Gays

[OCA]

Originally posted by bedo420
Gays getting married will not destroy anything, they have the right to be married just like everyone else. The american family was destroyed a long time ago, and having a happily married gay couple will not make it any worse.

Fool, whats next after marriage? Gay studies in the public education system required for all students? Teaching that it is a viable and clean lifestyle? No matter how you cut it two men and two women wrere never ever meant to be together in the manner that marriage denotes. It should be banned on principle alone.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Two reasons:

1)The family is the building block of our nation and civlization. If we continue to further weaken the institution of marriage our civilization will deteroriate and we will be destroyed. We are thinking about our children. We want to pass onto them a world that is better than ours. Allowing them to believe that same sex sexual relations is legitimate undermines them and society.

2)The methods they are attempting to force this issue on us is outside those in the Constitution. Rather then letting the people decide, they are trying to overturn the will of the people and force them to accept their life style. The refusal of the civil authorites and the courts to uphold the law is astounding and the law is not upheld, our nation will be destroyed. And they are hurting their own cause. in there efforts to destroy the law, they dont see that by destroying the law it no longer has the power to protect them. What happens if more people decide to take the law into their own hands? Who will protect them when some psycho anti gay person decides to murder them? Without law there is nothing to stop extreme wackos from any politicla spectrum from taking advantage of it and hurting the freedom of this nation.

Well, guess what? Same-gender couples getting nmarried ARE forming families, which are the backbone of any society. Gays and lesbians already have the right to adopt children, so why are they not extended the same rights and priviledges that different gender couples are? Why can't same-gender couples marry?

There is no rationally valid argument for them not to. All the arguments against same-gender marriages are rooted in theological arguments, arguments from tradition and just plain mean-spiritedness. While the first two can, at best, serve as guides in our choices, far too many choose to render them as inviolable absolutes. This is a poor basis for public policy. As for mean-spiritedness, judging from the posts I see here, there are more than enough folks who are willing to swallow that swill and regurgitate it at every opportunity.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
As for mean-spiritedness, judging from the posts I see here, there are more than enough folks who are willing to swallow that swill and regurgitate it at every opportunity.

Sorry, those filthy acts are reserved for the fudgepackers and their supporters.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Sorry, those filthy acts are reserved for the fudgepackers and their supporters.

How's about a rational...valid...argument?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
How's about a rational...valid...argument?

You've been given many but you are to pigheaded to see that. You seem to think you have somehow given us a reason why gays should be able to be married, but you've failed miserably.

America doesn't want gays or gay marriages. All they are going to get out of their retarded rants are more gay bashing and hopefully some gay beatings.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
How's about a rational...valid...argument?

about 10 pages back I asked for a valid reason why morality isn't a valid foundation upon which to make laws. You have not answered. Morality is the fundamental reason that all of our laws are created and implemented. I see no logical reason why, for the sake of someone's perverted sexual gratification, we should abandon morality-based laws.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
about 10 pages back I asked for a valid reason why morality isn't a valid foundation upon which to make laws. You have not answered. Morality is the fundamental reason that all of our laws are created and implemented. I see no logical reason why, for the sake of someone's perverted sexual gratification, we should abandon morality-based laws.

Morality is a valid foundation for laws. But only so long as that morality is rooted in the real consequences to real lives in this world...not in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife.

Within the context of our laws and morals, man must be the measure of all things. Thus our laws are more suited to a peaceful and prosperous human existence, they are also more humane.

The expression of sexuality between two consenting adults, which leads to no harm to themselves, or others (as would adultery, or everyone's favorite catchall here...pedophilia) is no business of the state, or anyone else.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Morality is a valid foundation for laws. But only so long as that morality is rooted in the real consequences to real lives in this world...not in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife.

Within the context of our laws and morals, man must be the measure of all things. Thus our laws are more suited to a peaceful and prosperous human existence, they are also more humane.

The expression of sexuality between two consenting adults, which leads to no harm to themselves, or others (as would adultery, or everyone's favorite catchall here...pedophilia) is no business of the state, or anyone else.

Absolutely - codifying morality into laws which are consistent with The Constitution is fine. But trying to codify religious mores which are at odds with The Constitution is not.

 

[Avatar4321]

Cant argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

[OCA]

To those who say we can't ban gay marriage based on theological morality alone I say hogwash. Ever looked at a coin or dollar bill? Tell me what is inscribed on it? Let me help you, "in god we trust". Almost every law on the books in this country can somehow be traced to religion and the ten commandments. Hell all the guys who wrote the constitution were deeply religious guys.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Absolutely - codifying morality into laws which are consistent with The Constitution is fine. But trying to codify religious mores which are at odds with The Constitution is not.

In other words, laws that suit you are fine and laws you disagree with are unconstitutional.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
In other words, laws that suit you are fine and laws you disagree with are unconstitutional.

Uh...I think you missed the point. Allow me to refresh your memory.

<blockquote><b><i>Morality is a valid foundation for laws. But only so long as that morality is rooted in the real consequences to real lives in this world...not in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife.</i></b>

Within the context of our laws and morals, man must be the measure of all things. Thus our laws are more suited to a peaceful and prosperous human existence, they are also more humane.</blockquote>

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
In other words, laws that suit you are fine and laws you disagree with are unconstitutional.

No, that seems to be the approach of those who wish to deny equal protection to those who have different sexual preferences.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
No, that seems to be the approach of those who wish to deny equal protection to those who have different sexual preferences.

I've said it a thousand times already, they have THE SAME rights as every other person. I am heterosexual and I as well would be turned down if I tried to marry another man. They wouldn't have a problem getting a marriage license to marry someone of the opposite sex.

You guys really need to stop repeating what you read on the activist sites. You said it yourself, it's a "preference". They prefer to engage in something that doesn't allow them to be married legally.

Americans don't want to be associated with those that engage in vile, despicable perversions.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Americans don't want to be associated with those that engage in vile, despicable perversions.

Vile and despicable perversions are pedophilia, rape, sado-masochism, murder, genocide...In short, any act which leads to the harm of oneself and/or others.

Two consenting adults, same or different-gender, who engage in sexual activity with no intent to harm themselves or others are doing nothing wrong. It is the consequences of behavior that make it right or wrong.

Wrong behavior...and I'll write slowly, with small words so you can understand...If you want to do something that hurts yourself or someone else, that is bad, it is wrong. If you want to do something that makes yourself or someone else happy that is good.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Vile and despicable perversions are pedophilia, rape, sado-masochism, murder, genocide...In short, any act which leads to the harm of oneself and/or others.

Two consenting adults, same or different-gender, who engage in sexual activity with no intent to harm themselves or others are doing nothing wrong. It is the consequences of behavior that make it right or wrong.

Wrong behavior...and I'll write slowly, with small words so you can understand...If you want to do something that hurts yourself or someone else, that is bad, it is wrong. If you want to do something that makes yourself or someone else happy that is good.

Acts do not need to lead directly to harm to be considered vile and despicable.

It would make me happy to smoke a few joints. Plants are natural nad harmless. It would make me and many other people happy. Does that make it a good thing?

Stick to cleaning piss, Bullshit!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Acts do not need to lead directly to harm to be considered vile and despicable.

It would make me happy to smoke a few joints. Plants are natural nad harmless. It would make me and many other people happy. Does that make it a good thing?

Stick to cleaning piss, Bullshit!

If the consequences of an act do not cause harm to oneself or others, and lead to the happiness and well being of oneself or others, how then is that act "...vile and despicable..." ? Your argument lacks merit.

As for pot, its illegal because some folks arbitrarily decided it was bad. I'm all for cancer patients having access to it.

And about cleaning piss...Helping to relieve the suffering of another is a corporal act of mercy according to Catholicism, A step on the bodhisattva path for the Buddhist.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
If the consequences of an act do not cause harm to oneself or others, and lead to the happiness and well being of oneself or others, how then is that act "...vile and despicable..." ? Your argument lacks merit.

As for pot, its illegal because some folks arbitrarily decided it was bad. I'm all for cancer patients having access to it.

And about cleaning piss...Helping to relieve the suffering of another is a corporal act of mercy according to Catholicism, A step on the bodhisattva path for the Buddhist.

Vile - loathsome or disgusting
Despicable - deserving of contempt or scorn; vile.

I may have been a bit redundant but the definition fits like a glove.

Why should marijuana only be limited to cancer patients? According to you, if it makes me happy and others (and it's harmless) then it is good.

 

[eric]

If the consequences of an act do not cause harm to oneself or others, and lead to the happiness and well being of oneself or others, how then is that act "...vile and despicable..." ? Your argument lacks merit

Once again, what about incest, with birth control of course ?

 

[eric]

And about cleaning piss...Helping to relieve the suffering of another is a corporal act of mercy according to Catholicism

Yes, but sniffing for pleasure is not allowed !