Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[LuvRPgrl]

I wont even bother refuting the rest of her inane diatribe. Instead, I'll just quote this nugget of goodness whenever she attempts to debate this topic again. Oh... Oh the glory.

Good ! Because any clear thinking individual realizes that discrimination can be either good or bad, depending on how you use it.
Also, YOU discriminate at times. If you deny it, you are simply wrong. You discriminate every time you buy fruit, you attempt to discriminate between the good and bad apples, peaches, etc. Same with judging people, you will trust some people more than others. In doing so, you are discriminating.

 

[Dr Grump]

Typical STUPID liberal response.
All I have to do is who ONE place where prostitution is illegal, and it proves my point. The fact that it is legal in some places is irrelevant. If it is illegal in some places, shows it isnt unconstitutional. That DESTROYS the "two consenting adults" arguement.

Who's even talking about the constitution. I'm talking about the rights and wrongs. And before calling my response STUPID, check out your following sentence. It makes no sense. (Oh, and I ain't a liberal..:O) And it doesn't destroy anything...

Go to dict.com, look up the word privledge, by definition, it means ONLY FOR SOME..

Which doesn't negate my point. Why should the privilege only be for some...

Because people who divorce, OFTEN wind up divorcing two or three times. So, you have three people, one divorces twice, the other two marry and stay married. Hence you have a 50% divorce rate, (4 marriages, two ending in divorce), yet 2 of 3 67% actually had succesful life long marriages.

Just back it up with REAL stats, not those pulled out of your butt. Even if it is 50%, that is still massive and has what to do with gays marrying??

But its still illegal, thus laws restricting marriage are constitutional, plus many of the same sex proponents OPPOSE polygamy, making them hypocrites. And, dear sir, it would impact your life considerably, you just arent aware how. But thats how great cultures and societies eventually collapse, from within, like Rome, in decadence and lack of moral virtues which is a direct result from prosperity.

Why is someone who agrees with gay marriage, but is against polygamy, a hypocrite. They are two different reasons for marrying. It would not impact on my life at all. I do not see polygamy as decadant or lacking in morals as long as everybody is consenting. You can use the "slippery slope" argument all you like, but as long as guys like Larry Flynt already exist, you can't get any more decadant than that, and society hasn't gone down the gurgler...

 

[Dr Grump]

NO, the jury isnt out on that one. Homosexuality is a behavior. What causes it is in doubt, but to me thats irrelevant. What causes pedophilia? Because homosexuality is not as obviously detremental to society at whole as is pedophilia, we have come to accept it as unharmful to others, thus tolerable. That doesnt change the fact that its deviant, and perverted. Its so damn obvious, but the obvious often eludes the liberals.

Yes, the jury is out, unless you have irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I have been on messageboards for five years now, and not one conservative or neocon has provided any conclusive evidence. YOU think homosexuality if deviant and perverted, as is your right, but that doesn't mean in FACT it is. It is just your opinion. If you find it deviant and perverted, don't practice it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Who's even talking about the constitution. I'm talking about the rights and wrongs. And before calling my response STUPID, check out your following sentence. It makes no sense. (Oh, and I ain't a liberal..:O) And it doesn't destroy anything......

You mean you are only discussing the morality of it? I dont think there is any morality involved when discussing if there should be same sex marriage. The morality involved is the action, if two of the same gender are engaging in sex together. But the actual part of marrying, legally or religously, is not a moral or immoral act.

Which doesn't negate my point. Why should the privilege only be for some......

Because if its for everyone, then there is no privledge. Privledge, by definition, excludes others, hence it is only for some.

Just back it up with REAL stats, not those pulled out of your butt. Even if it is 50%, that is still massive and has what to do with gays marrying??...

I think you are getting confused. Its the proponents of same sex marriage who bring up the divorce rates, and misleading ones at that, by claiming that half of those who marry will wind up divorcing.

Why is someone who agrees with gay marriage, but is against polygamy, a hypocrite....

Based on the arguement of consenting adults, it is hypocritical. If you argue same sex marriage should be allowed BECAUSE it is between "consenting adults", then to be consistent, you would have to accept polygamy also, as it is between consenting adults too. In fact, you would have to accept marriage to animals, and yes, they can consent. They can consent to sex.

They are two different reasons for marrying. It would not impact on my life at all. I do not see polygamy as decadant or lacking in morals as long as everybody is consenting. You can use the "slippery slope" argument all you like, but as long as guys like Larry Flynt already exist, you can't get any more decadant than that, and society hasn't gone down the gurgler...

Well, there are a lot of indicators and stats that show maybe our society is going down the gurgler. Implosion of a culture doesnt happen overnight. They can point to many years ahead of the collapse of Rome, of behaviors within the Roman society that led to its eventual fall.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, the jury is out, unless you have irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I have been on messageboards for five years now, and not one conservative or neocon has provided any conclusive evidence. YOU think homosexuality if deviant and perverted, as is your right, but that doesn't mean in FACT it is. It is just your opinion. If you find it deviant and perverted, don't practice it.

Man, are you really that dense?

It is a fact that the two are not analogous. Being of a race is not a behavior. Interacial marriage is based on something the persons simply cannot change.

Same sex marriage is based on something that can, and sometimes is, changed.

SIMPLE.

 

[jillian]

Man, are you really that dense?

It is a fact that the two are not analogous. Being of a race is not a behavior. Interacial marriage is based on something the persons simply cannot change.

Same sex marriage is based on something that can, and sometimes is, changed.

SIMPLE.

No, not simple at all. The fact of the matter is the two ARE analogous and there is no credible evidence saying it is anyone's *choice* (although the evidence is mixed as to whether it's nurture or nature or some combination of the two).

Perhaps it's you who are dense, luv.

 

[sitarro]

You know what , maybe they are born with an affection for the same sex but it is certainly a choice to stick another guy's dick up your ass, and I would guess a painful and unhealthy one at that. It is a choice to choose to live your life that way, to define yourself by how you choose to have sex. Pedophiles are born sick too and they choose whether to act on their sickness our not.

To reward a broken behavior with special definitions and rights is foolish for society as a whole. There are countries that do that, they can move there. They tend to do very tacky crap anyway, Thailand seems perfect for them.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, not simple at all. The fact of the matter is the two ARE analogous and there is no credible evidence saying it is anyone's *choice* (although the evidence is mixed as to whether it's nurture or nature or some combination of the two).

Perhaps it's you who are dense, luv.

I NEVER stated its a choice. Why do libs always have to put words in others mouths? Maybe because they cant refute what the person actually stated.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You know what , maybe they are born with an affection for the same sex but it is certainly a choice to stick another guy's dick up your ass, and I would guess a painful and unhealthy one at that. It is a choice to choose to live your life that way, to define yourself by how you choose to have sex. Pedophiles are born sick too and they choose whether to act on their sickness our not.

To reward a broken behavior with special definitions and rights is foolish for society as a whole. There are countries that do that, they can move there. They tend to do very tacky crap anyway, Thailand seems perfect for them.

A great analogy is a pedophile. They may or may not be born that way also, but one cant deny their desires are sick, immoral and simply wrong. The same holds true with homosexuals, even though its between consenting adults, hence "supposedly" not hurting anyone, there is still something "wrong" with people who have such desires.

The proof is simple. The sexual organs are there to procreate, hence they should function with a female since a male and male cant procreate.

Or look at it this way, any guy who wouldnt get aroused by say, Angelina Jolie or Halle Berry stripping, SOMETHING IS DEFINATELY WRONG WITH THAT GUY.

 

[Dr Grump]

Man, are you really that dense?

It is a fact that the two are not analogous. Being of a race is not a behavior. Interacial marriage is based on something the persons simply cannot change.

Same sex marriage is based on something that can, and sometimes is, changed.

SIMPLE.

Are YOU that dense. PROVE that homosexuality is a behaviour Know All...

 

[Dr Grump]

A great analogy is a pedophile. They may or may not be born that way also, but one cant deny their desires are sick, immoral and simply wrong. The same holds true with homosexuals, even though its between consenting adults, hence "supposedly" not hurting anyone, there is still something "wrong" with people who have such desires.

The proof is simple. The sexual organs are there to procreate, hence they should function with a female since a male and male cant procreate.

Or look at it this way, any guy who wouldnt get aroused by say, Angelina Jolie or Halle Berry stripping, SOMETHING IS DEFINATELY WRONG WITH THAT GUY.

I love how you neocons are always trying to tie homosexuality and paedophilia together. Always. Consenting adult is a very important ingredient and you fob it off like it is nothing. Who cares why the sexual organs are there? Who are you to put your morals and values on others. You have to prove in any way shape or form that homosexuality imposes on anyone else's life. It has been around for eons. When has it lead to the downfall of any society, anywhere?

 

[sitarro]

I love how you neocons are always trying to tie homosexuality and paedophilia together. Always. Consenting adult is a very important ingredient and you fob it off like it is nothing. Who cares why the sexual organs are there? Who are you to put your morals and values on others. You have to prove in any way shape or form that homosexuality imposes on anyone else's life. It has been around for eons. When has it lead to the downfall of any society, anywhere?

Not many give a crap what they do as long as they don't spread diseases and hurt others but then again most don't want to here about it, have there children subjected to it, pay for it, or have the language screwed up just for them. They are the ones pushing their behavior on normal people....yea that's right normal people. When pedophiles push their disgusting behavior on the rest of us they are lucky to have a cop around to arrest them to protect them from the rest of us that would do serious harm to them. Most people aren't going to harm homos when they decide to push their behavior on the rest of us but it is usually just a matter of time before they run into the person that will. It is really in their best interest to not share their disgusting behavior with the rest of us, that is just common sense.

I am a white guy, you can be sure I'm not going to walk through Watts or Harlem at 2 in the morning even though I have the right to and should expect to not be harmed, reality is very different...... common sense.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I love how you neocons are always trying to tie homosexuality and paedophilia together. Always. Consenting adult is a very important ingredient and you fob it off like it is nothing. Who cares why the sexual organs are there? Who are you to put your morals and values on others. You have to prove in any way shape or form that homosexuality imposes on anyone else's life. It has been around for eons. When has it lead to the downfall of any society, anywhere?

Its simply because pedophilia is a non refutable immoral act. And WHO ARE YOU TO PUCH YOUR MORALS AND VALUES ON ANYONE?

Me dense? hahahhahah, you dont think a homosexual is defined by the actions they take?

"Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'seksh-(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective

of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL "

Why is consenting adult important? Thats YOUR VALUE/MORALITY. Some dont accept that. Mohamed married a nine year old girl. ANd he is the head of billions of people.

WHO cares why the sexual organs are there? Simple, because the reason "WHY" they are there shows if they are being used for the correct reason, or if they are being used in a way that shows something went wrong.

WHY is it liberals never, NEVER address the fact that a majority of homosexuals had their fist sexual encounter with an adult, while they were still minors? Is that consenting adults? Is that imposing something on someone else? IS it immoral for an adult to seduce a teenage boy?

 

[Dr Grump]

Its simply because pedophilia is a non refutable immoral act.

Who is saying paedophilia ISN'T an immoral act? Not I. I am talking about neocons trying to mix in homosexuality with paedophilia when they are two different things.

WHO ARE YOU TO PUCH YOUR MORALS AND VALUES ON ANYONE?

I'm not, you are. Like most neocons you don't practice what you preach. I bet you're for small govt and for as little interference in your life as possible, yet, like most on the right you want to control everybody else's life whether it affects you or not. If, however, you do believe in big govt and controlling what everybody else says and does, I stand corrected. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to give me examples of where homosexuality has caused the downfall of a civilised society.

IMe dense? hahahhahah, you dont think a homosexual is defined by the actions they take?

"Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'seksh-(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective

of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL "

Which proves what? That it is a behaviour and not genetic? I don't think so. Thing is, I don't care. Their behaviour doesn't bother me. Doesn't affect me either.

Why is consenting adult important?

Because civilised society has deemed that people of and over a certain age can take certain serious responsibilities - drive, drink, bonk, vote, join the military.

Why is consenting adult important? Thats YOUR VALUE/MORALITY. Some dont accept that. Mohamed married a nine year old girl. ANd he is the head of billions of people.

What has a consenting adult got to do with Mohammad marrying a nine year old girl???

WHO cares why the sexual organs are there? Simple, because the reason "WHY" they are there shows if they are being used for the correct reason, or if they are being used in a way that shows something went wrong.

Your appendix and tonsils are there too, but we can live without them.

WHY is it liberals never, NEVER address the fact that a majority of homosexuals had their fist sexual encounter with an adult, while they were still minors? Is that consenting adults? Is that imposing something on someone else? IS it immoral for an adult to seduce a teenage boy?

Back up your statement. If not, just more hot air IMO...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Who is saying paedophilia ISN'T an immoral act? Not I. I am talking about neocons trying to mix in homosexuality with paedophilia when they are two different things. ...

Nobody said you were said pedophilia isnt immoral you moron. READ what I wrote. I said we use it because nobody, not even you idiot libs can claim there is nothing wrong with it.

I'm not, you are....

Yes you are, when you claim pedophilia is wrong. NAMBLA wants "sex before 8, or its too late". They feel you are pushing your morals on them.

Like most neocons you don't practice what you preach. I bet you're for small govt and for as little interference in your life as possible, ...

Yea, you fucking moron, that doesnt mean NO GOVT INFLUENCE. Just because someone says they want less govt doesnt mean we want anarchy. This is one of the stupidest liberal arguements that I hear all the time. waaaaaaaaaa, mommy, they want to control us.....

yet, like most on the right you want to control everybody else's life whether it affects you or not....

wrong,

If, however, you do believe in big govt and controlling what everybody else says and does, I stand corrected. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to give me examples of where homosexuality has caused the downfall of a civilised society....

why?

Which proves what? That it is a behaviour and not genetic? I don't think so. Thing is, I don't care. Their behaviour doesn't bother me. Doesn't affect me either....

you like going in circles dont you. You enjoy getting off point dont you?

Because civilised society has deemed that people of and over a certain age can take certain serious responsibilities - drive, drink, bonk, vote, join the military....

And OUR CIVILIZED society has deemed that marriage should be preserved for heterosexuals.

What has a consenting adult got to do with Mohammad marrying a nine year old girl???...

You really are an idiot arent you? The point is, you claim as long as its with consenting adults. My question is why limit it to that? WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE THAT ARBITRARY point of delienation? Many millions of people think its ok for an adult to marry a minor, and that isnt between consenting adults. So many millions disagree with your "consenting adults" limit. So, once again you are pushing your morals on others.
I just love it when liberals like to claim they dont push their morals on others, then when you ask them if murder is wrong, of course they say its wrong, but thats not pushing their morals on others. YEA RIGHTTTTTTTT!!

Your appendix and tonsils are there too, but we can live without them. ...

irelevant, meaningless.




Back up your statement. If not, just more hot air IMO...[/QUOTE]

Go read some material by Tammy Bruce. She is a lesbian and is much more informed on the topic than you.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm not, you are. Like most neocons you don't practice what you preach. I bet you're for small govt and for as little interference in your life as possible, yet, like most on the right you want to control everybody else's life whether it affects you or not. If, however, you do believe in big govt and controlling what everybody else says and does, I stand corrected.

The problem with your argument is that the conservative position is completely consistant with the desire for small government.

If you give government the power to recognize gay marriage you have given them power. You have given them the power to interfer in homosexual relationships and regulate them.

Right now if a gay couple wanted to get together and say vows to each other and be in a monogomous relationship then the government would have no power to stop them. The government wouldn't recognize them so they could do whatever they wanted. If you wanted to leave your property to your partner you could. If you wanted to give them power of attorney, you could. if you wanted to split up, you could and you wouldnt have to run anything by the government.

Recognizing gay marriage changes all that. The goverment governs when you enter into a "marriage" as well as when and how you may leave. If you split up the government has complete control on who gets which of the assets you have shared during your life if you disagree who owns what.

I fail to see how you can advocate for a process that will exponentially increase the courts involvement in relationships and claim that those who oppose that involvement is for big government. Your argument makes no sense.

Also, for the natural/choice debate. It's completely irrelevent. Because say it is natural, that doesnt make it right. Lying is natural. Violence is natural. Intolerence and hatred is natural. Simply being natural doesnt mean anyone should stop teaching and advocating good common sense values.

Personally, I tend to think one of the greatest insults is to tell someone they have no choice in what they do. We have alot of control over what we do. Especially when it comes to sexual activity. Simply because I am attracted to a woman doesnt mean I have to have sex with her. If it did, I would probably be the father of about 800+ kids by now or in jail for rape, cause i highly doubt every woman im attracted to would have been willing.

Which is exactly why people have mentioning pedophilia. The fact that its consented to is irrelevant. The justification "I was born with it" is exactly the same. And I don't know how you can possibly say one person who cant control themselves because we are born with certain urges is justified while another faces a criminal charges for engaging in other urges they were born with because their actions werent consented to. If you can't help it, then the consent is irrelevant because you have no power to stop it if its not consented to. To be a crime you have to have the power to choose whether you do it or not.

 

[sitarro]

The problem with your argument is that the conservative position is completely consistant with the desire for small government.

If you give government the power to recognize gay marriage you have given them power. You have given them the power to interfer in homosexual relationships and regulate them.

Right now if a gay couple wanted to get together and say vows to each other and be in a monogomous relationship then the government would have no power to stop them. The government wouldn't recognize them so they could do whatever they wanted. If you wanted to leave your property to your partner you could. If you wanted to give them power of attorney, you could. if you wanted to split up, you could and you wouldnt have to run anything by the government.

Recognizing gay marriage changes all that. The goverment governs when you enter into a "marriage" as well as when and how you may leave. If you split up the government has complete control on who gets which of the assets you have shared during your life if you disagree who owns what.

I fail to see how you can advocate for a process that will exponentially increase the courts involvement in relationships and claim that those who oppose that involvement is for big government. Your argument makes no sense.

Also, for the natural/choice debate. It's completely irrelevent. Because say it is natural, that doesnt make it right. Lying is natural. Violence is natural. Intolerence and hatred is natural. Simply being natural doesnt mean anyone should stop teaching and advocating good common sense values.

Personally, I tend to think one of the greatest insults is to tell someone they have no choice in what they do. We have alot of control over what we do. Especially when it comes to sexual activity. Simply because I am attracted to a woman doesnt mean I have to have sex with her. If it did, I would probably be the father of about 800+ kids by now or in jail for rape, cause i highly doubt every woman im attracted to would have been willing.

Which is exactly why people have mentioning pedophilia. The fact that its consented to is irrelevant. The justification "I was born with it" is exactly the same. And I don't know how you can possibly say one person who cant control themselves because we are born with certain urges is justified while another faces a criminal charges for engaging in other urges they were born with because their actions werent consented to. If you can't help it, then the consent is irrelevant because you have no power to stop it if its not consented to. To be a crime you have to have the power to choose whether you do it or not.

Perfectly stated Avatar, there really is nothing left to say about it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Perfectly stated Avatar, there really is nothing left to say about it.

That wont stop people from saying it.

 

[Dr Grump]

The problem with your argument is that the conservative position is completely consistant with the desire for small government.

If you give government the power to recognize gay marriage you have given them power. You have given them the power to interfer in homosexual relationships and regulate them.

Using your argument, the govt "interferes" in hetrosexual relationships through the institution of marriage. That is OK, but not for homos? It is a pretty thin argument, because the govt has had very little input into my marriage other than me paying the tax in the form of a marriage certificate. Hardly interference....

Right now if a gay couple wanted to get together and say vows to each other and be in a monogomous relationship then the government would have no power to stop them. The government wouldn't recognize them so they could do whatever they wanted. If you wanted to leave your property to your partner you could. If you wanted to give them power of attorney, you could. if you wanted to split up, you could and you wouldnt have to run anything by the government.

Recognizing gay marriage changes all that. The goverment governs when you enter into a "marriage" as well as when and how you may leave. If you split up the government has complete control on who gets which of the assets you have shared during your life if you disagree who owns what.

That's a very thin agrument, too. Once again, you are stating that it is OK for the govt to interfere with hetros but not homos. What gives you, or the govt for that matter, the right to pick and choose?

I fail to see how you can advocate for a process that will exponentially increase the courts involvement in relationships and claim that those who oppose that involvement is for big government. Your argument makes no sense.

The govt's role is very minor, and it is only if people go to Splitsville. Just to clarify though, this "conservatives want small govt, but really want big govt" isn't just limited to homos, it is other things as well such as the military (I bet you all want huge govt involvement there right, as in where your tax dollars go), abortion issues..the list goes on. You only want small govt as long as all the current laws fit into your world view. It ain't that simple.

Also, for the natural/choice debate. It's completely irrelevent. Because say it is natural, that doesnt make it right. Lying is natural. Violence is natural. Intolerence and hatred is natural. Simply being natural doesnt mean anyone should stop teaching and advocating good common sense values.

You are absolutely right, but every example you have given would impact on others in a negative fashion. Two homos get married and move next door to me. How does my life change? Hint it doesn't. Someone hates me because I'm white. Someone hits me over the head with a baseball bat. How does my life change? Hint, it does. See the difference? And whose common sense values are they? Yours? You can have your values, just don't try and foist them upon me in the form of legislation. The key to me will ALWAYS be the impact of one's actions on others. Until people can prove beyond a reasonable doubt how civilisation is going to hell in a handbasket due to homos, I'll stick with my opinions and take the moral high ground.

Personally, I tend to think one of the greatest insults is to tell someone they have no choice in what they do. We have alot of control over what we do. Especially when it comes to sexual activity. Simply because I am attracted to a woman doesnt mean I have to have sex with her. If it did, I would probably be the father of about 800+ kids by now or in jail for rape, cause i highly doubt every woman im attracted to would have been willing.

Of course there are choices in the world. Who are arguing against that? What we are arguing about is that my choices should be your choices. I'm saying unless they have a negative on anybody else (which rape undoubtably would), then who gives a shit? Not I. You find the idea of two guys banging each other distasteful. So do I. Thing is, it's none of my business.

Which is exactly why people have mentioning pedophilia. The fact that its consented to is irrelevant. The justification "I was born with it" is exactly the same. And I don't know how you can possibly say one person who cant control themselves because we are born with certain urges is justified while another faces a criminal charges for engaging in other urges they were born with because their actions werent consented to. If you can't help it, then the consent is irrelevant because you have no power to stop it if its not consented to. To be a crime you have to have the power to choose whether you do it or not.

It's easy to say because a child doesn't have the life experience or the wherewithal to know about such behaviours and any civilised society sees this. Of course consent is relevant. It is totally relevant. I have always used the term consenting adult. Note the adult part. That is important..

 

[Dr Grump]

you moron....Yea, you fucking moron....You really are an idiot arent you.....irelevant, meaningless.

You ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer are ya LuvRPgrl....