[quote]forlife wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I’m just glad to have a President that agrees with me for a change.[/quote]
Clinton agreed with you.
I said it before and I will keep repeating it because it’s true. Gay people have the same rights as everybody else.
Who you choose to love and fuck entitles nobody to anything.
I do not agree with persecuting gay people or giving them any special consideration.
Be gay or strait, don’t tell me your live life makes you special, it doesn’t.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I’m just glad to have a President that agrees with me for a change.[/quote]
What is LGBT? Lesbian-Gay-Boy-Toy?
What has this country come to? Wow! When the flamers start strutting up and down our streets, kissing and clucking out in the open, we are done. Decadence gone wild!
First a president whom no one really knows, whom we can’t criticisize because that’d be ‘racist’, and now this perverse crap running up and down our streets.
I’m beginning to see why the Muslim whackjobs want to bomb us; we’re just plain fucking nuts, allowing this stuff!
[quote]orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
See, the problem is that you demand fairness and distributive from a government and I understand that-
the problem is though that that includes entitlements that I think no one should have, no matter what their sexual preferences are.
As I see it, the question is whether the “entitlements” provide a large enough return to justify the investment.
Does society benefit significantly from rewarding and holding people accountable for maintaining stable family relationships? I think so. It is good for children, good for the couple, and good for society at large.
That is classic utilitarian reasoning and it does not work.
The reason is that there is no way of measuring whether society benefits or not, because that would require the cardinality and inter-subjective comparability of utility functions.
All such reasoning leaves as with is the attempt to rob from each other by pretending to “benefit society”, and that is not enough to justify what would be called “theft” by a less “enlightened” ethical system.
It’s more than that, though. Equal rights for gays isn’t just about “entitlements”. It is about having fundamental and fair access to hospitals, employment, etc. The guy that sits next to me at work was with his partner for 25 years and had done all the legal work, but when his partner had a heart attack he was denied visitation rights and had to wait for his partner’s father to arrive and grant permission. That is wrong and should be fixed.
Well, that is wrong and should be fixed and private contracts are a great way to do that.
I deny however that you have a “right” to hold a job with a corresponding duty for someone else to give you one just because you are gay.
I think gays and lesbians would make a great partner in a libertarian “leave me alone”-coalition, alas they do not want less government tits but more so that they can suck on them too.
In the end not everyone that is against large parts of your agenda is so because he is homophobic , I would also be against them if they furthered any other agenda.[/quote]
Private contracts are not a good way to fix that at all. They are not binding on hospitals or any other third parties who are not party to the contract. Hospitals and any other third party are entirely free to disregard people’s wishes without state and federal laws mandating otherwise.
Here’s the part where Sloth says that lifetime heterosexual best friends should also be treated identically to married couples. And that if the government extends legal benefits to same-sex couples, it should do the same for people in committed relationships with their goldfish or toothbrush.
[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
See, the problem is that you demand fairness and distributive from a government and I understand that-
the problem is though that that includes entitlements that I think no one should have, no matter what their sexual preferences are.
As I see it, the question is whether the “entitlements” provide a large enough return to justify the investment.
Does society benefit significantly from rewarding and holding people accountable for maintaining stable family relationships? I think so. It is good for children, good for the couple, and good for society at large.
It’s more than that, though. Equal rights for gays isn’t just about “entitlements”. It is about having fundamental and fair access to hospitals, employment, etc. The guy that sits next to me at work was with his partner for 25 years and had done all the legal work, but when his partner had a heart attack he was denied visitation rights and had to wait for his partner’s father to arrive and grant permission. His partner ended up dying. That is wrong and should be fixed. [/quote]
That’s why you have civil union ceremonies. But no, that’s not enough; you want to shit all over something many of us hold sacred. Can we shit all over something YOU hold sacred? What do gays hold sacred? Anything? I can’t think of anything. They are simply negative, wanting to shit all over anything that straight people hold dear.
Keep it up, dumbasses, and then be oh-so-surprised when the silent majority has had enough.
Forlife, I think I didn’t care about gay stuff before, live and let live. Have your civil unions, just keep a lid on your stuff. But now, with the parades and the protests and the hunting down of Prop 8 supporters, I’m really becoming rather pissed at all of you. I would actively campaign against this shit if it ever came up here. In fact, I’m going to donate cash to causes that are anti-gay.
You succeeded, bugwit.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
ethos14 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
forlife wrote:
It’s more than that, though. Equal rights for gays isn’t just about “entitlements”. It is about having fundamental and fair access to hospitals, employment, etc. The guy that sits next to me at work was with his partner for 25 years and had done all the legal work, but when his partner had a heart attack he was denied visitation rights and had to wait for his partner’s father to arrive and grant permission. His partner ended up dying. That is wrong and should be fixed.
Do Texas employers, insurance companies, and hospitals recognize domestic partnerships?
If not, would it ease most of your concerns to move to a state that does?
I think you and Orion are misunderstanding the homosexualist agenda. It’s not about ‘rights’ or ‘equality’ at all (as if ‘equality’ were ever guaranteed by the Constituion.)
Homosexualists work to make society accepting of their disease spreading lifestyle, instead of just buggering each other in private. After they have made sodomy acceptable, they work to make it dominant.
Posts like this remind me why reading this section of the site is a bad idea. Stupidity abound.
It isn’t really though. We have legitimate guys like forlife, and we have some fucked up people in that subculture. It’s sad for the decent people, like forlife. Because instead of sotiety seeing homosexuals as am odd little subculture with wierd sexual tendencies. We see them as having pedophiliac tendencies, irresponsible behavior, and radically forcing their lifestyle on churches and schools. Just because of what a certain part of the subculture does. Forlife doesn’t seem to have said anything about homosexuality in schools, he’s already adamantly opposed being able to sue churches for not marrying people (iirc), and he just wants to be able to see his partner if some shit goes down. And have the peace of mind that goes along with it. Agree with a lifestyle or not, we should follow our constitution, while avoiding causing pain to a group of people just because we hold biases.
Most of the people here are very far to either side of the fence here, while the gay guy seems to be in the middle. I do NOT agree with forlife on every aspect of his arguement, but I CAN agree on not diliberately causing pain to a group of people becuase I don’t agree with their lifestyle.
common sense guys, use it.
[/quote]
Hah. Good luck. Some have presented some legitmate agreements against extending legal benefits to same-sex couples. I don’t agree with them, but they make sense. However, most of these threads just degenerate into ludicrous assertions about extreme goals of the ‘gay agenda’ not based on reality.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
See, the problem is that you demand fairness and distributive from a government and I understand that-
the problem is though that that includes entitlements that I think no one should have, no matter what their sexual preferences are.
As I see it, the question is whether the “entitlements” provide a large enough return to justify the investment.
Does society benefit significantly from rewarding and holding people accountable for maintaining stable family relationships? I think so. It is good for children, good for the couple, and good for society at large.
It’s more than that, though. Equal rights for gays isn’t just about “entitlements”. It is about having fundamental and fair access to hospitals, employment, etc. The guy that sits next to me at work was with his partner for 25 years and had done all the legal work, but when his partner had a heart attack he was denied visitation rights and had to wait for his partner’s father to arrive and grant permission. His partner ended up dying. That is wrong and should be fixed.
That’s why you have civil union ceremonies. But no, that’s not enough; you want to shit all over something many of us hold sacred. Can we shit all over something YOU hold sacred? What do gays hold sacred? Anything? I can’t think of anything. They are simply negative, wanting to shit all over anything that straight people hold dear.
Keep it up, dumbasses, and then be oh-so-surprised when the silent majority has had enough.
Forlife, I think I didn’t care about gay stuff before, live and let live. Have your civil unions, just keep a lid on your stuff. But now, with the parades and the protests and the hunting down of Prop 8 supporters, I’m really becoming rather pissed at all of you. I would actively campaign against this shit if it ever came up here. In fact, I’m going to donate cash to causes that are anti-gay.
You succeeded, bugwit.
[/quote]
So, what then, is your position. You are in full support of civil unions and extension of federal and state benefits?You just don’t want it called marriage?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Here’s the part where Sloth says that lifetime heterosexual best friends should also be treated identically to married couples. And that if the government extends legal benefits to same-sex couples, it should do the same for people in committed relationships with their goldfish or toothbrush.[/quote]
The goldfish and the toothbrush arguement is your own invention. Now, the two hetero roommates and othewise committed bachelors, are part of my arguement. And with good reason. It illustrates that marriage benefits are discriminating, period. And that when it comes to recognition and government mandated benefits, we allow government to make distinctions between human relationships, and discriminate against anything that falls out of bounds. I like to test the waters and see where other people’s “bigotry” comes to the front.
.
There is a trannie on The Real World Now.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
See, the problem is that you demand fairness and distributive from a government and I understand that-
the problem is though that that includes entitlements that I think no one should have, no matter what their sexual preferences are.
As I see it, the question is whether the “entitlements” provide a large enough return to justify the investment.
Does society benefit significantly from rewarding and holding people accountable for maintaining stable family relationships? I think so. It is good for children, good for the couple, and good for society at large.
It’s more than that, though. Equal rights for gays isn’t just about “entitlements”. It is about having fundamental and fair access to hospitals, employment, etc. The guy that sits next to me at work was with his partner for 25 years and had done all the legal work, but when his partner had a heart attack he was denied visitation rights and had to wait for his partner’s father to arrive and grant permission. His partner ended up dying. That is wrong and should be fixed.
That’s why you have civil union ceremonies. But no, that’s not enough; you want to shit all over something many of us hold sacred. Can we shit all over something YOU hold sacred? What do gays hold sacred? Anything? I can’t think of anything. They are simply negative, wanting to shit all over anything that straight people hold dear.
Keep it up, dumbasses, and then be oh-so-surprised when the silent majority has had enough.
Forlife, I think I didn’t care about gay stuff before, live and let live. Have your civil unions, just keep a lid on your stuff. But now, with the parades and the protests and the hunting down of Prop 8 supporters, I’m really becoming rather pissed at all of you. I would actively campaign against this shit if it ever came up here. In fact, I’m going to donate cash to causes that are anti-gay.
You succeeded, bugwit.
So, what then, is your position. You are in full support of civil unions and extension of federal and state benefits?You just don’t want it called marriage?[/quote]
“The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation – all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama’s stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter.”
— Ann Coulter
Its just what I said. Gay people have human rights because they are human. But now that voting decides right and wrong, what a ‘right’ is, they have been outvoted. They bitch and moan, parade and protest, because the vote didn’t go their way. They are NOT going to get more votes by attacking straight people and what we hold dear. In fact, it has the opposite effect with me.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
See, the problem is that you demand fairness and distributive from a government and I understand that-
the problem is though that that includes entitlements that I think no one should have, no matter what their sexual preferences are.
As I see it, the question is whether the “entitlements” provide a large enough return to justify the investment.
Does society benefit significantly from rewarding and holding people accountable for maintaining stable family relationships? I think so. It is good for children, good for the couple, and good for society at large.
It’s more than that, though. Equal rights for gays isn’t just about “entitlements”. It is about having fundamental and fair access to hospitals, employment, etc. The guy that sits next to me at work was with his partner for 25 years and had done all the legal work, but when his partner had a heart attack he was denied visitation rights and had to wait for his partner’s father to arrive and grant permission. His partner ended up dying. That is wrong and should be fixed.
That’s why you have civil union ceremonies. But no, that’s not enough; you want to shit all over something many of us hold sacred. Can we shit all over something YOU hold sacred? What do gays hold sacred? Anything? I can’t think of anything. They are simply negative, wanting to shit all over anything that straight people hold dear.
Keep it up, dumbasses, and then be oh-so-surprised when the silent majority has had enough.
Forlife, I think I didn’t care about gay stuff before, live and let live. Have your civil unions, just keep a lid on your stuff. But now, with the parades and the protests and the hunting down of Prop 8 supporters, I’m really becoming rather pissed at all of you. I would actively campaign against this shit if it ever came up here. In fact, I’m going to donate cash to causes that are anti-gay.
You succeeded, bugwit.
So, what then, is your position. You are in full support of civil unions and extension of federal and state benefits?You just don’t want it called marriage?
“The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation – all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama’s stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter.”
— Ann Coulter
Its just what I said. Gay people have human rights because they are human. But now that voting decides right and wrong, what a ‘right’ is, they have been outvoted. They bitch and moan, parade and protest, because the vote didn’t go their way. They are NOT going to get more votes by attacking straight people and what we hold dear. In fact, it has the opposite effect with me.
[/quote]
I think what the gay people are attacking are various churches, particularly the Mormon church’s, public campaigns against same sex marriage. And in some cases against civil unions or any extension of benefits whatsoever. I have not seen any gay groups or individuals trying to force any churches or other religious institutios to sanction gay marriage. There have been no efforts to force churches to recognize gay unions.
They also have every right to protest the way the vote went and try to get the opposite vote. Particularly with California’s beyond-fucked up system that allows the state constitution to be changed by simple bare majority vote. It’s completely capricious and totally subject to the whims of special interests. This time the Mormons carried the day with their concerted, well-planned effort and a lot of money put forth to carry it out. Next time gay people might carry the day and a bare majority of Californians. And that is how the system is designed in that state.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
So, what then, is your position. You are in full support of civil unions and extension of federal and state benefits?You just don’t want it called marriage?
“The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation – all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama’s stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter.”
— Ann Coulter
Its just what I said. Gay people have human rights because they are human. But now that voting decides right and wrong, what a ‘right’ is, they have been outvoted. They bitch and moan, parade and protest, because the vote didn’t go their way. They are NOT going to get more votes by attacking straight people and what we hold dear. In fact, it has the opposite effect with me.
I think what the gay people are attacking are various churches, particularly the Mormon church’s, public campaigns against same sex marriage. And in some cases against civil unions or any extension of benefits whatsoever. I have not seen any gay groups or individuals trying to force any churches or other religious institutios to sanction gay marriage. There have been no efforts to force churches to recognize gay unions.
They also have every right to protest the way the vote went and try to get the opposite vote. Particularly with California’s beyond-fucked up system that allows the state constitution to be changed by simple bare majority vote. It’s completely capricious and totally subject to the whims of special interests. This time the Mormons carried the day with their concerted, well-planned effort and a lot of money put forth to carry it out. Next time gay people might carry the day and a bare majority of Californians. And that is how the system is designed in that state.[/quote]
If we’re going to make rights a matter of voting, then my point is that we should do so consistently. When conservatives such as myself lose, we’re supposed to just shut up and take it. But when libs and gays lose, then all kinds of sheer excrement hits the fan — ‘Its a big right-wing conspiracy!’ or ‘The Jesus freaks want to deny us our rights!’
If gay people want the right to get married or to have all the rights of spouses, they have to convince the majority of Americans to vote their way. Are they going to convince people like me, by them marching and flaunting, protesting outside of churches, or posting the home addresses of those who support anti-gay measures? Nope.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
This time the Mormons carried the day with their concerted, well-planned effort and a lot of money put forth to carry it out. Next time gay people might carry the day and a bare majority of Californians. [/quote]
It’s been an interesting battle to me, for personal reasons. As a life-long Mormon and gay man, how ironic to see the church I loved so dearly and spent so many years of my life serving, actively campaign against me.
Sadly, they have no real answers for gay members. I was told to marry a woman and everything would be all right, but the church has since realized the damage caused by their advice. Now they tell gay members to be celibate and alone the rest of their lives. Not much better, in my opinion.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s been an interesting battle to me, for personal reasons. As a life-long Mormon and gay man, how ironic to see the church I loved so dearly and spent so many years of my life serving, actively campaign against me.
Sadly, they have no real answers for gay members. I was told to marry a woman and everything would be all right, but the church has since realized the damage caused by their advice. Now they tell gay members to be celibate and alone the rest of their lives. Not much better, in my opinion.[/quote]
Wow, really is an interesting battle and I bet you’re doing your damnedest, from Texas. And it’s so tragic that the Mormon Church isn’t doing more to accommodate homosexuals. Probably about as sad as the Catholic Church’s ‘No abortion/No prophylaxis’ policy.
I wonder what the number of gay sinners in the Mormon Church is to the number of self-sterilizing sinners in the Catholic Church is? 100:1? Speaking of sad, I wonder how many women have been stoned to death in the Middle East vs. the number of who were ‘forced’ to marry by the Mormon Church? 1,000:1?
I stubbed my toe on kneeler two weekends ago, that was sad. I’ve been battling the Vatican for years over those things, It’s been an unusual experience to say the least.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Probably about as sad as the Catholic Church’s ‘No abortion/No prophylaxis’ policy.
[/quote]
Interesting. That’s one reason I’m doing RCIA now.
Just stay in Oak Lawn and do not push the beliefs of a minority on the majority.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
So, what then, is your position. You are in full support of civil unions and extension of federal and state benefits?You just don’t want it called marriage?
"The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation –
All because Rick Warren agrees with Obama’s stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter."
— Ann Coulter
Its just what I said. Gay people have human rights because they are human. But now that voting decides right and wrong, what a ‘right’ is, they have been outvoted. They bitch and moan, parade and protest, because the vote didn’t go their way. They are NOT going to get more votes by attacking straight people and what we hold dear. In fact, it has the opposite effect with me.
I think what the gay people are attacking are various churches, particularly the Mormon church’s, public campaigns against same sex marriage. And in some cases against civil unions or any extension of benefits whatsoever. I have not seen any gay groups or individuals trying to force any churches or other religious institutios to sanction gay marriage. There have been no efforts to force churches to recognize gay unions.
They also have every right to protest the way the vote went and try to get the opposite vote. Particularly with California’s beyond-fucked up system that allows the state constitution to be changed by simple bare majority vote.
It’s completely capricious and totally subject to the whims of special interests. This time the Mormons carried the day with their concerted, well-planned effort and a lot of money put forth to carry it out. Next time gay people might carry the day and a bare majority of Californians. And that is how the system is designed in that state.
If we’re going to make rights a matter of voting, then my point is that we should do so consistently. When conservatives such as myself lose, we’re supposed to just shut up and take it. But when libs and gays lose, then all kinds of sheer excrement hits the fan — ‘Its a big right-wing conspiracy!’ or ‘The Jesus freaks want to deny us our rights!’
If gay people want the right to get married or to have all the rights of spouses, they have to convince the majority of Americans to vote their way. Are they going to convince people like me, by them marching and flaunting, protesting outside of churches, or posting the home addresses of those who support anti-gay measures? Nope.
[/quote]
Who says you should shut up? No one should ever shut up about issues that are important to them, whatever the issues may be and whatever their political persuasion. If you’re talking about conspiracy theorists with trumped up complaints about fake birth certificates making elections invalid, that’s different.
I don’t think those compaigning for gay marriage always have the wisest or most well-thought out tactics, but that’s another matter.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Just stay in Oak Lawn and do not push the beliefs of a minority on the majority.[/quote]
I’ve graduated to Oak Cliff now.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
forlife wrote:
It’s more than that, though. Equal rights for gays isn’t just about “entitlements”. It is about having fundamental and fair access to hospitals, employment, etc. The guy that sits next to me at work was with his partner for 25 years and had done all the legal work, but when his partner had a heart attack he was denied visitation rights and had to wait for his partner’s father to arrive and grant permission. His partner ended up dying. That is wrong and should be fixed.
Do Texas employers, insurance companies, and hospitals recognize domestic partnerships?
If not, would it ease most of your concerns to move to a state that does?
I think you and Orion are misunderstanding the homosexualist agenda. It’s not about ‘rights’ or ‘equality’ at all (as if ‘equality’ were ever guaranteed by the Constituion.)
Homosexualists work to make society accepting of their disease spreading lifestyle, instead of just buggering each other in private. After they have made sodomy acceptable, they work to make it dominant.[/quote]
LOL!!! Don’t EVER stop posting!