Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[ABikerSailor]

hey they can have at it all they like for all I care...but I wont call it a marriage..and I don't want to pay for their treatment..I don't want it paraded down main street in celebration..or have my child taught that it is normal behavior...

Normal is a setting on the washing machine.

And......what YOU consider "normal", IS NOT NORMAL in other places.

Think about that pedant, go please purists........

 

[Father Time]

hey they can have at it all they like for all I care...but I wont call it a marriage..and I don't want to pay for their treatment..I don't want it paraded down main street in celebration..or have my child taught that it is normal behavior...

Fine by me, I personally think being gay is a really dumb thing to take pride in, especially if they consider being gay to not be a choice.

 

[Sunni Man]

hey they can have at it all they like for all I care...but I wont call it a marriage..and I don't want to pay for their treatment..I don't want it paraded down main street in celebration..or have my child taught that it is normal behavior...

Good for you Eots!!!

I really can't figure out why some people support these sick homos and their gross lifestyle??

Then to top it all off. They teach their children that perverted, nasty homo sex is a wonderful thing!!!

 

[Father Time]

Good for you Eots!!!
Then to top it all off. They teach their children that perverted, nasty homo sex is a wonderful thing!!!

yeah because it's impossible to be abstinent and gay right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm talking about anything in general, not just gay marriage. I've asked before why it should be banned no one has given me a good reason. And you're reason is that the majority wants it that way, and since it doesn't affect them that much I'm really unconvinced.

Of course you're unconvinced, because you've already decided that their position is silly - whatever it might happen to be, and you've already decided what it is, as well - and therefore, it's all settled.

You've made that clear but I'm talking in general, that we shouldn't ban stuff just because we find them immorral without good reason.

Sorry, but "most people find it immoral" IS a good reason. "Most people find it immoral enough to make the effort to pass a law to that effect" is a really good reason.

Quite frankly, if you can find a better reason that society should be set up in a certain way than the fact that the people who live in that society WANT it to be that way, I'd like to know what it is.

The rules in my house are set up the way they are for one reason, and one reason only: I want them that way. That's how I like it to be. Are the rules in your house the same? Probably not. Why? Because YOU don't like things the same way I do. Should I come to your house and make you do things my way? No. Does it matter if I argue six different reasons why my way is better? No, because the fact that you don't want to live the way I do trumps my opinion on the subject.

51% can oppress 49%. That's tyranny of the majority.

No, because it's neither oppression nor tyranny. It's just being outvoted.

Or you can have our system where every citizen is guaranteed the same rights and those cannot be taken away even if the majority decide otherwise (save extreme circumstances). Hey that's what we got.

Yes, but that isn't what you're recommending. You're recommending that ANYTHING anyone wants to do should be a protected right, and that there should be NO circumstances in which that can be changed, and that the protected rights that currently exist should only apply to SOME people, and that those rights should be taken from most of the people in order to give rights not currently in existence to a minority.

In other words, you're recommending tyranny.

Tyranny is not simply someone not getting their way, and I've never argued that.

That is EXACTLY what you are arguing when you try to claim that it's "tyranny" for the majority vote to carry the day. That's all losing a vote is: You didn't get your way this time around.

Our country was founded on individual liberty. God given rights and all that. Read up on it sometime.

That's a very cute and facile and nice-sounding argument. Too bad it's empty, meaningless, and without any real substance.

Yes it gives everyone the same guarantees, and when the majority propose a law that violates one of them, it gets rules unconstitutional. That's how our damn country works. But let's make it simple.

Unless the law being proposed is a Constitutional Amendment itself. And in this case, this particular topic is irrelevant, because marriage is not currently an issue addressed by the US Constitution.

The majority want to dictate laws to the populace.
In order to do that they need government.
The bill of rights stops government from making those laws.
Thus the bill of rights protects us from even the will of the majority.

Actually, no. Usually, if a law is being proposed that REALLY violates Constitutional rights, as opposed to bullshit spin-doctoring attempts to claim that, it's not being proposed by the people. It's being proposed by a government entity that has lost touch with the will of the people and is serving a small special interest group to the detriment of the people at large. Thus, the Bill of Rights - and the rest of the Constitution - protects the majority from the minority.

I can give you scads of examples of laws that have been proposed - and sometimes even fraudulently passed - that have violated Constitutional rights and were done so at the behest of a minority. I challenge you to show me one instance where the majority of people pressured the government into passing a law that violated Constitutional rights.

I never argued that the bill of rights was "meant to shield minorities from EVER having to live with any laws or strictures they don't like." It never says that. We have more rights than what's there, it never said we had unlimited rights.

And the Tenth Amendment - not to mention the entire system of government - leaves the power over those rights and their delineation in the hands of lower governments. In other words, the state and local governments.

Although do you have a source that the founding fathers created the bill of rights and still wanted absolute rule by majority? It seems strange and illogical that they would think that every human has God given rights but would be perfectly OK with 51% taking them away.

Um, that source would be the laws they wrote down and left us. Hello?! Look at the governments they set up, federal and otherwise. How are things decided? Some things are put in the hands of representatives, some things are done by appointment, and many things are done by . . . say it with me now: popular vote.

One of the God-given rights they thought people should be accorded was the right of self-determination. What do you have trouble understanding about that?

Get a grip and knock off the straw men. Please. The whole concept is that people are born with rights you can't take away.

Actually, that isn't what it means at all, because OBVIOUSLY, you can take them away. Go tell the people who lived under the former Soviet Union how their rights were God-given and couldn't be taken away.

A lot of people misunderstand the word "inalienable" and what it actually means. It is a legal term referring to a right which is fundamentally inherent in a person, as opposed to a right which can be sold or transferred to someone else, as in the rights to certain property. Obviously, the right to personal judgement, for example, would be inalienable, since it is inherent to the person and he cannot very well give it away or sell it.

The Founding Fathers believed - as did the philosophers who influenced them - that there were certain natural rights that God intended all human beings to be able to exercise, and with which the government should not interfere in an ideal society. It is important to note that not all of the people who agree on the concept of natural rights agreed on what those rights were. That is because this is a philosophical theory, not an empirical fact.

In our case, the Founding Fathers wrote up the Bill of Rights to enshrine ten rights which the citizens of the new country were already accustomed to having and exercising, or which they felt were important to protect because they had experienced such disastrous results when they were denied. It is important to note HERE that if rights could truly be God-given and inalienable in the sense which you define it, there would have been no need to protect them at all.

The upshot is that there is one right which overarches all of this, and is not spelled out in any one specific Article or Amendment, but is outlined for us in each and every word of the government and laws that our Founding Fathers handed down: the right of the people to govern themselves and decide for themselves what kind of country they would have. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Founding Fathers had provided, he responded, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." So they clearly DID recognize the fact that they were giving the people the option to change the type of government on a fundamental level, if that was what they wished.

Free will is not truly free unless it includes the ability to make bad choices.

Yeah you're keeping an arguably bad status quo and you want things to remain banned, same thing really. The only difference is that it is banned and if wasn't you'd be asking for one.

I might be asking for a ban if it had ever become legal, that's true. So what? The fact still remains that it has NOT been banned, because it would have to have existed first. It's actually just never come up before.

It sounds like you're arguing that every law or every change in the law affects you which isn't the case.

Sure it does. Oh, it might not be a direct, personal effect, much like giving me the right to a legal abortion didn't personally affect me, since it's a right I would never exercise, and the Second Amendment doesn't personally affect me, since I don't own a gun or have any plans to purchase one. Nevertheless, I live in a society where abortion is legal and gun ownership is legal, and I live with the effects that has on our society and its attitudes. I also live with the fact that, as a citizen, these laws are being acted upon and enforced in my name. Maybe you don't consider that important, but I do.

Oh so I can't ask that question without being pompous and arrogant than. Please tell me how you came up with that conclusion. It seems like a bad excuse to dismiss the question. You think it affects you because you think everything the government does affects you. I find that logic really really weak sorry for assuming there must've been more to it than that.

It's not asking for an explanation of my position and the reasons behind it that's pompous and arrogant. It's the way you worded it. You are making it clear that you aren't really interested in hearing what I think, that you've already decided in your own mind what my reasons are, you have then dismissed them as being unworthy, and are now really only asking how I can be stupid enough not to agree with you.

I can't see any reason why I would waste my time when you've made it painfully obvious that you aren't going to listen, anyway. Ask me in a way that indicates honest curiosity and an open mind, and you will get better results.

Everyone who does something wrong thinks it should've been legal. Everyone makes excuses. That doesn't mean they have objective reasons as to why it should be legal.

They're as objective as yours are. See, this is your problem. You assume that YOUR position is the real, hard, objective fact that everyone else secretly knows perfectly well, and everyone ELSE'S position is just silly, subjective, self-serving excuses. You're utterly incapable of accepting that your positions are just as opinion-based as anyone else's, and that other people might have concerns equally valid to yours.

I'm not saying you have to consider all opinions and positions to be equally correct or good. I'm saying you should at least consider other opinions, period. I can tell you exactly why supporters of homosexual "marriage" hold the positions they do. Hell, I could probably argue the position better than you can. That's because I listened - really LISTENED - to what they had to say about it, and then I thought it through carefully before I came to the conclusion that I didn't agree with them. But in all the time you and I have been talking about this, you've never once even geniunely ASKED me why I hold my position. You've TOLD me multiple times why I think what I do, despite having been told that you're wrong and that I find it offensive, but you've never asked.

Yeah they're fringe groups and nuts. They don't use logic and just because certain groups disagree with those laws doesn't mean they have a good reason for doing so.

There you go again. "My opinions are the right ones, and anyone who disagrees is automatically a fringe nut job and illogical, and therefore I can simply dismiss their views without ever even hearing them." I'm not saying that many groups are NOT, in fact, fringe nut jobs, but your blanket assumption that any group who doesn't march in lockstep with you falls into that category is a very real problem you should address.

How the hell is allowing gay marriage forcing you to take any view? Once again you don't have to agree with anything the government does.

How is it forcing me to take a view? Dude, you're trying to make something a law. That automatically forces everyone who votes to take a position on that proposed law, because, y'know, that's how the legislative process in this country is supposed to work.

I don't personally have to agree with everything the government does, but the majority of the people who make up that government DO have to agree. And in this case, they don't.

Although I get it using the government to impose the attitude of homosexuals are bad is bad but imposing homosexuals are second class citizens is perfectly ok then.

Spare me the fuzzy-wuzzy appeals to emotional blackmail. I've warned you repeatedly about putting words in my mouth, and "making homosexuals second-class citizens is okay then" is the worst sort of propaganda spin-doctoring bullshit. YOU think it makes them second-class citizens. I don't, and I take GREAT umbrage to you even implying that I agree with your assessment and am therefore taking my position precisely because I WANT to harm others. If you can't do this on a logical basis without attacking me personally, then just say so and I will move on to a more mature debater.

Or in the case of prohibition the attitude that drinking was bad. Why is it ok to impose that attitude? Because the majority agrees with that attitude? Sounds a lot like ad populum doesn't it?

There's a big difference, as I keep saying, between "It's a good idea to do this" and "we have the legal right to do it". Look how many people have the legal right to say whatever they want, and use it to say stupid shit they should have shut their back teeth on.

The question in this particular segment of conversation is not "Should it be done?" but "Do the people have the legal right to do it?" And they do. Now, if you think they shouldn't EXERCISE that right in that way, then it is your job to convince them of it, not take their rights away from them on the grounds that you think they're not using them wisely enough. That is what happened with Prohibition: enough people were convinced to change their mind about what should be done, and they repealed it. Note that what DIDN'T happen was someone stepping in and saying, "Well, then, you're obviously just not bright enough to exercise this power, so I'll just take that and tell you how things should be."

The slippery slope fallacy
Tell me how on earth does allowing gay marriage mean we must allow gay activists to bludgeon opponents with the government.

Finally, a question that you didn't subsequently answer for yourself.

First of all, there's the fact that changing the fabric of society and bludgeoning opponents into silence is the stated INTENT of the homosexual "marriage" activists. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society."

Evan Wolfson, the former president of the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, had this to say: “We can win the freedom to marry . . . We can seize the terms of the debate, tell our diverse stories, engage the non-gay persuadable public, enlist allies, work the courts, and the legislatures in several states, and achieve a legal breakthrough within five years. I’m talking about not just any legal breakthrough but an actual change in the law in one state, ending discrimination in civil marriage and permitting same-sex couples to lawfully wed. This won’t be a change in the law either; it will be a change in society. For if we do it right, the struggle to win the freedom to marry will bring much more along the way” [emphasis added].

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, in an article in OUT: “[You should] fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits,
and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage
entirely. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can
undertake is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

Homosexual Activist William Eskridge: “[We] will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of the families we choose.”

Mitchel Raphael, the editor of a Toronto "gay" magazine, said, "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever."

The reason they are taking this particular tack is that if the law is changed to recognize homosexual "marriage" as exactly equivalent to heterosexual marriage, that is the ultimate stamp of approval and provides strong legal ground for lawsuits and legislation forcing everyone to treat homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality. You can see this by the fact that this is what has actually happened in other countries and is beginning to happen here.

Lincoln didn't found our country or give us the bill of rights. People who thought we had God given rights did.

Straw man. Topic-hopping will not work with me. If you can't dispute that our government is very much one made up of the people, and that this has been the accepted view throughout our history, then just say so. Don't try to dodge it by switching to another, unrelated topic.

Ah but one could argue that the minority were entitled to those rights and that government never had the right to take those away in the first place.
Which is pretty much the argument in a nutshell.

Yeah, except you're mis-defining "right" to mean "something it is a good idea to do". You can argue whether or not it was a good idea to make a change, but that isn't the same argument as whether or not it had the legally-justifiable right to do so.

It was overturned by the Supreme Court, citing the first amendment, not by a popular vote.

There you go topic-hopping again. The topic is not "what happened the last time someone proposed a lesser law against flag-burning?" The topic is, "Why is flag-burning legal?" The Supreme Court would not have been able to declare a law against flag-burning Unconstitutional if the people had chosen to change the Constitution. So flag-burning does not remain legal because the Supreme Court said so. It remains legal because the people have chosen not to amend the Constitution.

Yes and they made it incredibly difficult to change for a reason.

More irrelevancy.

Once again I'd LOVE to know about your psychic ability where you know about my real intentions. It's more comforting for you to assume I'm a hypocrite, so then you can dismiss me as a liberal nut, right?

I have said nothing about your intentions that are not evident in your own posts and actions, unlike you and your obsessive need to tell me in every single post that I oppose homosexual "marriage" on religious grounds and because I think it's immoral and yucky, things I have myself never said or even indicated as my reasons. So if anyone is playing Miss Cleo here, it's you.

I think you're a hypocrite, that's true. Do I find it comforting? No, I find it alarming. And I clearly have not "dismissed you", as a liberal nut or anything else, because I'm still talking to you.

I believe just like our founding fathers did that people have god-given rights that no one has the right to take away.

Dear, you don't even understand what the Founding Fathers believed, much less agree with them.

Although hell if everyone is given free will so long as they don't harm others and they decide to turn the world upside down, was that not the will of the people?

If the people decide they want to give up all government in favor of anarchy, then yes. I don't see what the relevance to anything is, though.

And I still don't see what I'm doing hurts others. Legalizing drugs for instance will not instantly turn neighborhoods into slums, in fact it would legitimize the drug dealers and let them settle disputes in court instead of violence. Go read up on prohibition and the wonder it did for organized crime.

Instantly? What does "instantly" have to do with anything? Are you saying that as long as negative changes take a while to come about, they're okay and no blame should therefore accrue to those who instigated those changes?

Ask yourself why it is that you live where you do, instead of in a slum. If you're honest, you'll realize that it's because the very behaviors you claim you would like to legalize, among others, have led to circumstances that have made that area undesirable, and that you chose to live where you do because it does not have those same behaviors and circumstances.

As for the fact that criminals will pounce on any new opportunity to make money, that isn't the point. You don't lower crime rates by simply making certain actions legal so that you don't have to count them any more. That's like saying I'm going to count all the pieces of fruit in my refrigerator, and then lower the number by no longer classifying apples as fruit.

Go read up on the positive changes brought about by Prohibition.

You either love straw man or just can't seem to grasp my points.

Yeah, or maybe you just blankly dismiss all of MY points as "straw men" so that you won't ever have to think about them, let alone respond to them.

No one has the right to force opinions onto others whether they be majority or not.

See, there you go. Just dismiss the rebuttal point as a straw man and pigheadedly restate your position as objective fact, because you cannot refute what I said.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion I think people should go roughshod over everyone else, when I specifically said people should have rights if they don't harm another non-consenting party.

Actually, I came to that conclusion because that's exactly what you're advocating. You're saying that the only acceptable criteria for passing laws are the ones YOU have designated as "good enough", and that all other criteria that don't meet your specifications should be excluded, and that therefore, the will of one minority should take precedence over the will of the majority, since YOU, in your omniscience, have declared that the minority's reasons are superior to the majority's. Screw what most of the people have said that they want, because they're just a bunch of ignorant oiks who want it for the wrong reasons, so they should just sit down, shut the hell up, and live with laws they don't like for their own damned good.

Once they break that rule then we get to prosecute and ban. (Murder bestiality pedophilia etc. all fall under those categories). I'm not an anarchist despite your attempts to paint me as one.

No, actually, you're an elitist who occasionally sounds like an anarchist because you've never bothered to think through the tripe you spew.

Who the hell are you, again, to say, "THIS is the only valid rule to be applied, and therefore, everything that doesn't fall under that heading is all right, forever and ever, amen, only my standards work"? I feel certain that if God had died and left you in charge, there would have been a memo.

Hence the doesn't affected a nonconsenting party clause.

See above regarding "Who the hell made you supreme arbiter?"

You don't think marrying someone you love makes people happy.

I think I don't particularly care one way or another. None of my business, and not the law's concern. The point is that they don't have a right to BE happy, only to PURSUE happiness. If getting legal sanction to their relationship as a "marriage" is what will make them happy, then they have the right to PURSUE that, as in "to try to get the law changed to make that happened." It doesn't follow that the government is at all obligated to give people whatever they ask for simply because it will make them happy. I'd be happy if I had a million dollars - at least, I think I would - but that doesn't mean I have a legal right to demand that the government hand me a check.

And you're also not considering that I have the same right to pursue happiness that they do. Having legal marriage defined as "one man, one woman" makes me happy. I pursued that happiness by campaigning for the constitutional Amendment in Arizona, and voting in favor of it. Unlike the homosexual activists, I caught what I was pursuing, and I am happy. Where do you get off saying that MY pursuit of happiness should be taken away?

What liberties am I denying, your right to have the world be personally fine tuned for your desires? And once again I'm not arguing unlimited liberties.

Actually, yes, you would be denying my right to have the laws reflect my desires, since my desires - unlike yours - are seconded by most of the voters.

I know you desperately want to make this all about me, personally, as an individual, because you simply have no answer for the fact that the majority of people just don't want what you're selling, but it ain't gonna happen. I convinced people to agree with me; you didn't. I have the legal right to carry the day, and you want to deny me that right.

When all else fails insult your opponent with baseless accusations. I don't want to dismantle anything. I'm only arguing that everyone has rights the majority can't take away. They're called inalienable rights.

"Insult your opponent with baseless accusations." You mean like "You oppose this for religious reasons" and "You just think it's immoral and yucky"? Or my personal favorite, "Although I get it using the government to impose the attitude of homosexuals are bad is bad but imposing homosexuals are second class citizens is perfectly ok then."

You DO want to dismantle something. You want to dismantle the millennia-old definition of "marriage" and make it mean something it never has before. And I've already dealt with your misunderstanding of the word "inalienable", not to mention the fact that it's irrelevant to the topic. Legal sanction of relationships is not and never has been an "inalienable right".

Baseless accusations all around. I said IF you answered that, it was a complex argument, I made no assumptions about your answer.

::yawn:: No, you just rushed ahead and finished up the conversation with yourself, because apparently it would be too much trouble to actually let me answer, read it, think about what I said, and THEN respond to me, the ACTUAL person you're debating with, as opposed to the me you're imagining in your head and thinking up all sorts of words for that bear no relation to anything I'm saying.

I still don't understand why you're bothering to post here, instead of simply sitting in front of a mirror and talking to yourself. The results are the same. You even have my permission to call your reflection "Cecilie" if that'll make it more fun.

Jesus I think this is the 5th time you set up a straw man to make me look like an anarchist.

Jesus, I think this is about the nth time you've dismissed a point you cannot refute as a "straw man" in order to run and hide from the possibility of ever hearing an opposing opinion.

I never said that every time I don't get my way it's time to limit the masses. Never. And if you really think you can tell that those are my true desires without ever actually meeting me you're nuts.

If you can't deal with the reality of what you said, don't blame me. Maybe you should think before you make such chillingly monstrous remarks.

And I don't have to look you in the eye to understand exactly what you said. Unless you have it printed on your face, just looking at your posts is good enough.

You said, and I quote: ". . . at what point do you decide that the freedom of majority to control society needs to be limited?" A person only asks such a question when he thinks there IS a point at which it needs to be limited. I, of course, would never even think of such a question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our founders father thought we had God given rights. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that bill of rights wasn't intended to be near absolute and that the founding fathers would agree with the philosophy of 51% dictating every last right and acceptable behavior to 49%.Here's the constitution on changing the err constitution.

Of course you don't understand how I came to that conclusion. I've only explained it half-a-dozen times or so, and every time you've simply ignored it or airily dismissed it as a "straw man". For you to understand my explanation, you would first have to actually read it and think about it.

>>snip an utterly pointless and insultingly condescending quotation<<

You'll see nowhere in there are the words slight majority or 51%. It's a really difficult process and it was intended to be that way.

Now THAT is a straw man. While you're wasting time and space on quotations, howsabout you quote the place where I said a "slight majority of 51%" was all that was necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States? Hmmm? Think you can manage that? Or would that require you to admit that you don't want to argue the point I ACTUALLY made, and would much rather argue against this point that you invented to pretend that I made?

If the Bill of Rights were really intended for the majority to take away at every whim then it would be essentially worthless.

Okay, NOW cite me the point where I said it was "intended to be taken away at every whim."

In a democracy you don't need a piece of paper guaranteeing rights the majority agrees we should have anyway.

No, you need a piece of sheepskin, which is what the Constitution was written on, if I remember correctly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fine by me, I personally think being gay is a really dumb thing to take pride in, especially if they consider being gay to not be a choice.

Yeah, well, people take pride in being black, Hispanic, whatever, and we know THAT isn't a choice. It's like me being proud of having green eyes. It wasn't actually an accomplishment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

yeah because it's impossible to be abstinent and gay right?

Impossible? No. Highly unlikely? Yes.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Bravo cecilie

 

[Truthspeaker]

Dudesker.........you haven't answered SHIT! All you're doing is posting rhetoric and other nonsense because YOU are too dumb to listen to.

Mormonism and Muslims, I hold in equal contempt.

The depth of your ignorance is unfathomable.

 

[Truthspeaker]

If there weren't people like Biker sailor, this would be no fun, because his responses are like something out of movie. You just never know in what new and exciting way he finds to embarass himself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If there weren't people like Biker sailor, this would be no fun, because his responses are like something out of movie. You just never know in what new and exciting way he finds to embarass himself.

Well, then, I admire your patience and easy-going attitude. Personally, I have no use for people who are so pointlessly crude and low-class, and I always assume that behavior and language like Biker's is an attempt to compensate for . . . shall we say, shortcomings in other areas. Which means he wouldn't be worthy of my time and attention, anyway.

 

[Macintosh]

Bass, Glock, Cecile, Sunni, and everyone else who opposes same-sex marriage. Explain to me - without quoting the Bible - why you are opposed to same-sex civil marriage?

 

[glockmail]

Bass, Glock, Cecile, Sunni, and everyone else who opposes same-sex marriage. Explain to me - without quoting the Bible - why you are opposed to same-sex civil marriage?

Mainly because you will then have to allow adoptions to these couple as well as teach kids in public schools that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage when it is clearly not, since homosexuality is not normal, moral or healthy, and it is a lousy way to raise kids.

 

[Sunni Man]

Good response Glockmail

I feel the same way.

Homosexuality has the potential to destroy our society and morals, trash our culture, and ruin our children and families.

 

[Macintosh]

Mainly because you will then have to allow adoptions to these couple as well as teach kids in public schools that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage when it is clearly not, since homosexuality is not normal, moral or healthy,and it is a lousy way to raise kids.

I can respect this opinion, except the bold portion. I disagree with all of it, basically, but I can understand it.

 

[Macintosh]

Homosexuality has the potential to destroy our society and morals, trash our culture, and ruin our children and families.

I've thought of this, too, but I'm not convinced it would happen.

 

[glockmail]

I've thought of this, too, but I'm not convinced it would happen.

Why chance it?

 

[sky dancer]

Spoken like a true sailor I am done trying to convince an angry and uninformed person like you of things that I know through study and prayer. You are not on my plane. You haven't seen or read the old testament yourself because you don't know anything about history or context of scripture. I have studied the scriptures from cover to cover for my whole life. All you can do is get angry and spew rectal matter from your mouth.

Truth--

You sound arrogant and insulting in this post. How do you know what 'plane' this man is on? How ever much you dislike biker/sailors posts, he has every right to his opinions, his crudeness, and to his anger.

How do you expect to communicate with a challenging person when you put yourself so far above him?

Is he not your brother?

 

[Sunni Man]

Truth--

You sound arrogant and insulting in this post. How do you know what 'plane' this man is on?

It's all in the user name ABikerSailor.

I think in reality, he is on a "Boat"