(or woman).)
Seemed relevant for some reason. In this discussion of gay marriage, I mean. The one that we’re having.
And I can show you studies that say you’re wrong. Here’s one:
Here’s another:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377
Your assertions don’t match up with scientific consensus. Unless you’re really keen on breastfeeding, there’s nothing a straight couple can provide a child that my husband and I couldn’t.
It’s also pretty concerning that you think a loveless, sexless, joyless relationship to a woman is a more healthy environment in which to raise a child than the one I’m in now.
…do you really not understand how “gay” works? See my point above.
Half the country supports gay marriage, and it’s growing every year. It’s not a radical view.
A “radical” view would be one that still thinks that gay people are pedophiles.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
This can’t be a real post…it just can’t be. Regardless of whether it is or not, I would love to hear why you want a child(or two…). Why would someone with a genetic and inalienable(not my belief, but I believe that this is the common argument) attraction to other men desire children, which his natural inclinations obviously don’t permit him to produce?
The question is a serious one, and it’s coming from someone who has no problems with state-sanctioned gay marriage. I do, however, have a problem with a gay couple raising an adopted child-a situation that could obviously not naturally occur.
(*If a man produces a child with a woman, then decides that he is gay and ends up divorcing/leaving the woman, then I don’t have any issue with the man retaining the same parental rights as any other divorced man(or woman).)[/quote]
The same reason a straight couple who, for whatever reason, can’t have children would want to pursue adoption.
I would be a kick-ass father, that’s why. I might go through a surrogate mother, in which case the child would be mine biologically, or I might adopt one of the thousands of kids who need a loving home. I’ve always wanted children, since I was a kid, but my circumstances dictate that I won’t be having one the traditional way.
Also…people don’t decide they’re gay.
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
And it is always the same arguments.
[/quote]
Of course it is. We’re hardly going to think up new arguments just because gays and enablers don’t agree with our position.
Yep. And the reason is that existential nihilism has brought about an era of hedonism, permissiveness and organised deviancy.
They make perfect sense. You just don’t agree with them.
Actually no. I have given examples as have others here of this happening already. There are historical examples too. NAMBLA piggy backing off the gay successes in the 70’s. The only reason the mainstream gay “rights” movement distanced themselves from NAMBLA was due to the negative publicity.
Here’s one of the “new frontiers” in the sex rights movement:
“Equality For All” - “zoophile rights” they call it.
Others have given recent examples of polygamy - in one recent case three women got “married” to each other:
So you’re being deliberately dishonest here aren’t you? There’s an example right there, right now of the slippery slope of blue state lunacy. Three lesbians “marrying” themselves. And you’ve got the chutzpah to sit there and mock people who are legitimately concerned about this shit. I raise serious and legitimate concerns about the activities of radical LGBT groups in schools and you and smh just fob it off as an “isolated incident”. I raise legitimate concerns about radical legislation permitting drag queens to use female toilets; about radical LGBT groups encouraging children for fuck’s sake to “explore their gender identity” and cross dress at schools. These same groups who initiate children into their activism with the “day of silence” subversion. These same groups that target and harass Christian pastry workers and any other Christians they can find; backed by radical “civil rights” groups; using radical affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation to harass Christians - taking every opportunity to mock them; to mock Christianity and to make a mockery of marriage. And you’ve got the gall to call me a “hater?”
Yes, I know it’s a lost cause and that Western countries will continue to sink into the moral sewer. Why do you think traditional Muslims hate the West so much? Every time they watch a Western TV show or see an American advertisement they’re subjected to filth. I can understand why they don’t want their countries Westernised and why they hate American and Western culture. I’d want to stop that shit from corrupting my country too if I was in their position.
Interesting choice of words. Profaned the temple? Check. Weighed and found wanting? Check. Persians and Medes? They’re on their way.
Edited[/quote]
SexMachine -classy name, by the way, really highlights the purity of your moral compass- I get the impression you’ve never actually met a gay person.
I’m gay. Ask me anything you want. I can tell you why I want to marry my boyfriend of two and a half years, why I want a kid (or two…but no more), and why I think I would make a fantastic father and husband.
Then you can tell me why you think that’s wrong.
It’s an actual opportunity for discussion with someone gay marriage would actually affect.
[/quote]
What is your opinion on the strong link between gay men and pedophilia?
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
Seemed relevant for some reason. In this discussion of gay marriage, I mean. The one that we’re having.
[/quote]
See that’s part of the problem. It’s not relevant to this discussion nor anything else. There is no reason for you to announce to people your sexual preferences. Sexual preferences are something that should be “kept in the bedroom” not paraded down the street in “pride” parades nor taught/promoted to children and so on. Not going around telling people your sexual preferences also has the advantage of not being subject to discrimination that gay “rights” groups are always going on about. No one would even know you’re gay. No one should need to know. And in fact, most people don’t want to know.
And I can dig up studies showing the opposite. However, I’m not appealing to authority. My opinions on the matter are formed by personal conviction and experience and if I appeal to anything it would be tradition not statistics.
A gay couple can’t be a mother. There is a great deal more to being a mother than just breast feeding. Interesting article here about gays in France who oppose gay marriage:
One of the people mentioned in the article was raised by two lesbians and says he’s vehemently against gays adopting or raising kids because he experienced it himself and suffered from the lack of a father and from growing up in a dysfunctional pseudo-family. He’s experienced firsthand the problems I’m talking about.
There are plenty of husbands and wives who don’t love each other. What’s important is that they can get along without arguing and fighting in front of the kids all the time. Besides, I was suggesting what I think you should do if you’re determined to have children. Children should come before everything including your own love life.
Yes I understand. See my point above.
Every culture on the face of the earth in the history of civilisation has a concept of marriage - man + woman. None of them have “gay marriage”. The fact that a society is going in for something like gay marriage shows how far in decline we are. Well below replacement level fertility rate; abortions on demand and now gay marriage. It’s a recipe for literally ending the species; for dying out.
[quote]
A “radical” view would be one that still thinks that gay people are pedophiles. [/quote]
I don’t think gay people are pedophiles. What I know is that it’s much more common amongst gay people than straight people. Part of the reason for my opposition to adoption by gay men. There have been some utterly horrendous cases recently of gay men abusing the children they’ve adopted.
And don’t try to misrepresent what I’m saying. I know most gay men are not pedophiles. I just said it’s far more common. I have no animosity towards gay people.
Edited
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
The same reason a straight couple who, for whatever reason, can’t have children would want to pursue adoption. [/quote]
-I don’t know…it seems a stretch to compare a man and woman, one or both of whom have a condition that precludes procreation, to a man and man or woman woman, relationships which could never produce a child, no matter the reproductive health of those involved. Or are you saying that homosexuality is a reproductive disorder?
-It still seems unlikely to me that such a desire would accompany a natural attraction to those with whom you can’t possibly produce a child.
-Perhaps not, but, like I’ve said, it seems unlikely that one whose genetic code tells him that he should mate with the same sex would also give him a desire to have children.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
And it is always the same arguments.
[/quote]
Of course it is. We’re hardly going to think up new arguments just because gays and enablers don’t agree with our position.
Yep. And the reason is that existential nihilism has brought about an era of hedonism, permissiveness and organised deviancy.
They make perfect sense. You just don’t agree with them.
Actually no. I have given examples as have others here of this happening already. There are historical examples too. NAMBLA piggy backing off the gay successes in the 70’s. The only reason the mainstream gay “rights” movement distanced themselves from NAMBLA was due to the negative publicity.
Here’s one of the “new frontiers” in the sex rights movement:
“Equality For All” - “zoophile rights” they call it.
Others have given recent examples of polygamy - in one recent case three women got “married” to each other:
So you’re being deliberately dishonest here aren’t you? There’s an example right there, right now of the slippery slope of blue state lunacy. Three lesbians “marrying” themselves. And you’ve got the chutzpah to sit there and mock people who are legitimately concerned about this shit. I raise serious and legitimate concerns about the activities of radical LGBT groups in schools and you and smh just fob it off as an “isolated incident”. I raise legitimate concerns about radical legislation permitting drag queens to use female toilets; about radical LGBT groups encouraging children for fuck’s sake to “explore their gender identity” and cross dress at schools. These same groups who initiate children into their activism with the “day of silence” subversion. These same groups that target and harass Christian pastry workers and any other Christians they can find; backed by radical “civil rights” groups; using radical affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation to harass Christians - taking every opportunity to mock them; to mock Christianity and to make a mockery of marriage. And you’ve got the gall to call me a “hater?”
Yes, I know it’s a lost cause and that Western countries will continue to sink into the moral sewer. Why do you think traditional Muslims hate the West so much? Every time they watch a Western TV show or see an American advertisement they’re subjected to filth. I can understand why they don’t want their countries Westernised and why they hate American and Western culture. I’d want to stop that shit from corrupting my country too if I was in their position.
Interesting choice of words. Profaned the temple? Check. Weighed and found wanting? Check. Persians and Medes? They’re on their way.
Edited[/quote]
SexMachine -classy name, by the way, really highlights the purity of your moral compass- I get the impression you’ve never actually met a gay person.
I’m gay. Ask me anything you want. I can tell you why I want to marry my boyfriend of two and a half years, why I want a kid (or two…but no more), and why I think I would make a fantastic father and husband.
Then you can tell me why you think that’s wrong.
It’s an actual opportunity for discussion with someone gay marriage would actually affect.
[/quote]
What is your opinion on the strong link between gay men and pedophilia?
[/quote]
I’ll give my opinion. As I said above, I don’t believe that homosexuality = pedophilia, however it is disturbingly prevalent. It can be seen in the culture of “twinks” and “bears”. Of course most are not actually child molesters but the attraction to other men is closely related to attraction to boys. Historically, the connection or association is clear with the gay culture of Ancient Greece and Rome being pretty much exclusively pederastic relationships. And gay culture in Afghanistan for example, is largely manifest in the “bacha bazi boys” - boys who are abused by “bears” as they’re called in the West. So yes, attraction to boys as opposed to men is significantly common. Of course, what makes it particularly heinous is if the boy is pre-pubescent. There’s a big difference between being attracted to a 16-year-old and being attracted to a 12-year-old. Fortunately, most are not attracted to young children(it would seem) but it’s still pretty sordid as is homosexual culture in general.