Gay marriage legal in Massachussetts

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
Wait a sec before I leave I ran across this.

That is not the only reason, there are a myriad of reasons but that is one of the main ones. You know lets cut the bullshit, how do two men and two women together, how do those two couples go with the flow of nature and not against it?

well lets see. In my 38 years of life I've had numerous relationships, SEVERAL of which I had no intention of 'pro-creating'. I guess that would mean that two people (note I'm leaving gender out of this for the moment) can get together and have a consensual, sexual relationship. Now, there are also thousands of hetero couples that are married that don't have children and don't intend to have children. Being that is the case, 'pro-creation' is a useless argument for marriage..ESPECIALLY since you don't have to be married to pro-create.

 

[dilloduck]

Saw the " facts". Ignored them because they are not true

 

[007]

Originally posted by dilloduck
OCA--you have no interest in learning anything here----you set up parameters and then change them or redefine----you have made up your mind that no one will prove you wrong. Quit asking that question when you dont want answers

OCA isn't the one "changing parameters" here skippy, it's you and your queer backing crowd.

It's the queers who want to "REDIFINE" marriage. Not OCA, me or the man in the moon. It's the queers and the people that let them do it..... "you".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by TN_Independent
Also, the question was not general at all. It was specific. Should I repeat it for you?

Yes.

 

[no1tovote4]

Originally posted by OCA
Wait a sec before I leave I ran across this.

That is not the only reason, there are a myriad of reasons but that is one of the main ones. You know lets cut the bullshit, how do two men and two women together, how do those two couples go with the flow of nature and not against it?

We keep asking what nature has to do with it and you never answer. Animals don't get married, so it isn't found in nature. Using nature in an attempt to define something that is also unnatural is deliberate ignorance at best.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
It's amazing how these factual posts that should shut a lot of people up are simply IGNORED!

I try to teach my step children ONE lifestyle. Guess what that lifestyle is? SAFETY. That means that WHATEVER they choose to do in their lives or how they wish to live it, that they live it as safely as possible.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
OCA isn't the one "changing parameters" here skippy, it's you and your queer backing crowd.

It's the queers who want to "REDIFINE" marriage. Not OCA, me or the man in the moon. It's the queers and the people that let them do it..... "you".

OCA has redefined the parameters of answers he asks for numerous times every time an answer is given that blows his argument or point to shreds

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
OCA isn't the one "changing parameters" here skippy, it's you and your queer backing crowd.

It's the queers who want to "REDIFINE" marriage. Not OCA, me or the man in the moon. It's the queers and the people that let them do it..... "you".

Gays don't hurt anyone who's not consenting, unless their a pedophile or a rapist, and we have laws that will still apply in those instances.

Let them get married. If gays getting married affects your marriage, you have other problems.

 

[007]

Originally posted by no1tovote4
Right, you didn't pose cogent arguments, you simply dismiss to ask the same question.

I am not trying to prove to you that it is natural or normal, simply that they are not valid arguments to make your point that it is immoral. What is your argument that homosexuality is immoral? You keep saying depravity, but that is according to religion which you have stated before is not your argument. Therefore when you have no argument left you resort to saying things like the above. Which addresses none of our arguments just continues with the same repetition with nothing to back you up.

Prove that it is depraved.

If you don't have any more idea of what the moral fabric of this country is made up of than that, then it's no wonder to me why you can't see why it's immoral.

It's people like you with no moral compass that are leading this country down the toilet.

Get a clue.

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by TN_Independent
rtwng, are you opposed to any law that is based only on morality? Not flaming, just curious.

There she blows!!!!!!!

No pun intended..... :

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
well lets see. In my 38 years of life I've had numerous relationships, SEVERAL of which I had no intention of 'pro-creating'. I guess that would mean that two people (note I'm leaving gender out of this for the moment) can get together and have a consensual, sexual relationship. Now, there are also thousands of hetero couples that are married that don't have children and don't intend to have children. Being that is the case, 'pro-creation' is a useless argument for marriage..ESPECIALLY since you don't have to be married to pro-create.

That brings in our critical thinking and reasoning processes. We can make that decision to not procreate and yes we can procreate outside of marriage but that does not lessen our urge to find a mate(of the opposite sex). Humans I believe have an inate attraction to the opposite sex no matter the age, sometimes its to procreate sometimes its just for sex without procreation(birth control because all sex is for procreation unless you take steps to limit it) and sometimes its for companionship in your older years which is why seniors sometimes get hitched after a mate passes away.

These are all things as to why I believe homosexuality is not normal and is a choice.

 

[007]

Originally posted by acludem
My state is voting on gay marriage in November it appears. You all know what my vote will be. There are already groups both for and opposed to the ballot issue, which would put a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Missouri Constitution. I will be joining one of the groups opposed to the ballot issue. We shouldn't constitutionalize bigotry.

acludem

Bigotry. You love that word don't you. It makes you sound like somehow you're special, and know what you're talking about. Well....... maybe to an idiot.

No, you're right about one thing. We shouldn't constitutionalize bigotry. But it looks like you WOULD constitutionalize IDIOCY.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
If you don't have any more idea of what the moral fabric of this country is made up of than that, then it's no wonder to me why you can't see why it's immoral.

It's people like you with no moral compass that are leading this country down the toilet.

Get a clue.

whats the only allowable moral compass then?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by no1tovote4
We keep asking what nature has to do with it and you never answer. Animals don't get married, so it isn't found in nature. Using nature in an attempt to define something that is also unnatural is deliberate ignorance at best.

Human males are born with an innate and NATURAL attraction to females and vice-versa. Good enough for ya? Tell me i'm wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

guess the lefts got what they wanted---a fracture in the right wing party. I will continue to support Bush but not those who fear homosexuals or their behavior. Glad to have you guys behind Bush. You should be glad to have US too.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

rtwng, are you opposed to any law that is based only on morality? Not flaming, just curious.


I answered the question without using the word morality, because morality itself can come from different places.

So do you want to know about how I think laws should be made, or where I think morality comes from?

My morality is based on putting a premium on individual rights and outlawing any activity on the part of any individual that denies another individual life, liberty or property through force or fraud. I am also a christian, but most of my morality comes from this admittedly secular formula. It just so happens that I find christainity supports this outlook most of the time.

Where would you like me to elaborate? Why the 'tude the first time around?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
OCA has redefined the parameters of answers he asks for numerous times every time an answer is given that blows his argument or point to shreds

Nope. I guess my fault is I don't completely define my position enough in one post. You can however go back through this thread and get a complete picture of my position on this topic. Its quite clear and concise.

I believe that you don't like to be challenged on your beliefs like i'm challenging you today. My responses and arguments have been as clear as a blue sky. Maybe the answers refute your position so you want to slaughter the messenger now?

 

[007]

Originally posted by no1tovote4
That's NAMBLA, not homosexuals, pedophiles.

Different animal, Pale Rider.

MY GOD VOTE.... FUCKING READ IT.....

NORTH AMERICAN **MAN**BOY**LOVE** ASSOCIATION

What part of that are you missing!!!!!!

MAN + BOY = HOMOSEXUAL!!

And the VAST majority of pedaphiles are QUEERS!!

You need to educate yourself if you're going to come here debate vote. So far you've just made a fool of yourself.

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
rtwng, are you opposed to any law that is based only on morality? Not flaming, just curious.


I answered the question without using the word morality, because morality itself can come from different places.

So do you want to know about how I think laws should be made, or where I think morality comes from?

My morality is based on putting a premium on individual rights and outlawing any activity on the part of any individual that denies another individual life, liberty or property through force or fraud. I am also a christian, but most of my morality comes from this admittedly secular formula. It just so happens that I find christainity supports this outlook most of the time.

Where would you like me to elaborate? Why the 'tude the first time around?

'tude? I in no way intended to express an 'attitude'. In fact, I expressly said that I wasn't flaming. Anyway, no big deal.

As for an answer, I'll take your post to mean that if a law is made simply because a certain part of the populus feels it is wrong to allow the action/behavior (and it doesn't directly affect, harm, disrespect any other person), then you think the law is not justified. If that is incorrect, then you'll have to correct me... otherwise, that is what I was asking.

 

[no1tovote4]

Originally posted by dilloduck
guess the lefts got what they wanted---a fracture in the right wing party. I will continue to support Bush but not those who fear homosexuals or their behavior. Glad to have you guys behind Bush. You should be glad to have US too.

I too am behind Bush, but not this. Individual rights is something that the Republican Party is supposed to stand for not against. To simply say it is immoral, then give no evidence to back it up is ridiculous.