# Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage



## mosten11 (Dec 19, 2011)

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...


----------



## ba1614 (Dec 19, 2011)

I think it's a fuckin' disease, but to each their own and who the fuck am I to get in the way of that.


----------



## mosten11 (Dec 19, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> I think it's a fuckin' disease, but to each their own and who the fuck am I to get in the way of that.



Impossible for it to be a disease because it is not something medically induced on a person...  at least you somewhat respect them


----------



## ba1614 (Dec 19, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's a fuckin' disease, but to each their own and who the fuck am I to get in the way of that.
> ...



No, I don't respect them for their queerness, but I have met a couple in my trade that I respected their work. As long as it isn't in my house I simply don't care what they do.


----------



## mosten11 (Dec 19, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



So...you're saying you respect people like me as long as our "queerness" isn't in front of you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 19, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



As citizens Gays have all the same rights as everyone else, there is no need to provide "special" rights for them.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Get the Government out of Marriage, call everything the Government licenses and makes laws for a " Domestic Partnership" or some such. Leave Marriage to the religions.


----------



## mosten11 (Dec 19, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...
> ...



I agree that government should stay out of gay marriage, but feel that if they HAVE to be involved with it, why not make it nationally legal for gays to get married instead of a state-by-state basis?  I agree with you though, focus on "Domestic Partnership" laws/ideas.


----------



## ba1614 (Dec 19, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > mosten11 said:
> ...



Just in my own castle, that's all I can control, and I've been blessed that it hasn't infected my family, yet.
 I've worked alongside without issue many times, and socially I just don't see many in my circles.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 19, 2011)

I am tired of the " in your face" activities of gays in General.

Except for Marde Gra care to name a place that has a sexual parade with naked men and women fornicating and sexually grab assing?

I do NOT want to see sexual kissing be it a man and a woman or 2 people of the same sex. I do not want to see sexual grab ass by anyone either. It is unacceptable behavior in public spaces. As is nudity and sex in parks.

I don't want children exposed to condoms or other left overs from sex in their parks or play areas. And generally speaking those things are left by gays predominately ( males to be specific).

You want sex? Do it in a private place. Do not do it in a public place. It is not any of my business what you do with another consenting adult in private. It most assuredly IS my business what you do in PUBLIC spaces and areas.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 19, 2011)

I wouldn't disown my cousins or my friends for it. 
But I wouldn't go to a gay parade either.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 19, 2011)

All people have the same rights. Redefining marriage changes what marriage is.

Anyone can enter into any agreement they want. The government doesn't have to recognize that agreement though.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 19, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> All people have the same rights. Redefining marriage changes what marriage is.
> 
> Anyone can enter into any agreement they want. The government doesn't have to recognize that agreement though.



In some States there is no law allowing same sex couples to legally obtain the same rights as are granted by a " Marriage". Thus why the Government, which has compelling reasons to regulate partnerships in numerous legal issues, should stop providing marriage licenses and provide some sort of " Domestic partnership" license.


----------



## uptownlivin90 (Dec 19, 2011)

I'm strongly against homosexuality religiously. I'm also against the government regulating marriage. The government's role in marriage should simply be recognizing what religious and non-religious organizations join together as marriage (between TWO... CONSENTING... ADULT... HUMAN BEINGS). So if a "church" wants to marry two gays so be it. I won't go to that church, nor would I personally recognize it as a "marriage". 

I find it repulsive though, personally.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 19, 2011)

You're NEVER, and I repeat, never going to get the government out of legal, civil marriage. 

What compelling state reason is there to keep gay and lesbian, consenting adult, couples from equal access to it?


----------



## DontBeStupid (Dec 19, 2011)

No one should be treated differently because of the way they were born.

Marriage is a contract between two unrelated, consenting adults. And in some states, between related adults. If the Government recognizes one, they must recognize all.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli (Dec 19, 2011)

Live free or die.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > You're NEVER, and I repeat, never going to get the government out of legal, civil marriage.
> ...



LOL! I should have added..."that will stand up in court"


----------



## DontBeStupid (Dec 19, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except for Marde Gra care to name a place that has a sexual parade with naked men and women fornicating and sexually grab assing?



Network Television.


----------



## eflatminor (Dec 19, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



Why is the government in the marriage business?  If you go to The Church of the Sacred Beaver, and they choose to marry homosexuals, it's nobody else's business as far as I'm concerned.  It only becomes problematic with government tries to pick winners and losers when it comes to who can marry who.  Same problem with the economy.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 19, 2011)

I've been to a good number of gay pride parades and the worst thing I ever saw was a topless woman. (who was told to cover herself by parade security staff). I've seen more horrific displays on the beach in Florida.

Instead of relying on corporate media, try going to one.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 19, 2011)

Government is in the "marriage business" because of the divorce business.


----------



## freetek (Dec 19, 2011)

Marriage is a religious ritual and government should have no place in anyone's union; ditch all of the asinine tax code that is related to a union or the presence of children in that union.
The bureaucrats shouldn't be involved in a matter that could be done much better by an attorney who could provide protective legal services to deal with a later parting of the ways.
Consensual polygamy should also not be any business of government.


----------



## Listening (Dec 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > I am tired of the " in your face" activities of gays in General.
> ...



Wow...

Someone speaks their mind and you show severe intolerance.

Good job.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 19, 2011)

I'm not gonna go through this again.


----------



## Listening (Dec 19, 2011)

In the end, a society has to define itself somehow.

If that means defining marriage, then society has to decide to what purpose.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli (Dec 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



I'll support this compromise if it includes removing bibles from court, God from money and the pledge and the anthem.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 19, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am tired of the " in your face" activities of gays in General.
> 
> Except for Marde Gra care to name a place that has a sexual parade with naked men and women fornicating and sexually grab assing?
> 
> ...


When was the last time you went to a Gay Pride Parade?   Because what you describe, I've yet to see.


----------



## Lovebears65 (Dec 19, 2011)

I can care less who people want to be with or who they marry.


----------



## mosten11 (Dec 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > I am tired of the " in your face" activities of gays in General.
> ...



My thoughts exact...  Even though I am gay, I don't go to the park and leave condoms for children to find...  and Marde Gras is only a gay festive?  GTFO with that shit, last time I checked, Marde Gras is not a gay function


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 19, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Never said it was. In fact I was saying it is NOT. But then I have noticed certain people, usually liberals, can't comprehend the written word and comprehend what is being said past their own bias.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 19, 2011)

This one is easy. 

"Marriage" is a civil contract. If you want to do in front of a preacher, fine, but that doesn't change anything. 

No one has the right to decide which "rights" we all get and which ones we don't. As long as its between consenting adults, the pubs/bags should get their noses out of other peoples business and stop peeking in our bedroom windows.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 19, 2011)

> All people have the same rights. Redefining marriage changes what marriage is.
> 
> Anyone can enter into any agreement they want. The government doesn't have to recognize that agreement though.



This is contradictory. First we all have the same rights but then we don't. 

While we're at it, government has no right to control women's reproduction either. 

Pubs tell the same lie over and over - they say they want less govt and yet, they want to control our most private and personal decisions. 

Get government out of our private lives.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 19, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am tired of the " in your face" activities of gays in General.
> 
> Except for Marde Gra care to name a place that has a sexual parade with naked men and women fornicating and sexually grab assing?
> 
> ...



Homophobic much?

You know what they way about homophobia .... 

You really have no reason for all this fear. They're just like you and me and they want the same things from life. Quit being so afraid that you make up outrageous stories like these.


----------



## Steelplate (Dec 19, 2011)

For it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 19, 2011)

luddly.neddite said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > I am tired of the " in your face" activities of gays in General.
> ...



Retards and liars complain what I wrote is not true. Lets take just one city shall we?

Spokane Washington. AT least one public park was force ably closed to the public because of used condoms and other sex paraphernalia left BY gay men ( caught in the act on more then one occasion) having sex in the park.

Personally I have zero problem with gays. Like I said, I don't give a rats ass what someone does in the privacy of their home. I and everyone else DOES have a right to complain about behavior in the PUBLIC, on PUBLIC PROPERTY by gays and straights.

So let me ask you? Since you claim marriage should be allowed to any two consenting adults, what is your feeling on family members marrying each other?


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 19, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> For it.



Me too...'course, I'm in one


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 19, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So let me ask you? Since you claim marriage should be allowed to any two consenting adults, what is your feeling on family members marrying each other?



Incest is illegal in the U.S. Got any other strawmen?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 19, 2011)

By the way? I was asked for an honest opinion. You don't like it? To fucking bad for you. And the only fascist in this thread is the ones telling others to shut up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 20, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



I think homosexuality is an orientation, not a choice.  

I don't think that they should suffer discrimination, although I also don't think the government should be in the business of telling businesses who they should hire and why. 

As for marriage, I would have no problem with it if it is something that is gained at the ballot box or throught the legislative process.  I have a big problem with judges imposing it after the people have said "no" at the ballot box, such as they have in California. 

I also think that it it probably inevitable and in 20 years, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So let me ask you? Since you claim marriage should be allowed to any two consenting adults, what is your feeling on family members marrying each other?
> ...



So was sodomy. YOU use the excuse that two consenting adults determine your life style. Explain why Family members that are CONSENTING ADULTS are different?

Your ENTIRE argument depends on the call that what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS want to do and who they want to marry is a civil right. Yet you would deny a right you demand for yourself to two consenting adults that happen to be related. I can only think of 2 reasons you would do that. Religion or the ICK factor.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 20, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> As for marriage, I would have no problem with it if it is something that is gained at the ballot box or throught the legislative process.  I have a big problem with judges imposing it after the people have said "no" at the ballot box, such as they have in California.



Do you have a problem with past judicial "impositions" like when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia?


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 20, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



If incest is your thing, fight to have those laws overturned in court. The thing with incest is that you CAN provide an "overriding harm" that occurs in incestuous relationships. Their children are more likely to have genetic abnormalities. 

Before you and your sister can sue to get married, you have to get the incest restrictions "off the books". Good luck with your struggle.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So even gays think that society has the right to legislate sex between consenting adults, they just think they are the exception.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 20, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



LOL...don't get petulant. I'm sorry you can't currently marry your sister. I really don't care if you do, but right now it isn't legal. If you think you can win your case in court, fight for it. I am merely pointing out that an actual overriding harm can be provided when it comes to incestuous relationships. You can't provide one for consenting adult same sex relationships. 

So, that makes your incest argument a...


----------



## Inthemiddle (Dec 20, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> All people have the same rights.



Get off of this.  It's not true, and you know it.



> Redefining marriage changes what marriage is.



It's not redefining marriage.  Since when was marriage ever defined?



> Anyone can enter into any agreement they want. The government doesn't have to recognize that agreement though.



Well, in order for it to be a _legally binding_ agreement, the government _does_ have to recognize it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Actually it takes GENERATIONS of inbreeding to get any noticeable defects. Society does not regulate people with known defects that have as much as 50 to 100 percent chance of occurring.

Gays have no problem with society regulating sexual conduct between two consenting adults EXCEPT in their case.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 20, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Really? It was "they gheys" that passed the incest laws? Can you find any of "the gheys" that want to prevent you from marrying your sister? Good luck with both your fight to marry your sister AND in finding any of "they gheys" that want to prevent it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Every admitted gay on this board has stated they support laws preventing two consenting adults from marrying and having sex if they find it repugnant. Yet find it offensive when someone lumps them in that category.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 20, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Oh please, go find some actual quotes from all these "gheys on the board". I happen to be one of those "admitted gheys" myself and I've said if you want to marry your sister, it's no skin off my nose, but FIRST you must get the laws overturned. When you do, I might even join your fight for marriage equality. First things first though...get to fighting your battle in court.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 20, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



No, that's not what was sad at all...there has to be proven harm...what is the proven harm in allowing tax-paying, law-abiding consenting adults marry?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 20, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Feel free to find statements of mine like that.   TIA


----------



## Inthemiddle (Dec 20, 2011)

I've never met, or heard, of anyone who was simply incapable of being sexually attracted to anyone other than a sibling or cousin.  Incest is not a form of sexual orientation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So consensual sex and marriage between 2 consenting adults is NOT a civil right? But isn't that one of your arguments?


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 20, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



Eliminate government from 'marriage'...

Let individuals, churches, organizations deal with what they consider marriage

In terms of government... for reasons of taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, recognize family units only... no matter the makeup of the 2 adults involved...

Stop silly 'discrimination' laws and lawsuits when it comes to people's views of other people's choices... if you don't want to rent your basement to a gay couple or a straight couple or whatever combination... so be it... you should not be forced to... don't have the government force anyone to accept or tolerate or recognize anything beyond the legal aspects

Ensure every member of a family unit has the same legal rights as anyone else


----------



## bodecea (Dec 20, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...
> ...



Fine...drop the words "marriage" and "married" from all legal documentation, statutes, laws, and licenses.   Then we'd be equal.


Good luck with that one.......tho, isn't it ODD that people have only started saying that government should get out of the marriage business when teh gheys wanted their equal right to get legally married?   ODD.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 20, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...
> ...




Just to be clear those are two different things, one is Civil Marriage (that recognized by the government for governmental purposes) and the other is Public Accommodation Laws (those that mandate the manner in which people engaged on commerce must conduct their business).

I agree that government sould not discriminate against law abiding, taxpaying, non-related, consenting, adult, US Citizen couples base on the gender makeup of the couple.

I will join you and say that I would support the classification of laws commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation" laws and I mean at the federal, state, and local level because they interfere with the right of private individuals in terms of speech, assembly, and self determination.  A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers based on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model.

With that said there are two conditions to which I would be open:

1.  This would not apply to emergency and/or life threatening medical treatment especially when time is of the essence.  However it would apply to elective procedures.

2.  While "Public Accommodation" laws would not apply to totally private enterprises, government entities (federal, state, and local) could (and should) establish laws within their jurisdiction which provide that government entities will not discriminate against it's citizens based on race, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, ya-da, ya-da.  That such entities as a matter of law and policy may not do business with private entities which are found to function under a discriminatory business model.  This is not the government saying that the business must operate in a certain way (which is the businesses choice), just that the government will not contract services or materials from firms that discriminate (which is the governments choice).​


>>>>


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 20, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



I am for it, if 2 consenting adults want to get married its fine by me.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Dec 20, 2011)

bodecea said:


> isn't it ODD that people have only started saying that government should get out of the marriage business when teh gheys wanted their equal right to get legally married?   ODD.



Actually, the suggestion has been around for several years.  Not entirely sure from where it originated.  But it's made for some interesting twists to the whole debate.  The anti-gay-marriage crowd opposed civil unions, but then becomes in favor of civil unions for all people hoping to prevent gay "marriage."  "Purist" conservatives reject those ideas because they don't want to give even an inch toward gay marriage, while "purist" liberals reject it because they don't want to give an inch that might allow their relationships to be delegitimized.  The whole thing has developed from two basic polar positions, to a spider web of ten positions:

1.  Opposition to gay marriage or government recognition of any form of same sex relationship, to include prohibitions against powers of attorney for medical reasons, allowances of business to extend insurance benefits, etc, to partners.  In the most extreme cases, also included may be support for criminalizing gay sex, legal prohibitions to same sex couples occupying single room dwellings, etc.

2.  Opposition to gay marriage or legal recognition of any form of same sex relationship, with powers of attorneys and legal recognition of same sex couples by private companies for purposes of insurance, etc, at their discretion.

3.  Opposition to gay marriage or legal recognition of any form of same sex relationship, with powers of attorneys and legal recognition of same sex couples by private companies for purposes of insurance, etc as a matter of law.

4.  Support for civil unions for gays, retaining marriage for heterosexual couples, with "civil unions" falling short of the benefits of "marriage."

5.  Support for civil unions for gays which provide all legal benefits and effects as "marriage," while marriage itself is retained for heterosexuals.

6.  Opposition to all legal marriages in favor of legal civil unions, reserving marriage to religious entities.

7.  Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate against couples for any reason.

8.  Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate based on the officiant's "religious beliefs."

9  Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate based on the demonstrable teachings of the church entity.

10.  Support for positive homosexual marriage, and legal prohibitions for an officiant to refuse service based on sexual orientation.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 20, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > isn't it ODD that people have only started saying that government should get out of the marriage business when teh gheys wanted their equal right to get legally married?   ODD.
> ...




First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Secondly, I can't ever remember anyone advocating that Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc., be forced to provide Same-sex Marriages (when such a service would be part of the organizations religious services and also qualifiy as a Civil Marriage).  The ONLY people that bring up that possibility are those obosed to Same-sex Civil Marriage in an attempt to use an appeal to emotion fallacy and/or strawman argument.



>>>>


----------



## Warrior102 (Dec 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Put a dick in your mouth and shut up.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 20, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...
> ...



I agree with RGS on something.

Government should no longer recognize marriage or issue "marriage licenses".  They should only recognize civil unions which would be a legal contractual agreement between two adult humans.

Marriage is a religious entity...and if a church wants to "marry" two men or two women, that's their perogative.


----------



## Warrior102 (Dec 20, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > mosten11 said:
> ...



Agree!!


----------



## Inthemiddle (Dec 20, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.



Gay marriage, same-sex marriage, tomato, tomato, all the same.



> Secondly, I can't ever remember anyone advocating that Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc., be forced to provide Same-sex Marriages (when such a service would be part of the organizations religious services and also qualifiy as a Civil Marriage).  The ONLY people that bring up that possibility are those obosed to Same-sex Civil Marriage in an attempt to use an appeal to emotion fallacy and/or strawman argument.



It happens.  The occasional nut out there who feels like it's unjust for a minister to have the right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple.  The thinking seems to be that such a thing would be an _effective_ ban on gay marriage, as if there would be no other avenues available for such couples to become married, or that at the very least it would devalue gay marriage in comparison to hetero marriage, since it would allegedly leave gay couples with only a judge option.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 20, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I think that a civil union could be between two brothers or a son and a mother if it benefits them in a legal way (i.e. tax, inheritance, etc.).

A marriage license implies that the two people on the license will be having SEX.  I think it is rather inappropriate for the government to be issuing licenses for SEX.

A civil union would have NO implicit or explicit link to SEX, which is why the family member thing would not be an issue.  The civil union would be a legal contract, just like when Pujols signs a legal contract to play for the Angels.  The contract grants him and the Angels certain rights.  It does not imply that he will be having sex with them.


----------



## Warrior102 (Dec 20, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.
> ...



Post 66 is for you too, asswipe.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 20, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.
> ...




Actually, I think it will be an important distinction as the issue continues to mature over the next few years.  The laws are based on gender which is undoubtedly a biological condition and will be an important part of answering the question about whether the government can/should discriminate against it's citizens based on biological factors when there is no compelling reason to do so.



>>>>


----------



## Listening (Dec 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Well, no I won't.

As to ignorance....you seem to be at the top (or bottom a the case may be) of the pile.

You are correct, this isn't Iran.

So please follow your own advice and shut the hell up.  You are an embarassment to the species.


----------



## Listening (Dec 20, 2011)

I want three wives (now don't ask me why).

If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.


----------



## westwall (Dec 20, 2011)

All for it.  Who does it hurt?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 20, 2011)

Not an issue anymore of great substance.  The younger generations of 3:1 proportions support universal marriage.  This is a done deal.  No need to whine about it either way.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 20, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...




Heterosexuals have seriously tarnished if not destroyed the sanctity of marriage.

Why not let gays have a turn at it.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 20, 2011)

Listening said:


> I want three wives (now don't ask me why).
> 
> If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.





Should polygamy be a reason to deny someone permission to immigrate to America?  Do they have to be willing to break up their family to immigrate?  What if they're refugees from some horror ... should they have to choose between death and dissolution of their marriages?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > As for marriage, I would have no problem with it if it is something that is gained at the ballot box or throught the legislative process.  I have a big problem with judges imposing it after the people have said "no" at the ballot box, such as they have in California.
> ...



Not really in the same category, but keep pretending it is.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



Morally I'm opposed but ethically, especially as a libertarian - communities have the right to self govern.

Lets just say I would not have a problem with a gay couple holding hands or kissing in public in a gay community but I would in my community...

IMO, people need to live where they belong...

Besides I wouldn't even have a problem with someone that was gay but kept their affections at home.

I'm indifferent honestly.... 

I really only have a problem with the gays that use their gayness to aggravate others like immature children....


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Why would discrimination based on the the racial composition of the couple be in a different category then discrimination based on the gender composition of the couple?

Are not race and gender both biological factors?



>>>>


----------



## G.T. (Dec 21, 2011)

Legal marriage? let them do it.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 21, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



By all means, please explain to us how it isn't in the same category.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Miscegnation laws were imposed AFTER slavery ended. Before then, slaves didn't get married because they couldn't enter into legal contracts.  Families formed, but you could sell off members of the family at will.   It was a discrimination imposed to replace a previous discrimination, even though said discrimination was specifically banned by the 14th Admendment...  

No one has ever held that two people of the same gender could get married.  It's a fundemental redefinition of marriage. It wasn't a case of a right being taken away after it was given.  

Now, if you can get 50% of the population to agree with redefining marriage, I'm totally with you.  If you ask me to vote for legalizing gay marriage, I would.  But don't use the courts to impose laws, because, honestly, all it would take would be for conservatives to stack the courts with rightwingers to do the reverse.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 21, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went *against*_ the will of the people_ to over turn anti-miscegenation laws. 

We don't vote on civil rights, period.

Civil rights are won in the court of law (when you look at history). The fact that Mississippi would vote to overturn anti miscegenation laws RIGHT NOW if it went to the ballot box is just one of the reasons.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 21, 2011)

Listening said:


> I want three wives (now don't ask me why).
> 
> If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.



HAHA you have obviously never been married before if you are asking for 3 wives.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 21, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> *I think it's a fuckin' disease*, but to each their own and who the fuck am I to get in the way of that.


It'd make you *voluntarily ill-informed* (i.e. ignorant).

​


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went *against*_ the will of the people_ to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.
> 
> We don't vote on civil rights, period.
> 
> Civil rights are won in the court of law (when you look at history). The fact that Mississippi would vote to overturn anti miscegenation laws RIGHT NOW if it went to the ballot box is just one of the reasons.



Well, if MS actually tried that, they'd find a lot of companies would move out, a lot of tourist dollars would be lost, etc.  So even if you found a poll that said that, it probably wouldn't be true. 

It wasn't a stretch at all. The 14th Amendment made it legal for blacks to marry whites, because it made them citizens.  Passing laws against interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th Amendment- therefore unconstitutional.  

There is really nothing in the constitution about letting people of the same gender marry. A gay can get married to any person of the opposite sex who will have them, therefore, they have the SAME rights as straight people. 

Now, if you want to change the law, change the law at the ballot box or in the legislature. That's what they are there for.  

But if you are going to trust your fortunes to judges, you are opening a very serious can of nasty worms.  That isn't democracy.  

Somehow, I don't think you were one of the people who were cheering when the courts decided _Gore vs. Bush _in Bush's favor.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 21, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...


Yeah......you _really_ sound like the kind of parent a Gay-child would prefer.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > I want three wives (now don't ask me why).
> ...



But the question still stands - where do you draw a line??

We need standards and slippery slopes are more common than not... Isn't the whole point of progressive ideology a slippery slope??


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 21, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am tired of the " in your face" activities of gays in General.
> 
> Except for Marde Gra care to name a place that has a sexual parade with naked men and women fornicating and sexually grab assing?
> 
> I do NOT want to see sexual kissing be it a man and a woman or 2 people of the same sex. I do not want to see sexual grab ass by anyone either. It is unacceptable behavior in public spaces. As is nudity and sex in parks.


Yeah......



> .....everyone *understands**.*



​


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 21, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went *against*_ the will of the people_ to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.
> ...



Judges are there to interpret the Constitution. Laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage violate the same 14th Amendment that was used to decide Loving v Virginia. There is no difference in the two issues in regards to judicial oversight. 

Civil rights aren't voted on and there is a reason for that...

_A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they *think interracial marriage should be illegal*, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.​_
46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

Gay marriage will be won in the courts, just like interracial marriage was. It's the way it is supposed to work when states pass laws that go against the Constitution.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Who the fuck are the 9 fools to decide whats best for a state of 13 million??

This isn't even a federal issue to begin with................


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



There is a reason it is called a slippery slope fallacy. If you happen to jaywalk, should we assume that you will also commit murder? 

You draw the line where there is an overriding harm. I see no overriding harm in allowing a man to marry more than one woman (as long as they are all consenting adults), do you? We place no limit on the number of children a person can have, why should we place limits on the number of spouses? If you can support more than one wife, more power to you.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Why isn't it a Federal issue? Do you believe that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it was "judicial activism" that they did? The Supreme Court has ruled on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. If the fundamental rights of gays and lesbians are being denied in a number of states, how is that not a "federal issue"? How is it not a "federal issue" that your marriage license entitles you to federal tax breaks and other benefits, but mine does not?


----------



## DaGoose (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



How in the hell do things like this BECOME Federal issues? It's gotta start someplace.

Someone files a lawsuit in their hometown and claims it a Constitutional issue. It will then climb its way through the Appeals process until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take it on.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



It's not a fallacy...

Using that logic the word precedence wouldn't exist...


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



If someone wants to marry more than 1 woman I'm fine with it I guess, besides you can already have more than 1 wife anyways, if you only register one with the courts you can have as many women living as your wives in your house and nobody can stop you legally. I'm just saying having 1 wife is enough work as it is, I couldn't imagine having more than 1.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Using your logic, if you speed we should arrest you for murder, right? 

Guess what...when gay marriage is legal across the country in a few years, nobody is going to be able to marry their toaster (or sheep or a dead person or a child, etc.)


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Oh so 9 fools should decide whats best for the other 299,999,991 million people??

Honestly, I have nothing against the idea of a supreme court but "activists" are a problem and progressives are way more biased than conservative judges..

Then of course we have these idiots using and believing in language like "wall of separation."

These fucking apes went to ivy league schools and find it difficult to interpret the bill of rights???

Oh not to mention the simple fact congress writes all these laws, and they should know where the fucking line is...


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987) 

That's _precedence_, my friend.


----------



## hortysir (Dec 21, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



I am so glad you asked this question!


Because you could have never done a Search of "gay marriage" and found dozens of threads with a hundred different members' stance on the issue.

But, anyway.....


Lazy-Ass


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I totally understand and understood your point, however there are all sorts of weirdo's out there that want to marry pets or inanimate objects and if you let gays marry then they would be discriminated against.

Proposition 8 showed us, even in progressive states even gay civil unions are not accepted by the majority therefore if only .0001% of the population is crazy enough to marry their pet and they were denied from doing such then that would have to be discrimination too, even if you or I find marrying a pet illogical...

I just believe we need to draw the line somewhere......

Besides marriage is a religious theme and civil unions are nothing more than contract..


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Theres a difference between 2 women getting married and someone who wants to marry a horse or a chair, the 2 women can give their consent as adults, the horse or chair cannot give consent or sign any legal documents.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Marriage is not a right it's a choice...

Not to mention "marriage" is - at least to me - 99.99% based on religion, however our government treats "it" like a contract.

Honestly, civicly I have absolutely no problem with civil unions.... However gays aren't the humblest bunch....

I've unfortunately ran into the Chicago gay pride parade one time and there were dudes grabbing other dudes dongs, people so drunk puking everywhere and overall disrespect for society and gays find that pride??

Quite frankly I find gays to be disrespectful belligerent assholes ....


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



To be fair us hetero folks act the same way during mardi gras and spring break.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..
> 
> Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...




It is discrimination if a state doesn't issue a blind man a drivers license.  Discrimination is defined as ": the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually".  Since the decision to limit blind people from driving on public highways is base on they belonging to a category or group it is discrimination.  Descrimination is neither good nor bad, discrimination just is.  Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

The question is, is there a valid compelling government interest in allowing such discrimination.  The answer of course is, Yes.  The compelling reason has to do with public safety since having a blind person operating a multi-ton vehicle on the roads is a clear and present danger to others on the roads.



As it pertains to Civil Marriage, if the government is going to recognize such a legal status and then craft laws around such a status, the question become does the government have a compelling government interest in crafting such discrimination.  The decision will eventually based on the comparison of two groups: those allowed to Civilly Marry and those that are denied Civil Marriage.  The question will be what is the compelling government interest in denying equal treatment under the law based on gender.  Why should the government treat law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples differently law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples?


>>>>


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



How can a horse give consent and sign documents?


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well the kids will eventually grow up (hopefully).......... Not to mention we're only talking one city in the US. Most of the rich fool college kids just go to foreign countries and puke all over their shit..

I suppose I cant blame foreigners for not liking US citizens given that notion..


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



But how can a horse not?

How can an illiterate mute give consent??


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...




Being Mute (the inability to verbally make sounds) does not have an impact on mental functioning and does not impede the ability to provide consent.



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 21, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went *against*_ the will of the people_ to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.
> ...



Specious argument that would get a low D in a college class.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



So...are you saying that choices can't be a right?   Please answer yes or no.

As to your description of the Chicago Gay Pride Parade....I call shennanigans.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



So, this is the condition of your argument now?




Really?


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..
> ...



Good, let a blind man drive and let an individual fuck a chimp..

It sounds "progressive" to me...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...


  Let a libertarian pretend he can learn critical thinking skills, too.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



The quantity doesn't matter..

Ya motherfucking tyrant that doesn't understand equal rights...

You can bet there are at least 5,000 deaf-mute illiterate people in this nation


----------



## rdean (Dec 21, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> I think it's a fuckin' disease, but to each their own and who the fuck am I to get in the way of that.



A disease of a different sort?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



We don't have an effective way to really communicate with horses and find out what they want, as far as the illiterate mutes maybe sign language?


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Sure why not??

What makes gays any better than an illiterate mute???

Laugh all you want.. It shows how liberal you are.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I suppose we do have an effective way of communication with horses considering the fact individuals possess domesticated horses or animals for that matter and people train them via linguistics.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Training a horse is one thing but I still don't know how we could know whether a horse wants to marry a man or not.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Not being able to talk then being incapable of writing does...

That doesn't change the fact there are people in this world who have a difficult time talking but don't know how to write because they may have a lower IQ than others for example..


----------



## bodecea (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Even better!


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Well, earlier I was just watching Crocodile Dundee III LA and I saw a chimp grab a diet coke and a glass on demand.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Do horses or chimps even understand the concept of marriage? the institution of marriage is a human thing, animals do what they want.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

bodecea said:


> mr.nick said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



yeah even bettAH, i even can use BIG LETTERS N SHIT.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...




No it doesn't




Mr.Nick said:


> That doesn't change the fact there are people in this world who have a difficult time talking but don't know how to write because they may have a lower IQ than others for example..




You appear to be confusing being illiterate and mute with having a low IQ, they are not the same thing.  IQ is an indication of how the brain is "wired" and the ability for independent thought.  "Illiterate" is a function of training.  "Mute" simply means someone cannot speak.

A blind person with no exposure to braille is illiterate (liberally meaning non-literate) because they can't read.  Lack of sight does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.

A mute person literally cannot speak, possibly because of deformed or damaged vocal cords.  Lack of speech does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.

A blind person who is also a mute does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...




Not to worry, I understand this type of response to a post based on logic to refute a red herring/strawman type of input.


>>>>


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Chimps yes ....


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Strawman??



What the fuck do you want? a message you agree with?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...




Agree with?  No.


.......................That have a basis in reality? Yes.



>>>>


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...





> I'm not confusing anything....
> 
> I clearly stated "an illiterate mute"
> 
> WTF



Really WTF....


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Then don't fuck with me...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...




WTF is...

............... Because a person is illiterate (literally cannot read) does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent.  A blind person who never learns braille can literally not read, yet many blind people graduate college every year.  You realize that people can read to them and with modern text-to-speach technology computers will read to them.

............... Because a person is mute (literally meaning cannot speak) does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent.

............... Because a person is blind/illiterate/mute does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...




Not fucking with you.


Blowing holes in hyperbolic statements is not fucking with you, actually it's the application of logic to statements which have no basis in logic.



>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Dec 21, 2011)

Listening said:


> I want three wives (now don't ask me why).
> 
> If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.



I am all for this.  Three wives is much more its own punishment than anything government can inflict upon you.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

>


It appears that some people believe people like Helen Keller who was Blind and Deaf - and by being raised on communication isolation) would have been considered mute for many years - are/were incapable from having a high level functioning brain.


Glad to know we have come a long why from those days.


>>>>


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 21, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> It appears that some people believe people like Helen Keller who was Blind and Deaf - and by being raised on communication isolation) would have been considered mute for many years - are/were incapable from having a high level functioning brain.
> ...



Apparently some twats don't understand there are some less functioning people in this world who have communication problemes at minimum. Democrats usually use them as shields when its convenient for their ilk to raise taxes...


----------



## Inthemiddle (Dec 21, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> No one has ever held that two people of the same gender could get married.



That's not true.  The first known same sex marriage in Spain dates back to 1061.  Same sex marriage goes all the way back to ancient times.



> It's a fundemental redefinition of marriage.



That would mean that there was an "original" definition of marriage.  And if we are to be honest, the most "original" "definitions" of marriage in America forbade inter-racial marriage.  Which means that contrary to your claims, the two are perfect comparisons.  But what you're REALLY trying to get at is that same sex marriage doesn't fit YOUR definition of marriage, that you've chosen to maintain.

Throughout all of history, the concept of marriage has always boiled down to a simple thing.  Joining together with someone you love, to live a life together.



> It wasn't a case of a right being taken away after it was given.



Oh, so since the right hasn't been given by the government yet, it should never happen.  That makes sense.


----------



## grandma27 (Dec 21, 2011)

Marriage is suppose to be a religious sacrament...the government should not be involved...where is the line between government and religion that so many are fighting for.  A domestic partnership should be recognized in any state mainly for reasons of property, and other financial reasons such as insurance...here is where it gets sticky...we would have to re-defined the word spouse where it could be just your partner and or a husband or wife. Me, I believe everyone has the right to love  any consenting adult, no matter what the sex. It is not my right to say that they are right or wrong.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> It's not a fallacy...



Yes it is, you uneducated sheep fucker.  Here, let me google that for you.



> Using that logic the word precedence wouldn't exist...



*facepalm*  I can't even begin to describe how stupid that was.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Then you haven't been paying attention. There have been numerous complaints from  Homosexuals and from groups that support homosexuals. The argument being that since Marriage is supposedly a "civil right"  churches have no right to discriminate.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...




I'm glad this doesn't refer to me as I'm neither a "twat" or a Democrat, I've been a Republican since I first started voting in 1978.

No one ever said there were not  "less functioning people in this world", there are many types and characteristics of "less functioning people".  Some people are born with physical handicaps and may be considered by some to be less functioning.  However, this thread is about Civil Marriage, the functioning that is important is this case is mental functioning.  Physical handicaps that don't impair mental functioning will have no impact on an individuals ability to consent under the law.  Being blind does not preclude someone from entering into Civil Marriage.  Being Deaf does not preclude someone from entering into Civil Marriage.  Being mute does preclude someone from entering into Civil Marriage.

No physical deformity or handicap prevents someone from being considered "competent" to provide consent.  A mental handicap can however could result in someone being able to not function to the required level, and is therefore determined to not be competent, after formal examination and a ruling of a court,  to provide provide "consent" from a legal perspective.


Blind, deaf, and mute (physical limitations) nor "illliterate" (lack of formal education) - are not considered reasons under the law to remove a person right to consent from a legal standpoint.  Right to consent is removed only for mental impairment.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 21, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Then you haven't been paying attention. There have been numerous complaints from  Homosexuals and from groups that support homosexuals. The argument being that since Marriage is supposedly a "civil right"  churches have no right to discriminate.



The only ones that I've ever seen that use the argument that members of the clergy or Churches will be forced to marry members of the same-sex against their religious dogma are people that oppose Same-sex Civil Marriage.

If you would care to back up your claim, please provide an example of any legal case where the government forced a member of the clergy or a Church to perform a...

1.  Interracial marriage, when it was against the teachings of the Church, or

2.  Inter-faith marriage, when it was against the teaching of the Church, or

3.  Marriage ceremony when one (or both) of the participants were divorced for a reason not sanctioned by the teachings of that Church, or

4.  Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal in at least one State for over 7-years, a Same-sex Marriage when it is against the teachings of the Church.​


I would like to review any verifiable case from a reliable news source or court proceeding.



>>>>


----------



## bodecea (Dec 21, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Let it go....we are getting quite a glimpse at Mr. Nick's attitude towards handicapped people.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...


Not according to the SCOTUS. They have declared it a fundamental right. You can have your opinion on that, but those are the FACTS.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Except there was a major difference.  A law had to be passed to prevent interracial marriage.  It has been accepted as a matter of practice that marriage occurs only between member of the opposite sex.  So there was actually a law that violated the 14th Amendment passed after the 14th Amendment.  

That gave the judges standing to rule it unconstitutional.  

There is no such standing for gay marriage because same-sex marriage has never existed or been accepted before the current time.  In short, marriage has to be REDEFINED from what it has always meant in order for that to happen. And the place to redefine something is in the legislature, not the judiciary.  




> _A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they *think interracial marriage should be illegal*, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.​_
> 46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned
> 
> Gay marriage will be won in the courts, just like interracial marriage was. It's the way it is supposed to work when states pass laws that go against the Constitution.



I'm going to have to call shennigans on you here, because you claimed that MS would vote to outlaw it.  Now you admit that it was only Republicans, and not even a majority of them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Except they haven't declared it a "right" that is absolute.   They have not struck down the incest laws or the polygamy laws.


----------



## freetek (Dec 27, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is illegal in the U.S. Got any other strawmen?
> ...


----------



## newpolitics (Dec 27, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...
> ...



Wait, you say that Gays should have all the same rights as anyone else, that they shouldn't be given any special privilege, and then say that heterosexuals should be the only ones allowed to get married? Isn't this granting 'special rights' to heterosexuals? 

Oh I forgot, because religion is apparently a Christian thing, and the US is apparently a Christian nation... is this your justification? The US is not a Christian nation. Get over it. It is a secular nation, and marraige is not a Christian phenomenon. 'Marriage' is just a word. The act of two forming a social bond with others as witnesses has many names in many cultures. Two people in love, get married, have all the same benefits as anyone else getting married. Stop being afraid of what you don't understand, you xenophobic and sad people.


----------



## Qball (Dec 27, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > mosten11 said:
> ...



It's not that simple. To most people, the definition of a marriage involves a man and woman. It's not simply a matter of affirming one sexual orientation over another. It is to gay people because that's the basis on which they're more or less disqualified from marriage. 

The assumption that "marriage" refers to a man/woman relationship is a big part of the reason we have all these extra benefits tied to marital status in the first place. US common law pertains to any two consenting adults like you describe. But when you claim to have a marriage, new stipulations apply given not only the usual wage and employment gap between men and women, but the fact that male/female unions create children.


----------



## Qball (Dec 27, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You're leaving out some important facts by citing those cases. For one thing, all three of them involved heterosexual (male/female) couples, not couples that would be considered deviating from the norm (i.e. same-sex, polygamous). All three of them pertained to laws that abridged what would otherwise be a traditional marriage -- anti-miscegenation laws, laws that denied marriage certificates to people in arrears for child support, and laws against inmates marrying -- and were primarily used for penal (see: punishment) purposes.

Conversely, none of those cases were over the legal definition of "marriage" or a couple's supposed right to call their union "marriage". None of those cases make the argument you need them to make -- that there exists some right for two men and two women to have a legally recognized marriage because the law recognizes male/female unions as marriage. 

Interestingly, there are two cases in which someone went to the SCOTUS to argue that _their_ marriage is a legal marriage too. Reynolds v. US (or is it the other way around?) was about a polygamist who said a state's law against polygamy infringed on his 1st amendment religious freedom -- he lost -- and Baker v. Nelson was a case where a gay couple claimed MN not recognizing gay marriage was in violation of their 9th and 14th amendment rights. The case was dismissed on the merits, five years after the Loving decision.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 27, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I have lungs and muscles called my diaphragm that support my respiratory system.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 27, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



I'm for making civil unions completely equal to marriage in EVERY legal way. Let homosexuals have Civil Unions, and let hetero's keep "marriage". Everyone gets what they want, except the fanatical gays who want the name "marriage" simply to rub it in the faces of the religious.

Gay "Rights" is complete bull shit. Gays have every single right that heteros have. What they want are special rights.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 27, 2011)

There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......

First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.

Second, have a box that states either "marriage" or "civil union".  If the person is married by a JP, then the person officiating (who isn't a preacher) would check civil union and sign as the officiating person.

However...........

If the gay couple can find a church willing to marry them, and the ceremony is performed by an ordained minister (and yes, there are churches that will recognize gay marriage), then the box "marriage" is checked, and the preacher signs as the officiating person.

Wouldn't take too much to change the marriage liscence, and it would fix a lot of problems.

Do I personally think that gays have a right to marry?  Yes.  It doesn't really matter who you love, it just matters that you love someone, and if you're gonna get married, they gotta be of the age of consent.

Besides, sexuality is determined in the womb, because it happens during brain development.  Scientists have proven this.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 27, 2011)

PredFan said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...
> ...




Can you provide a list of these "special rights" that homosexuals are asking for under Civil Marriage Law that would not be available to heterosexual couples under Civil Marriage Law?


>>>>


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 27, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You feel the need to protect me from my brain???



Fucking tyrant....

I believe Mao and Stalin felt the need to protect people from their brains as well..

Your posts show how tyrannical and EVIL you are...

But no you're not a totalitarian, I suppose you're just a misunderstood democrat eh???

Fucking retard...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 27, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......
> 
> First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.
> 
> ...



So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?


----------



## del (Dec 27, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......
> ...



why not?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 27, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......
> ...



Incest and polygamy are currently illegal in this country.  If you want those people to marry, then change those laws specifically.

However...........if you're going to change the law that family members can marry each other, they should also agree to sterilization.

If they want to change the law to allow 3 people to marry?  Fine.  Just be like everyone else and have enough money to support your family.  I believe the conservatives bitch about extra children and not enough money, so same deal if you decide to have multiple wives.

2 people of the same gender wanting to get married?  Let 'em.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Dec 27, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......
> 
> First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.
> 
> ...



Civil unions are different than marriage.

Using some  of the progressive logic I should have the RIGHT to walk into a Jewish temple (being a Roman Catholic) and they should be obligated to marry me if that was my wish. Oh and of course government should force the church to marry me...  WTF...

What happened to the First Amendment again???


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 27, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......
> ...



I never said anything like that.  I said IF the gay couple could find a church who was WILLING to marry them (and yes, some churches are), then since the official who performed the ceremony was ordained, then it would be marriage.

And besides............quite a few churches would be willing to do that, because it would be another revenue stream for them.

And for the record........no, you don't have the right as a Catholic to ask a Jewish Temple to marry you.

Same as you don't have the "right" to demand that your local donut shop also fix your car.


----------



## Qball (Dec 27, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......
> 
> First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.
> 
> ...



When did scientists prove that sexuality is determined in the womb? Do you mean male-or-female sexuality, or sexual orientation?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 27, 2011)

Qball said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......
> ...



Actually, both.  Studies have been done with brain scans where they looked at the actual structure of the brain.



> What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.
> 
> Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.
> 
> ...


----------



## Qball (Dec 27, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



That's interesting, but it's not conclusive. I remember seeing the study that said gay men and straight women have similar looking brains (and I think the same was said for lesbians and straight men), but I didn't take that as saying it's clear that's where sexual orientation comes from. It seems like most scientists agree that it's a combination of biological and environmental factors that determine orientation.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 27, 2011)

Well, since the brain isn't fully formed until the teen years, I'd be willing to say that it's 85 percent biological at birth, with the remaining 15 percent being the environment the child grows up in.

But, the 15 percent won't override the 85 percent, which is why you have people coming out of the closet after marriage.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 27, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......
> ...



Explain the specific progressive logic you speak of. Where has anyone stated they have the right to be married in any church?
That has never happened and you know it.
The United States Constitution bars that and bars anyone forcing a church to do a damn thing. 
Are you claiming there is a movement forming and organizing actively asking for an amendment to the Constitution forcing churches to marry people?
You do know that is what you are claiming and that would HAVE TO BE THE PROCESS?
Come on Nick, you oppose gays getting married because you want the power of government to force them not to be able to.
Big government you favor as long as it matches YOUR ideology.
NO true conservative supports GOVERNMENT stopping or regulating gays getting married. Oppose it all you want and I support your RIGHT to personally oppose it but when you SUPPORT government action to stop it that steps over the line and makes you a lover of big government and the power of government OVER THE INDIVIDUAL.
Gays getting married do not affect ANYONE.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 27, 2011)

Qball said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Qball said:
> ...



Explain what environmental factors influenced your sexual orientation. 
Explain how you chose your sexual orientation and how long did you contemplate each choice?
Specifics please.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 27, 2011)

All "marriages" must be registered as civil unions.  All partner relationships must be registered as civil unions to ensure and order that reciprocity of obligations and benefits are met and obtained.

Leave marriage to religion.  All are happy.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 27, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Last time I checked, most of our fundamental rights have "riders". You know...can't yell fire in a theater, can't own a grenade launcher, etc.

In order for such a fundamental right as marriage denied, you must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. With gay marriage, nobody can.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 27, 2011)

freetek said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 27, 2011)

Qball said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



When arguing against allowing interracial marriage, it was claimed that such laws did not violate the constitution because they applied equally to men and women. 

Your "man/woman" argument isn't going to stand up to the constitution anymore than theirs did.

There is no societal harm in allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The SCOTUS will have no choice but to rule in favor of gay masriage.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 27, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



If you outlaw grenade launchers only outlaws will have grenade launchers.
Please, not my grenade launcher!


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 27, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Oh, not you Dawg...you can have one


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 27, 2011)

I can not wait until the day when this gay marriage BS is put to rest.
Gay and lesbian folk fall in love with folk of the same sex. They want to get married. So what? What the hell is wrong with that?
Folks need to mind their own damn business. Folks that oppose gay marriage are insecure with their own lives.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 27, 2011)

The best one for laughs is when twerps argue that universl marriage threatens their civil and religious liberties.

Hey, lissen up, twerps: come to me if anyone tries to force you to marry someone of your own sex, and I will come save you.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 27, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > mosten11 said:
> ...



"Special Rights" #1: Same sex marriage/union.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 27, 2011)

No, PredFan, universal marriage is not a special right at all, it is a civil and human right guaranteed to all of us.

Grow up.


----------



## mskafka (Dec 27, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



It hasn't, THAT YOU KNOW OF.  If you were my parent, I would be terrified to tell you, so I simply wouldn't.  She would be introduced as my "friend" Esmerelda.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Dec 27, 2011)

PredFan said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




Sorry, PF fail.

Heterosexuals would be able to marry someone of the same-sex just like homosexuals.  No "special right" there.  If you want to use that logic, then the ones asking for "special rights" are us heterosexuals because of laws enacted to ban equal treatment under the law of Same-sex Civil Marriages, reserving those "special" considerations under the law only for us.


Care to try again, again please be specific about what special rights would be afforded to those in a Same-sex Civil Marriage that would not be available to those in a Different-sex Civil Marriage.



>>>>


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2011)

del said:


> > So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?
> 
> 
> 
> why not?



1) Eeeeewwwwwww! 

2) There's this little problem with inbreeding and redundant genes...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, PredFan, universal marriage is not a special right at all, it is a civil and human right guaranteed to all of us.
> 
> Grow up.



Reality check. 

There are no "rights".  

Any fool who thinks he has "rights" should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942". That's how fast rights disappear.  

What we have are privilages that the rest of society recognizes.  

Now, marriage is a privilage.  We are redefinng the privilage, and I don't see any reason why it should be denied to same-sex couples.  As long as we do it the right way and through the democratic process.  

But society is not going to recognize incest or polygamy any time soon, nor should it. There's no compelling reason. 

I can see a good reason for recognizing gay marriage, because the alternative is gays pretending to be straight, and getting into loveless marriages to please society, making themselves and their partners miserable.


----------



## del (Dec 27, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > > So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?
> ...



i'll bow to your experience on this point

new banjo?


----------



## mskafka (Dec 27, 2011)

del said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



  Damn, del!  What I wouldn't give to have 1/8 of your wit.  You truly have a gift!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 27, 2011)

> So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?


Of course not, thats ridiculous; laws banning such marriages are legal because theyre applied to everyone equally, regardless race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, as opposed to laws restricting homosexuals only. 



> Now, marriage is a privilege



Incorrect: 

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." _Skinner v. Oklahoma_ (1942).


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 27, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?
> 
> 
> Of course not, thats ridiculous; laws banning such marriages are legal because theyre applied to everyone equally, regardless race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, as opposed to laws restricting homosexuals only.
> ...



Privileges have to be earned. You have to do something to earn that.
What does one have to do to earn the privilege of getting married?
Take a test? 
What? What does a heterosexual couple have to do to earn that privilege?
One needs to understand the definition of the word privilege before they use it to define something. 
And what does someone have to do to LOSE that privilege? Hell, a driver loses his license if he gets a DUI or goes blind.
A damn death row inmate convicted of mass murders of 117 people CAN FRIGGIN GET MARRIED. 
So we now know the privilege argument makes no sense if a death row mass murderer can get married and a gay person can not.
So what are we left with in a democratic republic?
A privilege is something EARNED by us or given to us after birth.
A right is something WE ARE BORN WITH. So how can our genetically decided hard wired sexual preference at birth decide what our future rights and privileges are?
Is that a precedent we want to set in this country? Rights are given to people at birth. No matter what the circumstances they are born into. 
Those that want to deny the right to marry to same sex couples believe the state should have the power to what freedoms we deserve BASED ON OUR GENETIC CODE. 
Civil law is civil law. Laws should not be created to cater to Christian voters.


----------



## Qball (Dec 28, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, since the brain isn't fully formed until the teen years, I'd be willing to say that it's 85 percent biological at birth, with the remaining 15 percent being the environment the child grows up in.
> 
> But, the 15 percent won't override the 85 percent, which is why you have people coming out of the closet after marriage.



I don't know about that random 85/15 split. I'm sure there is some genetic predisposition to homosexuality that's more or less determined at birth, but I don't think we really know the extent to which environmental factors play a part in developing one's sexuality. I don't think it's mostly any one thing 



Gadawg73 said:


> Explain what environmental factors influenced your sexual orientation.
> Explain how you chose your sexual orientation and how long did you contemplate each choice?
> Specifics please.



I'm sure witnessing the relationship between my parents played a big part in it. Seeing how men and women interact with one another in our society I'm sure had something to do with it. The relationship I had with my mother. The relationship I had with my father. My interactions with various and sundry people, male and female, throughout my life, has influenced my orientation. I can't say I ever contemplated liking males. 



Seawytch said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



First of all, that wasn't the argument they used. They said the law wasn't racial discrimination since it pertained to both blacks and whites. That argument didn't work, for one, because it was plainly incorrect. The Racial Integrity Act precluded whites and nonwhites from marrying, not any type of interracial marriage two people could formulate. But it also failed because it ran afoul of the spirit of the 14th amendment, which was to do away with laws denying blacks of certain rights simply because of their race. The entire notion of race-based laws is more or less unconstitutional, up to and including marriage restrictions. 

But that's all academic. The real point is, it doesn't matter. Just because an argument doesn't work in one case doesn't make the argument invalid altogether.



> Your "man/woman" argument isn't going to stand up to the constitution anymore than theirs did.
> 
> There is no societal harm in allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The SCOTUS will have no choice but to rule in favor of gay masriage.



I wouldn't be so sure about that. All these marriage amendments do is define marriage. They don't criminalize and punish people, i.e. by promising jail time or fines, just because someone's relationship lies outside of what's the norm.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2011)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



Well......   Marriage is an institution, and institutions are where they put crazy people of whatever sexual orientation.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 28, 2011)

Why should gays be denied the joys of divorce?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 28, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No, PredFan, universal marriage is not a special right at all, it is a civil and human right guaranteed to all of us.
> ...



Libertarian twaddle above from a confused atheist, who apparently does not approve of Jefferson's insistence on inalienable rights that flow from Nature's Creator.

That's Joe's problem, not one of humanity.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 28, 2011)

Qball said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Well, since the brain isn't fully formed until the teen years, I'd be willing to say that it's 85 percent biological at birth, with the remaining 15 percent being the environment the child grows up in.
> ...



"I can't say I ever contemplated liking males"
Exactly. NO ONE chooses their sexuality. YOU were born with yours.
Bingo.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 28, 2011)

Allowing government to "define" marriage is the worst thing a true conservative would ever want.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 28, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > > So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?
> ...



I'm actually working on an article on that very subject. I would like to see the incest taboo disappear (applying only to adults, of course).

The risk of genetic abnormality arising from any one close-related reproduction is only very slightly higher than otherwise, and still very low. The real problem comes in when close relatives interbreed consistently over numerous generations. That's when you run into small-gene-pool situations. It's unlikely that would happen.

As for your #1, I submit that it's "Eeeeewwww" only in concept. Anyone who denies ever being sexually attracted to a close relative (parent, child, sibling, cousin, etc.) either is lying to himself or has a very ugly family.


----------



## Qball (Dec 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



It's actually not that simple. It's more like, "No one will admit to choosing their sexuality". I'm sure for most people it isn't a conscientious decision they make one day to like one sex or another. But the company you keep and how you keep it is always a choice, and there are people who more or less have done that. There are plenty of women, for example, who date women/don't date men because they've been abused in some way, and that's all they know. So they actively distrust men and disassociate themselves from them. Of course, unless you know them and their backgrounds well enough, you wouldn't know that's the reason they date other women, and they're probably not going to admit to dating women simply because they hate men. So they, like those who have been more or less gay from birth, will use the same excuse that they were born that way, they can't help it, and that there's nothing wrong with it. 

Also, like it or not, we're meant to reproduce. That's why men and women create babies and two people of the same sex don't. That's why men have sperm and women have ovaries. You can't just compare heterosexuality and homosexuality as if they're just two sides of the same coin. One is the norm, the other is a deviation of it. That doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong, per se, but it's not as simple as "some people are gay, some people are straight". It's "most people are straight, few people are gay".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 28, 2011)

Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry.  The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept.  Universal marriage will be happen and soon.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 28, 2011)

Gay/lesbian orientation happens in about 10 percent of the total human population.

Even in Iran.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 28, 2011)

Qball said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Qball said:
> ...



Sexual attraction is never "choosing the company you keep".
Who you fall in love and what sex you are attracted to is not a choice.
No matter how many ways folks bull shit their way around it.
If it is then explain how you made your choice:
How long did you contemplate schlong "Hmmm, let me see what my choices are. I can choose to be with men and let me see all of the advantages of that" or the same with women.
Never happened that way with me. I never chose my sexual orientation and attraction. A boner coming up is not a choice. Deviation of the norm does not mean choice. Red hair and left handed folk are deviations of the norm and that is not a choice.
But at one time they claimed being left handed was.
Bottom line sexual attraction is hard wired and no one should be penalized because of it in marriage.
Because gay marriage AFFECTS NO ONE.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 28, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Gay/lesbian orientation happens in about 10 percent of the total human population.  Even in Iran.



Please don't confuse homosexual contact that does not lead to lifetime orientation.

About 1% of females and 3% of males are oriented to lifetime homosexuality.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Gay/lesbian orientation happens in about 10 percent of the total human population.  Even in Iran.
> ...



Got links to back up those figures?  Because this link has actual stats for the US.

LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Gay/lesbian orientation happens in about 10 percent of the total human population.  Even in Iran.
> ...



According to who?


----------



## Qball (Dec 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry.  The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept.  Universal marriage will be happen and soon.



Asking "who cares?" is a self-refuting statement. It doesn't matter how young people poll on the issue, it's drawing a clear path to legalization, and right now there is none. Even if they agree with gay marriage, I bet many young people wouldn't agree with it simply being declared the law one day. That's basically what happened with abortion, and you see that issue hasn't gone away even after forty years.


----------



## Qball (Dec 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Don't start lecturing me, especially if you're going to be passive-aggressive about it. You don't have to be in any relationship, regardless of your attraction. I said that because some people choose to not keep the company of the opposite sex, for a litany of reasons. It might not be totally because of natural attraction, but it doesn't matter.




> If it is then explain how you made your choice:
> How long did you contemplate schlong "Hmmm, let me see what my choices are. I can choose to be with men and let me see all of the advantages of that" or the same with women.
> Never happened that way with me. I never chose my sexual orientation and attraction. A boner coming up is not a choice. Deviation of the norm does not mean choice. Red hair and left handed folk are deviations of the norm and that is not a choice.
> But at one time they claimed being left handed was.
> ...



There's a difference between something that's purely genetic (left vs. right- handedness, hair color) and something that might be partly genetic and partly psychological. And you know it.

Sexual attraction isn't hard-wired from birth...at least, not for everyone. Who knows, maybe not for most people. You're trying to make it seem like it is to make opposition to gay marriage seem worse than it is. And if you own a penis, you know you don't necessarily have to be horny to "have a boner coming up".  

And by the way, saying "gay marriage AFFECTS NO ONE" makes no sense. Why should anyone care if they can't get married, since it affects no one? And that's disingenuous anyway since we're not just talking about two consenting adults of the same sex living together. They can do that now. But when you start talking about conferring benefits and legal statuses on a union, that becomes a matter for, well, everyone else.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 28, 2011)

Qball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry.  The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept.  Universal marriage will be happen and soon.
> ...



So, heterosexuals should continue to enjoy the right of marriage at the denial of marriage to the gays?

Why?


----------



## Dragon (Dec 28, 2011)

Qball said:


> There's a difference between something that's purely genetic (left vs. right- handedness, hair color) and something that might be partly genetic and partly psychological. And you know it.



There's also a difference between something that's "partly psychological" (or even entirely psychological) and something that's a choice. We don't know whether there is a genetic factor behind sexual orientation, or if it it something else, like something in the pre-natal environment. What we do know is that it is not a conscious choice on anyone's part.



> Sexual attraction isn't hard-wired from birth...at least, not for everyone.



I dispute this, or anyway I dispute that it's not hard-wired from puberty. But also, I would suggest not confusing bisexuality with a changing orientation. If one is attracted to both sexes, one can choose to lead either a straight or a gay lifestyle. Of course, one will remain attracted to the "unchosen" gender, but how is that any different from a person in a monogamous relationship being attracted to others outside it and having to resist temptation from time to time?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 28, 2011)

Qball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry.  The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept.  Universal marriage will be happen and soon.
> ...



The issue is NOT whether or not gay marriage will be the law one day.
The issue IS whether or not A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE will be the law.
That is the only issue. Government has no business taking rights away by Constitutional Amendment to a group of Americans. The first time that has ever happened.
Amazing that conservatives would stand for that but that is what kooky religous beliefs does to folks.
Conservatives believe that education, energy, crime, the deficit, the war on terror and a hundred more things are not as important as gay marriage.
I am losing sleep at night because there are 2 women somewhere that love each other and want to get married. What a devestating impact on my marriage if that was allowed to happen. 
And what happened with Bush as President? He held a news conference in support of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. First time ever a politician wanted a law TO BAN RIGHTS FROM SOMEONE. Bush wanted to take a document, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that IS DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and use that document, twist and change it to tell a certain SPECIFIC group of people-gay folk what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO which is what the Constitution WAS FOUNDED ON. 
These dumb ass religous quack kooks are telling us we do not need tax reform, we do not need better education, we do not need to balance the deficit, we do not need medical reform-we do not NEED ANY OF THAT. All is A OK except we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban 2 adults of the same sex that love each other from getting married.


----------



## Qball (Dec 28, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Because marriage is more than just a right to be enjoyed. It's not about letting heterosexuals do something gays can't; it's acknowledging we have a legal understanding of marriage for certain reasons that simply don't pertain to gay couples, namely the having and rearing of children. Most of the benefits tied to marital status exist because men still tend to be employed and earn more than women (see the disparity, for example, in SS recipients who are men and women...many women currently drawing SS do so only because of their husbands' incomes) and women face certain economic disadvantages when they have children (i.e. having to take maternity leave) that men don't face. 

It's not just about bestowing the blessing of the state onto loving couples. Even the wage and employment disparities between men and women don't exist to the same extent they once did (which might be a good reason to stop tying so many benefits to marital status altogether), but that doesn't create an entitlement for same-sex couples.


----------



## Qball (Dec 28, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > There's a difference between something that's purely genetic (left vs. right- handedness, hair color) and something that might be partly genetic and partly psychological. And you know it.
> ...



I've already explained this. For some people it can be a conscious choice. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I've known several women who either at one point only dated men and now have a relationship with a woman, or vice versa, because of some bad experiences with men. People who make a conscious decision to do that aren't going to readily admit it. CNN isn't doing investigative reports on them. But they definitely exist. I mean, look at how otherwise straight men in prison wind up having sex with other men. It can be a choice.

It doesn't delegitimize anything by acknowledging that for some people, some of the time, they do make a choice to be gay. They're grown, it's not illegal, whatever. But it's true nonetheless.



> > Sexual attraction isn't hard-wired from birth...at least, not for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> I dispute this, or anyway I dispute that it's not hard-wired from puberty. But also, I would suggest not confusing bisexuality with a changing orientation. If one is attracted to both sexes, one can choose to lead either a straight or a gay lifestyle. Of course, one will remain attracted to the "unchosen" gender, but how is that any different from a person in a monogamous relationship being attracted to others outside it and having to resist temptation from time to time?


[/quote]

Meh, I don't know if I believe in bisexuality. I think it's usually the case that if someone claims to be bisexual, it means they like men. But that's just my impression. 

I still say sexual attraction isn't hard-wired from birth, and that certain things can influence what you're attracted to. I think it's more readily apparent in women than men. Some women simply don't want a man because of some traumatic event in their lives, or a series of them. They don't trust men. But they desire intimacy just like everyone else, so they get a woman.


----------



## Qball (Dec 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



This isn't about taking away anybody's constitutional rights. Marriage has always been considered the union of a man and woman. Up until recently, even gays didn't challenge that definition. The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, so at the very least you can say it's left up to the people to determine what it means. And since the law doesn't concern itself with sexual orientation, it's not true that gay individuals are banned from doing anything straight individuals can do. A straight person can't marry homosexually any more than a gay person can. Of course, it's unlikely a straight person would want to, but that's the law.



> Conservatives believe that education, energy, crime, the deficit, the war on terror and a hundred more things are not as important as gay marriage.
> I am losing sleep at night because there are 2 women somewhere that love each other and want to get married. What a devestating impact on my marriage if that was allowed to happen.



Typical anti-conservative accusatory blather ftw.




> And what happened with Bush as President? He held a news conference in support of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. First time ever a politician wanted a law TO BAN RIGHTS FROM SOMEONE. Bush wanted to take a document, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that IS DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and use that document, twist and change it to tell a certain SPECIFIC group of people-gay folk what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO which is what the Constitution WAS FOUNDED ON.



You...sort of don't know what you're talking about. I'll leave it at that, since you're obviously getting emotional.



> These dumb ass religous quack kooks are telling us we do not need tax reform, we do not need better education, we do not need to balance the deficit, we do not need medical reform-we do not NEED ANY OF THAT. All is A OK except we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban 2 adults of the same sex that love each other from getting married.



Um, OK.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 28, 2011)

Qball said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Qball said:
> ...



I do appreciate the civil debate you participate in.
Might disagree with you but you carry yourself well.
Not used to that in the south as I am not the norm. I am a straight red neck type that seeks to protect the rights of those that many may despise the most.


----------



## rdean (Dec 28, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> I think it's a fuckin' disease, but to each their own and who the fuck am I to get in the way of that.



You're not well.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 28, 2011)

Sad to see the many gay business people I still deal with that have to hide who they are because of the ignorance of Americans.
It is a fucked up world when folks call others immoral based on a 2000 year old book when these folks are good citizens and productive bothering no one.
God is going to real pissed at these holier than thou judgemental fools.


----------



## timerider (Dec 28, 2011)

If the government (dickheads)and the media (dickhead cheerleaders) would just shut up and let nature take its course there wouldn't be any issues at all. Same goes for racism..

I don't believe anyone really cares except for them.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 29, 2011)

Qball said:


> I've already explained this. For some people it can be a conscious choice. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I've known several women who either at one point only dated men and now have a relationship with a woman, or vice versa, because of some bad experiences with men.



And I already explained this. It's a case of bisexuality. I knew a woman like that myself, and in fact she believed the way you do, which is what ended our friendship. Because she thought she could choose her sexual orientation, when in reality she could not, but because she was bi, she could choose what lifestyle to live. So when she decided to "be a lesbian," she found herself disturbed by the fact that she was still attracted to me.



> Meh, I don't know if I believe in bisexuality. I think it's usually the case that if someone claims to be bisexual, it means they like men. But that's just my impression.



LOL well, yes, they have to like men (and women) in order to be bisexual. That's part of the definition. However, the fact that some bisexuals, unlike my friend mentioned above, actually live a bi lifestyle (with more than one partner at a time) should tell you that this orientation is real. I would also say that it's a more/less thing, not an either/or. Someone who is primarily straight or gay can have some bi inclinations; actually being 100% one or the other is pretty rare. But in any case, bisexuality doesn't necessarily mean a perfect 50/50 split -- that's pretty rare, too.

I also know a woman who is openly bi in a self-aware state, but monogamous. She will only have one partner at a time (who at present is male), but is attracted to both genders and is aware of that. And I know women who have had bad experiences with men who became celibate rather than lesbian. The bad experiences and trauma were the same, but without any attraction to other women there was no interest in pursuing "alternatives."

As for prison rapes, straight men who do this aren't generally interested in doing things to their victims' penises, they just want to get off themselves. To put it crudely, a gay man may be identified by the fact that jerking off or sucking off another guy or taking it up the backside is something they like.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 29, 2011)

Qball said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Qball said:
> ...



QBall is becoming emotional and ignoring reality.  Reality is that universal marriage is inevitable.  Reality is that the overwhelming majority of Americans under forty support it; it will happen soon.  Reality is that Qball's civil and religious liberties are not threatened by universal marriage.  Reality is that Qball's arguments are fail and self-refuting twaddle.


----------



## freetek (Jan 2, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> If you outlaw grenade launchers only outlaws will have grenade launchers.
> Please, not my grenade launcher!



My Yugoslavian SKS HAS a grenade launcher - still looking for the grenades <grin>


----------



## freetek (Jan 2, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> Yes it is. There is no state which allows closer than cousins to marry.
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY gone UP in the US, not down.
> 
> Strawman.



As stated here:

Laws regarding incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Jersey, Rhode Island and Ohio deviate from the proscription on all incest.


----------



## freetek (Jan 2, 2012)

Qball said:


> Meh, I don't know if I believe in bisexuality. I think it's usually the case that if someone claims to be bisexual, it means they like men. But that's just my impression.



Maybe bisexuals just like sex?


----------



## gxnelson (Jan 4, 2012)

Gay people, are just that, people. 
They should have every right everyone else does. It doesn't hurt anyone. Saying one life style is substandard, throws back to racism.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

gxnelson said:


> Gay people, are just that, people.
> They should have every right everyone else does. It doesn't hurt anyone. Saying one life style is substandard, throws back to racism.


How does pointing out that the homo lifestyle is perverted equal racism??


----------



## nitroz (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> gxnelson said:
> 
> 
> > Gay people, are just that, people.
> ...



Lets say the whites were the homo ones. You are being homophobic in a country that has free rights and equal opportunity.

But homophobia has the same effect as racism, it's just pointed at orientation.



And please change your profile pic, thats just creepy as hell!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> gxnelson said:
> 
> 
> > Gay people, are just that, people.
> ...



It doesn't but in America if you decide to do something perverted with another willing adult it is legal. 
And who defines perversion? The government? Do you want that?
A friend of mine works in the prison system. Marriages there are common.
Why is it a mass murderer CAN LEGALLY get married and you or no one else objects to that, the Bible says nothing about it, no religion speaks against it yet you oppose gay marriage?
The United States and the Constitution was founded and the Costitutution was written to LIMIT the power of government, protects the rights of the minorities whoever they may be and seeks to protect the rights of who YOU MAY DESPISE THE MOST.

Just because someone does not like it means nothing.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

Fudge packers engage in subhuman animalistic behavior.

So no; they should not have the same rights and privileges as normal people.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Fudge packers engage in subhuman animalistic behavior.
> 
> So no; they should not have the same rights and privileges as normal people.



And a mass murderer is not subhuman and animalistic?
No consistency in your argument.
And how does equal protection under the law apply when you believe a gay person is subhuman and animalistic and a mass murderer that cuts his victims up into little pieces is not?
Religous beliefs have no place in THE LAW.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Fudge packers engage in subhuman animalistic behavior.
> ...


When did I stick up for mass murderers??


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



You didn't.
When did you stick up for law abiding citizens?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 5, 2012)

He hasn't.


----------



## gxnelson (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> gxnelson said:
> 
> 
> > Gay people, are just that, people.
> ...



How is it not a throw back to racism? You are taking one group of a defined people (gay people/black people) and taking away rights that were intended to be protected under the constitution. If you're saying that it's wrong but to hell with it I don't care, that's another thing entirely. But saying one  group of people shouldn't be allotted certain rights is just wrong.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

gxnelson said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > gxnelson said:
> ...


So you would be for pedophile rights?

What about people who like sex with animals?

Is that racism also??


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

gxnelson said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > gxnelson said:
> ...




If we allow religous beliefs to run this country pretty soon religous law will run the country.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jan 5, 2012)

I have no problem with it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> gxnelson said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



We have laws against both of those.
And they are NOT based on religous beliefs.
They are against the law because they are a crime.
Under your logic, or lack of any, you want to make homosexuality a crime.
Because of your religous beliefs.
SCARY shit there.


----------



## gxnelson (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> gxnelson said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Pedophiles rights? Obvious no to that. If they are *two consenting* adults, then they are both making their choice to participate. But when you strip one person of that right to choose, then it becomes a different matter. 

As for bestiality, again, not two consenting adults....


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > gxnelson said:
> ...


Homosexuality also used to be against the law and a crime.

Now it is legal.

What's your point?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Uh, Sunni you just PROVED her point!

Marriage between the races used to be AGAINST THE LAW.
Now it is legal.
Took me a while to get you there but I knew I could.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Scientists have proven via brain scans and MRI imaging that the brains of gays females are structured (built) like those of straight males, and the brains of gay males are structured (built) like those of straight females.

Incidentally, you can't change your brain structure, not any more than you can change the amount of melanin in your skin.

Yes, it is on a par with racism to deny gays the right to marry.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Sorry son but you didn't get me anywhere.

Race differences are genetic and benign.

Homosexuality is a choice and a perversion.

Huge difference.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Sunni Man, you just lost the argument.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Really?  Because science will differ with you on the bolded part..........



> The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.
> 
> Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men.
> 
> ...



BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences'


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Someday homosexuality will again be against the law and a punishable offense.

History has a way of repeating.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



"son"
Okay Sunni, I hear you loud and clear. Couldn't hold your discipline there could you?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



And blacks and whites will be jailed also for marrying.
You can dream all you want but we will never go back to persecution. 
Of any kind. 
Punishing people for a consensual act between each other.
Now that makes a lot of damn sense!


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

Calling someone "son" is a friendly southern expression; not a tern of derision.

Anyway, times, people, and cultures are in a constant state of ebb and flow.

At the beginning of the last century in Germany the perversion of homosexuality became rampant and morals almost non existant.

The the pendulum headed the other way and homosexuality again became a serious criminal offense when a strong leader took over Germany.


Gays better enjoy the here and now.

Because society will someday revolt against them and their perverse lifestyle.

And their behavior will once again be criminalized and penalized.

The sooner the better.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Calling someone "son" is a friendly southern expression; not a tern of derision.
> 
> Anyway, times, people, and cultures are in a constant state of ebb and flow.
> 
> ...



Ok, no worries.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Calling someone "son" is a friendly southern expression; not a tern of derision.
> ...



We will never allow religous beliefs do form the law here again.
Ever. Get used to it.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

Never say Never; and you will avoid disappointment in the future.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Never say Never; and you will avoid disappointment in the future.



We incarcerate more citizens per capita than anywhere on earth, the prisons are overflowing, court dockets are backlogged 6 months to a year in all jurisdictions for criminal cases and violent crimes are still a large problem.
And you advocate prosecuting homosexuals and sending them to prison.
Sonnnnnnnn.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

I would advocate for putting first time offenders into mental hospitals so that they could be treated for their homosexuality disorder.

But repeat offenders should be locked up in prison psychiatric wards for advanced therapy to cure them of this vile affliction.

It's really the most humane thing we should do as a caring society.


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> I would advocate for putting first time offenders into mental hospitals so that they could be treated for their homosexuality disorder.
> 
> But repeat offenders should be locked up in prison psychiatric wards for advanced therapy to cure them of this vile affliction.
> 
> It's really the most humane thing we should do as a caring society.



sooo ridiculous, ignorance, unintelligent, biased. you disgust me.


----------



## nitroz (Jan 5, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > I would advocate for putting first time offenders into mental hospitals so that they could be treated for their homosexuality disorder.
> ...



Islamic Views, YO!

And yeah, when hasn't sunni been like this?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

nitroz said:


> Islamic Views, YO!
> 
> And yeah, when hasn't sunni been like this?


Actually, I only converted to Islam a little over 10 years ago.

Before that I was a Christian.

And held the same views that homosexuality is sinful and a perverted lifestyle.

And that homosexuality is an abomination just like it says in the Bible.


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> > Islamic Views, YO!
> ...



the bible also says a lot of other ridiculous things were pertinent only in the time it was written. it is all about context, but people like you forget that, and use the people to justify personal prejudices. this isn't about god, this is about you. you're weak and pathetic, because you can't think for yourself, or challenge ridiculous beliefs.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 5, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> the bible also says a lot of other ridiculous things were pertinent only in the time it was written. it is all about context, but people like you forget that, and use the people to justify personal prejudices. this isn't about god, this is about you. you're weak and pathetic, because you can't think for yourself, or challenge ridiculous beliefs.


Any Christian will tell you that the Bible is the timeless and unchangeable word of God.

So if God said it; than it stands as a fact to Bible believing Christians regardless of what society says is right or wrong.

Thus it's not about peoples likes or dislikes; but about God's likes or dislikes.

And the Bible it condemns homos and their abominable lifestyle.  Period.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 5, 2012)

> I would advocate for putting first time offenders into mental hospitals so that they could be treated for their homosexuality disorder.
> 
> But repeat offenders should be locked up in prison psychiatric wards for advanced therapy to cure them of this vile affliction.
> 
> It's really the most humane thing we should do as a caring society.



You are aware that there are many who consider Islam a mental disorder, and that Muslims should be locked up as well for treatment, or at least as a precautionary measure. 

The irony is  you and homosexuals have much in common, the risk of being subject to discriminatory measures most of all.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 6, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Hey SunnIdiot.........why do you keep ignoring this post?


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > the bible also says a lot of other ridiculous things were pertinent only in the time it was written. it is all about context, but people like you forget that, and use the people to justify personal prejudices. this isn't about god, this is about you. you're weak and pathetic, because you can't think for yourself, or challenge ridiculous beliefs.
> ...



How do you know the bible is the word of God? 

Your answer: Because it says so.

My response: This is circular.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 6, 2012)

My stance: Gays have exactly the same rights now as everyone else, and why not let them have full legal married status in civil unions?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 6, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


I already gave a complete rebuttal of this very small and fundamentally flawed study when you posted it on on another thread. And I am not going to go over it again.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > I would advocate for putting first time offenders into mental hospitals so that they could be treated for their homosexuality disorder.
> >
> > But repeat offenders should be locked up in prison psychiatric wards for advanced therapy to cure them of this vile affliction.
> >
> ...



As well as there are many who consider Christianity and ALL religions a "mental disorder".
But I know of no Christians that want to make homosexuality a crime.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

I tend to think that men that screw each other in the ass is a disorder or different or something.
And men that screw women in the ass is also a disorder or weird.
EXIT ONLY. 
But that is none of my or the government's business. Why anyone would want to get into the lives of someone else's private consensual sexual life is beyond me.
Very strange. People must not have much else to do. Hung up on the consensual sex lives between 2 OTHER adults. 
Weird to say the least.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> > Islamic Views, YO!
> ...



The bible also says eating shellfish is an "abomination".


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 6, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You are aware that there are many who consider Islam a mental disorder, and that Muslims should be locked up as well for treatment, or at least as a precautionary measure.
> 
> The irony is  you and homosexuals have much in common, the risk of being subject to discriminatory measures most of all.


As muslims I see no reason to align ourselves with the perverted radical gay agenda to fight discrimination.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that there are many who consider Islam a mental disorder, and that Muslims should be locked up as well for treatment, or at least as a precautionary measure.
> ...



You seek the protection under our laws for your religous beliefs all the while wanting to use the force of that very government THAT PROTECTS YOUR RELIGOUS BELIEFS todeny soomeone else their rights.
Once again, there is no consistency in your argument.
True patriots seek to protect the rights of those THEY MAY DESPISE THE MOST.
You are all about your religion first and The Constitutuon BE DAMNED.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jan 6, 2012)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



Government shouldn't be condoning or condemning any marriage.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> You seek the protection under our laws for your religous beliefs all the while wanting to use the force of that very government THAT PROTECTS YOUR RELIGOUS BELIEFS todeny soomeone else their rights.
> Once again, there is no consistency in your argument.
> True patriots seek to protect the rights of those THEY MAY DESPISE THE MOST.
> You are all about your religion first and The Constitutuon BE DAMNED.


LOL  True patriotism does *not* depend on protecting the rights of people you might despise.

That is just liberal/progressive nonsense with no basis in fact.

Personally, I am a big proponent of the Constitution.

But I do not believe it was set up to give "rights" and "protections" to every perverted person or group that wants to claim it for themselves.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You seek the protection under our laws for your religous beliefs all the while wanting to use the force of that very government THAT PROTECTS YOUR RELIGOUS BELIEFS todeny soomeone else their rights.
> ...



I am Republican/Libertarian business owner.
Nothing liberal about me, ever. 
I carry a gun for a living!


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> I am Republican/Libertarian business owner.
> Nothing liberal about me, ever.
> I carry a gun for a living!


I personally apologize for insinuating that you were a liberal.

Because liberals rate somewhere between pond scum and dog poop.


----------



## nitroz (Jan 6, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


----------



## nitroz (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > the bible also says a lot of other ridiculous things were pertinent only in the time it was written. it is all about context, but people like you forget that, and use the people to justify personal prejudices. this isn't about god, this is about you. you're weak and pathetic, because you can't think for yourself, or challenge ridiculous beliefs.
> ...



The Bible also says to kill Muslims

Christian Bible Says To Kill Members Of Other Faiths Carey Sherrill (10-01)


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

The Constitution states clearly there is no religous test to hold public office.
For a reason.
The Founders kinew that religous folk are looney tunes when they apply their religous beliefs into law and/or policy.


----------



## nitroz (Jan 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Constitution states clearly there is no religous test to hold public office.
> For a reason.
> The Founders kinew that religous folk are looney tunes when they apply their religous beliefs into law and/or policy.



Exactly.

But they ganged up by the masses and influenced law. :/
This is why Liberals are necessary. Other times, they are utter pests. xD


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Founders kinew that religous folk are looney tunes when they apply their religous beliefs into law and/or policy.


The Founders did not think any such thing.

They were Not against religion.

The founders just didn't want any specific religion to dominate the political landscape of our new nation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2012)

theological fundamentalists do not make the laws for the U.S., period.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Founders kinew that religous folk are looney tunes when they apply their religous beliefs into law and/or policy.
> ...



Where did anyone say they were against religion?
Any specific is the same as NO religion. 
Any covers them ALL.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The founders were not against spiritual values, they were against organized religion at the national level.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Founders kinew that religous folk are looney tunes when they apply their religous beliefs into law and/or policy.
> ...



True............the founders were against turning this nation into a theocracy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2012)

The founders were certainly not against religious and spiritual and ethical values to inform their thinking and conclusions.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > I would advocate for putting first time offenders into mental hospitals so that they could be treated for their homosexuality disorder.
> ...



Really?  Here's a couple of 'em for ya then...........Mr. Fischer from the American Family Association (a Christian group).


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF9J__0rT50]Fischer: Criminalize Homosexuality - YouTube[/ame]

And........isn't the GOP the party that claims to be Christian?  Well......look at what's going on in Montana in the legislature.......



> Montanas Republican Party adopted a platform on June 19 that calls to criminalize homosexuality.
> 
> We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal, the platform states.
> 
> ...



GOP aims to criminalize homosexuality | Indy Blog

If you want more examples..........look up "criminalize homosexuality" on Google.

Oh..........and don't forget those C street douchebags that helped get it as a death sentence in Uganda.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 6, 2012)

The most humane thing our society can do for people trapped in the homosexual lifestyle is to criminalize it.

That way homosexuals will be locked up and can receive mental health therapy to help cure them of this vile and disgusting perversion.

Otherwise, without intervention; they will remain trapped in a life of self degradation and social ostracism.

Which in many cases leads to infectious diseases, mental illness, and eventually suicide.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> The most humane thing our society can do for people trapped in the homosexual lifestyle is to criminalize it.
> 
> That way homosexuals will be locked up and can receive mental health therapy to help cure them of this vile and disgusting perversion.
> 
> ...



You Muslims sweat the small stuff.
Get over it and get a life. 
How come you can not mind your own business?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 6, 2012)

> But I know of no Christians that want to make homosexuality a crime.



Youve never heard of the nitwit GOP candidate Rick Santorum?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > But I know of no Christians that want to make homosexuality a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Youve never heard of the nitwit GOP candidate Rick Santorum?



I do not like him but where did he state that?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 6, 2012)

> I do not like him but where did he state that?



Here: 



> The National Journal has an extensive piece on Santorum's policy stances, including his support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and his comments about a Texas sodomy law that was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003. Santorum likened that decision to endorsing bigamy, polygamy, and incest.
> 
> Summary Judgments for Jan. 3


And then theres the Texas Republican Party platform that calls for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and opposes the legalization of "sodomy" ie homosexuality.

Texas Republican Party Platform


----------



## nitroz (Jan 6, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> The most humane thing our society can do for people trapped in the homosexual lifestyle is to criminalize it.
> 
> That way homosexuals will be locked up and can receive mental health therapy to help cure them of this vile and disgusting perversion.
> 
> ...



I feel the same about islam.

But then again, I heard Allah loved to pack fudge.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2012)

Santorum was booed off a stage by folks in NH when he compared universal marriage to polygamy.

He cannot appeal to more than 30% of the voting electorate.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 7, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> The most humane thing our society can do for people trapped in the homosexual lifestyle is to criminalize it.
> 
> That way homosexuals will be locked up and can receive mental health therapy to help cure them of this vile and disgusting perversion.
> 
> ...




*Muslim intervention..*


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 7, 2012)

Sad that you would post something like that Jroc.

Thought you were a better person.

I was only advocating mandatory therapy to help homosexuals.


Besides, what they do in other countries has nothing to do with our nation.

btw  there isn't any evidence that the men in your post were executed for being homosexuals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2012)

Universal marriage support will continue to grow.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 7, 2012)

mosten11 said:


> I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...



As of this post, I couldn't care less, which way it goes.  On my list of concerns, it would be at the bottom. I am thinking "economy" and not much else, these days.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 7, 2012)

> Sad that you would post something like that Jroc.



But not unexpected. 



> I was only advocating mandatory therapy to help homosexuals.



Which would be illegal and a violation of the 14th Amendments due process and equal protection clauses. See: Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). and LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

It would be in essence a lynching of the Constitution.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 7, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Sad that you would post something like that Jroc.
> 
> Thought you were a better person.
> 
> ...



Seems to me you have no problem with locking people up Sunni boy



Sunni Man said:


> My solution to the Jewish problem.
> 
> Would be to round them up world wide and find and island to quarantine them on.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 7, 2012)

Limiting certain peoples freedom in order to protect them or society is not out of bounds.

And many times is the most humane option to help them.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 7, 2012)

AquaAthena said:


> mosten11 said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...
> ...




Just last night I was laying in bed and thinking and I was shocked that somewhere within a 20 mile radius of where I live there was probably 2 men or 2 women that truly love each other sleeping in bed together. Then I had this horrible thought!!! Maybe they will want to get married!! Oh MY GOD!! I could not get to sleep as the rest of the night I was so worried and devestated about the terrible impact on my own marriage, my life and my career if 2 people of the same sex are allowed to marry. If 2 gay men or 2 gay women were allowed to show their commitment and devotion to one another I do not know if my own marriage would survive, or any of the other marriages in America. Heterosexual marriages would go from 55% divorce rate to I am sure 56% over night. I am not sure my life could go on the same if gays were allowed to get married.
But I am lucky as all get out!! Sunni Man, Rick Santorum and all are on the way riding high in their white hats!!! They are going to set our minds at ease by being against gays and gay marriage!! Halelujah!. We have needed this for so long. 
We do not need help with our education system, we do not need to lower energy prices by seeking alternatives, we do not need to win wars overseas, we do not need to attempt to keep health care prices down, we do not need to end political corruption. We do not need any of those things.
What we need is to stop 2 people that love each other from getting married because they fall in love with folks of the same sex. Yes, if we stop that nothing else matters and all is well. That way I will not worry tonight and get a good nights rest.


----------



## nitroz (Jan 7, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Limiting certain peoples freedom in order to protect them or society is not out of bounds.
> 
> And many times is the most humane option to help them.



I disagree.

The best we can do is raise awareness about disease, encourage everyone to use protection, encourage everyone to get tested, and change the law to where it would make the offending person(s) a sex offender if they willingly have unprotected sex or transfer the disease in any sexual manner/way to someone while lying about being disease free or not telling them when they fully know.



I understand your views, Sunni. But you have to keep everyone's freedom in mind. (This is America...) The best we could do is help prevent it and punish the offenders by law if necessary.  




Give them some rules and let them run free. If they break the rules, send them to time out.


----------

