Gay marriage legal in Massachussetts

[no1tovote4]

People of other religions than yours may often take part in things that you might consider immoral, such as witchcraft for Wiccans, however people are are not arguing that they should be banned from normal discourse in society or from marriage. Why is it that since the religion most followed in this country says Gays are immoral, that we must define marriage by your religion?

Since religion is not the only institution that can marry people shouldn't rights matter for civil marriages? A person has a right not to follow this religion, not to do whatever another wants them to do so long as they cause no harm to others. There is no victim when two consenting adults get married regardless of what sex they are, so where is there any justification for removing their right to do so?

Regardless if this is normal, or natural it is the right of the individual to make the choice for themselves.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by no1tovote4
People of other religions than yours may often take part in things that you might consider immoral, such as witchcraft for Wiccans, however people are are not arguing that they should be banned from normal discourse in society or from marriage. Why is it that since the religion most followed in this country says Gays are immoral, that we must define marriage by your religion?

Since religion is not the only institution that can marry people shouldn't rights matter for civil marriages? A person has a right not to follow this religion, not to do whatever another wants them to do so long as they cause no harm to others. There is no victim when two consenting adults get married regardless of what sex they are, so where is there any justification for removing their right to do so?

Regardless if this is normal, or natural it is the right of the individual to make the choice for themselves.

I agree.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by no1tovote4
People of other religions than yours may often take part in things that you might consider immoral, such as witchcraft for Wiccans, however people are are not arguing that they should be banned from normal discourse in society or from marriage. Why is it that since the religion most followed in this country says Gays are immoral, that we must define marriage by your religion?

Since religion is not the only institution that can marry people shouldn't rights matter for civil marriages? A person has a right not to follow this religion, not to do whatever another wants them to do so long as they cause no harm to others. There is no victim when two consenting adults get married regardless of what sex they are, so where is there any justification for removing their right to do so?

Regardless if this is normal, or natural it is the right of the individual to make the choice for themselves.

Hey buddy you go quote me where i've based any of my arguments on religion. I've for the most part deliberately left religion out of this argument because it is easy to attack.

Now you got any proof that homosexuality is normal and not a perversion? Don't bullshit me and put some crap about left hands or some other stupid shit, hit me with facts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Hey buddy you go quote me where i've based any of my arguments on religion. I've for the most part deliberately left religion out of this argument because it is easy to attack.

Now you got any proof that homosexuality is normal and not a perversion? Don't bullshit me and put some crap about left hands or some other stupid shit, hit me with facts.

You're right. Your arguments are not religious; they're mostly along the lines of "This just ain't normal". A religious argument would have at least been worthy of a modicum of respect.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Translation: I don't have an argument to refute you OCA so i'll throw bigot out there because I don't want to go away emptyhanded.

Wrong. There's much evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Saying the gay community has corrupted science is not a good refutation. Post a link proving it's a choice and we'll let you be, ostrich-bigot.

 

[Aquarian]

rwa- I probably used a bad example, referencing the Monkey's song 'pleasant valley sunday' where the suburbs are full of cookie cutter houses and cookie cutter people. I know it's not all like that, but like any stereotype it developed for a reason (that reason being that a good number of folks do fit the stereotype). also feel like I 'escaped' the burbs when I moved to an area on the edge of atlanta and eventually into the city itself <shrug>

oca-

hmm. over the top folks leading the charge. yes, sometimes I think they are more radical and pushy than necessary. other times I can see the use of their tactics. when they push the envelope as far as they can and it snaps back, it's usually ahead of the place they started from. that's the way the moral pendulum seems to work in this country on any issue. I try to stand up for any group, individual, act or practice that doesn't directly impact any other. I'm not always the best as I tend to be a quiet observer around folks not in my circle of friends, but I try. back in my pride marching days I'd have to defend the weirder ones to my more 'normal' friends. my friends would say 'why can't they dress/act normal, they're giving us a bad name' and I'd have to point out that's the exact same argument the majority is trying to force on us. granted, you have to draw the line somewhere. I'm not going to stand up for nambla, I'm not going to speak out for bestiality. but I do think the lines of liberty need to be pushed out a bit farther than they are now in several arenas including the gay issue, firearms, drug legalization (not sure on the heavier ones, but mj for sure), free speech and such.

to swing back around to the original start of that paragraph for a moment, I see negative reactions in the news to the efforts of gay activists that I often think could have been avoided if the activists acted more diplomatically, but I haven't been personally affected by the issue in so long I barely remember what it was like. my friends, relatives, co-workers and fellow atlantans really don't seem to care for the most part (talking in town, outside the perimiter is another story). they called us at one time the city too busy to hate. do your job, pay your bills and have as much fun as you can without hurting anyone seems to be the motto...

 

[no1tovote4]

Hey buddy you go quote me where i've based any of my arguments on religion. I've for the most part deliberately left religion out of this argument because it is easy to attack.

I did not quote you at all. I was making a general argument about religion not being the basis of law.

However since I hit you while aiming at a general target I will ask you a question. Without religion, give me a reason that this is immoral. Where is the victim in other words?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Wrong. There's much evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Saying the gay community has corrupted science is not a good refutation. Post a link proving it's a choice and we'll let you be, ostrich-bigot.

Celebacy is a choice.

So is smoking....even though it is addictive.

How the heck can you argue homosexual marriage or activity as being necessary?

You can't.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Celebacy is a choice.

So is smoking....even though it is addictive.

How the heck can you argue homosexual marriage or activity as being necessary?

You can't.

That's like saying your heterosexuality is a choice because you chose to act on it by having sex with women. It's an assinine argument, just like most of your arguments.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You're right. Your arguments are not religious; they're mostly along the lines of "This just ain't normal". A religious argument would have at least been worthy of a modicum of respect.

Actually anybody intelligent want to answer the normal and natural question?

RWA you cannot be serious, in the past 6 months it has been proven that homosexuality is not normal and natural by at least a dozen members on this board in dozens of ways. WTF are you blind? Regardless the burden of proof doesn't lay with us it lays with your side. At this point since you've offered very little evidence the defense has really no reason to call any witnesses.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
That's like saying your heterosexuality is a choice because you chose to act on it by having sex with women. It's an assinine argument, just like most of your arguments.

-Except my "choice" allows generational population amongst the species.

The "other" alternative does not.

If I DONT act upon my urge, I CHOOSE celebacy.

It is still a choice.

You are still spewing hot air.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Actually anybody intelligent want to answer the normal and natural question?

RWA you cannot be serious, in the past 6 months it has been proven that homosexuality is not normal and natural by at least a dozen members on this board in dozens of ways. WTF are you blind? Regardless the burden of proof doesn't lay with us it lays with your side. At this point since you've offered very little evidence the defense has really no reason to call any witnesses.

Not normal. Is natural. Is morally neutral.

I am serious.

Nothing has been proven.

There is more proof it's biological than that it's not. You ignore the evidence.

Judge Wapner has more game than you, give it up.

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually anybody intelligent want to answer the normal and natural question?

Why would it need to be answered? It is unnatural to fly in planes at speeds over the speed of sound, and not normal as well, however nobody would say it is immoral. (Most planes travel well under the speed of sound.) It is not natural to remove organs in order to save people's lives, and not normal either, few say that is immoral (some religions do believe that this is immoral, however we do not use their ruler to make law).

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by no1tovote4
Why would it need to be answered? It is unnatural to fly in planes at speeds over the speed of sound, and not normal as well, however nobody would say it is immoral. (Most planes travel well under the speed of sound.) It is not natural to remove organs in order to save people's lives, and not normal either, few say that is immoral (some religions do believe that this is immoral, however we do not use their ruler to make law).

Boy that was a flawed logic.

The argument clarified is:

If we can do it, we SHOULD do it.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by no1tovote4
I did not quote you at all. I was making a general argument about religion not being the basis of law.

However since I hit you while aiming at a general target I will ask you a question. Without religion, give me a reason that this is immoral. Where is the victim in other words?

My harddrive is down right now and i'm on an old pos that doesn't allow me to search real well but somewhere in this thread posted by a guy named Big D are some stats on a little disease called AIDS. Before the big explosion of AIDS in the homosexual community were there any cases of AIDS among heterosexuals? How did AIDS get into the blood supply? Check out the rates of AIDS among the homosexual community as compared to others. They are their own victims.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Boy that was a dumb logic.

The argument clarified is:

If we can do it, we SHOULD do it.

no. You misunderstood. The point is this, minority behavior is not automatically "wrong" behavior. Get grip, locktite.

 

[no1tovote4]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Boy that was a flawed logic.

The argument clarified is:

If we can do it, we SHOULD do it.

No, what you should search for is the victim, if there is a victim it is immoral and can be argued without religion. The argument clarified is:

Just because it is not natural, does not mean it is immoral.

You miss the mark and the point and attempt to invalidate my response with illogic and sporadic reasoning at best.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by no1tovote4
Why would it need to be answered? It is unnatural to fly in planes at speeds over the speed of sound, and not normal as well, however nobody would say it is immoral. (Most planes travel well under the speed of sound.) It is not natural to remove organs in order to save people's lives, and not normal either, few say that is immoral (some religions do believe that this is immoral, however we do not use their ruler to make law).

Again irrelevant and completely unequal in terms of depravity actions.

Dammit, somebody tell vote that this line of argument he's using has been losing for 3 days now.

Somebody please answer the simple question of is homosexual natural and normal and please provide irrefuteable proof. I'm begginning to think no one is up to that task. Could it be it doesn't exist? Hmmmmm

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by Aquarian
when they push the envelope as far as they can and it snaps back, it's usually ahead of the place they started from. that's the way the moral pendulum seems to work in this country on any issue.

This is very true. This is also the process that is slowly and methodically destroying the moral fiber of our country, in my opinion.

Each day, a little more of our moral integrity is relinquished, until one day we'll awake to a world where anyone is allowed to do anything. I know that this is fatalistic, and probably even extremish, but it is where I see us heading, and it bothers me.

My beliefs and politics are seated in my religion. It is where I get my moral beliefs and conscience. I make no apologies for it. I will not attempt to force anyone to accept my religion and adopt it as their own, but I will stand up till the end for what I believe is "right and wrong" based upon my Christian beliefs!

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
no. You misunderstood. The point is this, minority behavior is not automatically "wrong" behavior. Get grip, locktite.

People this guy is killing your side, my suggestion is have a talk with him or sedation might be a good choice.