Now regardless of one’s stance toward gay marriage from a “moral” (it’s not a moral issue, no matter how much assholes like Tony Perkins say it is) standpoint, clearly it’s unacceptable for the government to confer benefits on married couples while excluding certain groups of people. That’s the definition of discrimination? I assume everyone agrees? Why are not these “defenders of marriage” pushing to have marriage de-federalized, as it were? Are they?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess I’ll view you in the same light. Cya.[/quote]
…and with that, you get to conveniently exit without having to explain your hypocrisy and shameless contradiction of chastising others for attacking others while labeling everyone who disagrees with you a “bigot”.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:Oh please don’t get all uppity on me forlife. We’ve had this conversations several pages back. You got all upset because the APA DOES NOT condemn reparative therapy. They feel that reparative therapy can DO NO HARM, in fact it may be quite helpful.
spits out drink
Reparative therapy? Are you serious? Are you an idiot, or just a liar? How about some reparative therapy to turn you gay? No amount of it would have any effect, would it?
Your assumption is that one is born gay and anyone who dare question this fallacy must be, well they must be thinking for themselves. Much to the chagrin of the modern politically correct establishment it has never been proven that anyone has ever been born gay. Since this is the case that makes your statement “how about some reparative therapy to turn you gay” pretty silly. Now get a towel and clean up the mess that you’ve made and understand that most people, correction most thinking adults, need proof before they accept your nonsensical fantasies as reality.
So what age were you when you CHOSE to be straight?
Quit being a moron. There are gay bird, turtles, and everything else. Quit your fantasy world.[/quote]
You made your beliefs clear in your prior post repeating them in a different manner does not offer any proof. I know your late to the party on this thread but I’ve posted ample material which demonstrates that homosexuality has a great deal to do with environment. Now if you want to continue this dialogue stop with your unsubstantiated opinion and offer up some serious data to back up your baseless beliefs.
Otherwise, bye.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:
I guess I’ll view you in the same light. Cya.
…and with that, you get to conveniently exit without having to explain your hypocrisy and shameless contradiction of chastising others for attacking others while labeling everyone who disagrees with you a “bigot”.
[/quote]
He has sworn me off as well TB, it seems that he doesn’t want anyone to crack the encapsulated delusion he lives in.
[quote]Mishima wrote:
no it is not. you could argue that these couples benefit from the fact that most of the married people can get children, but htats it. if getting children was the norm between gay couples than there would not be any poblem.[/quote]
Why should infertile straight couples “benefit from the fact that most of the married people can get children”, while infertile gay couples don’t?
[quote]but can you tell me why you insist on the term marriage? i don’t get that. if you could have equal rights without calling it marrige why don’t you like that?
[/quote]
As I said earlier, I don’t insist on the term marriage. I couldn’t care less what you call it, as long as it entails the same legal benefits and responsibilities, particularly at the federal level.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:
I guess I’ll view you in the same light. Cya.
…and with that, you get to conveniently exit without having to explain your hypocrisy and shameless contradiction of chastising others for attacking others while labeling everyone who disagrees with you a “bigot”.
[/quote]
Yeah! Come on forlife! Tbolt isn’t a “bigot”! He isn’t a “hypocrite”! An unintelligent, uneducated asshole, sure, but “bigot”? rolls eyes
Seriously tbolt, don’t ever stop posting, this stuff is gold. The best part is how you attempt to sound smart and educated. Keep it going kid!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:
I guess I’ll view you in the same light. Cya.
…and with that, you get to conveniently exit without having to explain your hypocrisy and shameless contradiction of chastising others for attacking others while labeling everyone who disagrees with you a “bigot”.
He has sworn me off as well TB, it seems that he doesn’t want anyone to crack the encapsulated delusion he lives in.[/quote]
Shit mate, I “swore off” you since we first “internet met” and you told me of your conspiracy theory (repeated by HH on this thread one might point out!) that the illuminati is creating a world government via the use of gay marriage. It’s all so clear there’s no reason at all to debate with you!
[quote]Mishima wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
BTW, Mishima, did you know your namesake was (probably) a gay weightlifter?
not probably he was gay. and he has written the best book about a heterosexual intercourse ever called “patriotism”. Like i said before I do not have anything against gay people.[/quote]
I never read it, but I was thinking of picking up some things he wrote…he was quite the nutcase, wasn’t he? I was also thinking of trying to find “I Cut Off the Head of Yukio Mishima” in English, have you read it?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Now regardless of one’s stance toward gay marriage from a “moral” (it’s not a moral issue, no matter how much assholes like Tony Perkins say it is) standpoint, clearly it’s unacceptable for the government to confer benefits on married couples while excluding certain groups of people. That’s the definition of discrimination?[/quote]
Discrimination is not an inherently bad thing. There are citizens and non-citizens, lawful citizens and criminals, federal employees and private employees, Republicans and Democrats, paper and plastic…
There are morally things; theft, murder, war, rape, lynchings… does not being able to traipse around the hospital to visit your SO compare to these? If it’s so ‘unacceptable’ to make people file individual tax returns, why is that the default?
Talk about discrimination! Non-married heterosexual couples are at a significantly more ‘opressed’ than heterosexual couples to begin with. Most heterosexual couples cannot engage in intercourse without considerable risk of pregnancy without some investment in contraception. Since homosexuals don’t suffer this disadvantage, why should heterosexuals be obligated in any way to accommodate homosexual relationships? Especially when the childbirth results in a burden on the couple that is a potential benefit to the larger society.
Things like granting citizen status to someone who has a kid with a citizen, or through association has a considerable likelihood of having a kid makes at least a modicum of sense. Granting it to someone who has considerable obstacles to even having a child makes no sense at all.
That’s pretty dumb.
I routinely espouse the de-federalization and redefinition of marriage. People like forliar are not proponents of this. They need acceptance and validation of that acceptance. This is how they get it.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Discrimination is not an inherently bad thing.[/quote]
When it comes to constitutional rights, the legal standard for determining eligibility is whether or not the minority group is “similarly situated” to the majority group. If so, law requires granting the same right to the minority group.
The determination of whether or not the minority group is “similarly situated” is made by the courts, and in the case of marriage, the Supreme Court has determined that gay couples are “similarly situated” to heterosexual couples.
If by de-federalization, you mean eliminating the 1,000+ federal responsibilities and benefits of marriage, I think far more people would be up in arms than the 5% of the population that are gay. And that is not because people (gay or straight) care so much about “acceptance and validation”, it is because they actually value those 1,000+ federal responsibilities and benefits.
If you are referring to reserving the term “marriage” for churches, and using a different language like “civil unions” for the legally binding commitment, I’m completely fine with that.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Granting [citizen status] to someone who has considerable obstacles to even having a child makes no sense at all.
[/quote]
lol. Are you trying to link the capacity to obtain citizenship to the capacity to have children? “No capacity to have kids, no citizenship!” that kind of thing?
[quote]forlife wrote:
When it comes to constitutional rights, the legal standard for determining eligibility is whether or not the minority group is “similarly situated” to the majority group. If so, law requires granting the same right to the minority group.
The determination of whether or not the minority group is “similarly situated” is made by the courts, and in the case of marriage, the Supreme Court has determined that gay couples are “similarly situated” to heterosexual couples.[/quote]
An outright lie. The Supreme Court has done no such thing. This has become ridiculous.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
If you really want to visit someone, here is a trick, in the hospital if you say you’re their pastor, most of the time they will allow you through as long as there is not a police escort with them.
I thought lying was a sin. And why should he even have to?[/quote]
Lying is a sin, but saying you’re a pastor or a preacher does not mean he is a religious leader.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I believe the legislation should be a reflection of the people.
I asked if you would still feel this way if some religion tried to legislate beliefs on you which hurt you in some way?
For example, what if muslims were the majority in the U.S., and they decided that only muslims should be allowed to marry, since Allah doesn’t recognize the validity of any other marriage? Would you like being denied the right to marry based on their religious belief?
If you really want to visit someone, here is a trick, in the hospital if you say you’re their pastor, most of the time they will allow you through as long as there is not a police escort with them.
So you think gays should be required to lie in order to visit their sick partner in the hospital? A coworker of mine was unable to visit his partner following a heart attack, until the father arrived to grant permission. He wasn’t considered “family”, despite being partnered for 25 years.
This is only one of literally 1,000+ federal rights/benefits associated with marriage that are currently denied to gay couples. Does that seem right to you?[/quote]
That’s fine, I would just move. Or start a revolution. Or secede. And under Muslim laws, Allah recognizes Christian and Jewish marriages since well Muslim’s accept the Bible into their writings. Plus, you’d still be stoned to death for being a homosexual. Just saying.
I have personally not been able to visit one of my sexual partners when she was taken to the hospital… I have known her for all my life, and I live in a small town and everyone knew that we were close. I still had to wait until her immediate family came.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I am still observant to the opinion that homosexuality will break down the stability of the American family and one of the important pillars of America.
How does my being gay hurt your family in any way?[/quote]
My family, does not do a thing. But I’m a lone wolf, have no other people to worry about. However, I said American family. The institution of family & marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
And here I thought that disparate treatment of anyone was bigotry.
Disparate treatment of criminals isn’t bigotry. Disparate treatment of people based on personal characteristics like race, age, gender, or sexual orientation is bigotry.
Since gay rights are not inalienable, they are determined BY VOTING.
You are stating your opinion as fact. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has noted that sexual orientation is not a valid characteristic for denying people equal rights under the Constitution.
As of now, the majority of people refuse to grant you the right to marry.
You do realize that as recently as this year, the legislature (not the courts) has passed laws allowing gays to marry, right? And public opinions favoring equal rights for gays have steadily increased over the past couple of decades. You see that as social decline, and I see it as social progress. Regardless, it is happening and you can’t stop it.
Soon, your ‘friend’ will leave you for a pony.
Tell that to my friends Ian and Ambrose, who have been together for over 50 years.[/quote]
Well race, age, and sex are much different than sexual orientation, the definition of orientation is change from external factors. Progress is not always the best thing for progress. It is stoppable, I am afraid that you’re blinded being so involved in the issue you’re not seeing the forest. I have seen many people going back to the fact that being gay is not cool, and that actually being gay is not right at all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mishima wrote:
forlife wrote:
that is an very interesting point. And honestly: I don`t know. If the evolutiontheory is right, homosexuals should allready have died out, because they cannot produce offspring, so they cannot pass on their genes. but it is a fact that they still exist in every society. So I understand your point.
I asked this question a biologist I know and he argued very non pc like: From an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality is a random accident like being handicapped.
There are some interesting theories on the role of homosexuality in evolution, showing that gays do serve an evolutionary purpose.
Regardless, the point is that we don’t choose to be gay. As the Surgeon General puts it, “homosexuality is not a reversible lifestyle choice”.
And as far as “value” for society: It is true that a homosexual couple could raise children, but they cannot produce them. But I would find it rather irritating having two daddys. Nature intended us to have a mother and a father.
You might find it irritating, but children raised in a loving home by same sex parents are actually better off than when they are raised with no parents in a public facility. These children aren’t going to be raised by a mother and father anyway, so aren’t gays providing a useful public service by giving them a home?[/quote]
I have to disagree with you, I know quit a few people who have gone straight.
And so we’re picking between the best of two evils now. Hmm, says something about you’re argument.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I’m laughing so hard right now I can barely type, you’re a real case study forlife.
That speaks volumes about your real intent. This whole thing is a game to you, I’m not wasting my time any more.
[/quote]
This is sport, you do not get it? You think you’re going to change the world by having a debate on a forum?
[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
ZEB wrote:
"Woman Marries Her Dog (Seriously)
NewsOh PleaseWeird NewsStrange News94 CommentsLook, we love our pets, but a woman in Ghana has married her dog. We repeat, her dog.
Uh, what? Yeah, this actually happened. Says the blushing bride (ew) Emily Mabou, 29: “For so long I’ve been praying for a life with a partner who has all the qualities of my dad. My dad was kind, faithful and loyal to my mum, and he never let her down.”
Don’t see how this translates into marrying your dog? Read on! Mabou claims that her relationships have all been with “skirt-chasers and cheaters.” The priest who performed the ceremony told people not to mock the wedding, but instead “rejoice with her, as she has found happiness at last.” Don’t mock? Not likely, lady. (Though we get why some folks decide to marry their cats.)
When asked about her plans for babies, Maribou responded, “We’ll adopt.” Fantastic! Next story: Woman and Golden Retriever Adopt Twins. Gross. Weird. Disturbing. Any more adjectives we forgot?"
Who are we to deny happiness to these two people err I mean creatures?
Shit as long as she is not abusing the animal (by which I include any sex as the animal cannot consent) I don’t give a fuck what she marries. She can marry a fish for all I care. It’s just not something other people should be worrying about.
To the people who oppose gay marriage, would you support removing the government aspect of marriage and make it down to churches who they want to marry as a religious ceremony?[/quote]
So, wait. What you’re saying is that bestiality (which is considered a mental condition and they are born with it) is not allowed, but being gay and married is. Interesting…