Homophobe or just reasonable?

[no1tovote4]

special rights

they want to change the laws for their exclusive benefit.

affirmative action

same sex marriage, hey, I want to marry two women (not really! Im not that INSANE !!), so why isnt that legal? Why cant I marry my sister? My dog?

The dog would be a direct victim as it could never conceivably show consent to such activity.

I can see no reason why people who are open about such things couldn't have more than one spouse, if all are consenting adults and willingly accept the relationship. Since there are no direct victims I can see no reason why there should be secular laws against such things.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The dog would be a direct victim as it could never conceivably show consent to such activity.

I can see no reason why people who are open about such things couldn't have more than one spouse, if all are consenting adults and willingly accept the relationship. Since there are no direct victims I can see no reason why there should be secular laws against such things.

Dogs can show consent. Communication is not limited to speech.

The laws against polygamy, are , once again, to help create a society with stable families for the benefit of children.

By the way, some peta activists are trying to get animal marriage legal.

 

[dmp]

The dog would be a direct victim as it could never conceivably show consent to such activity.

You've never seen a dog hump somebody's leg?

 

[no1tovote4]

Dogs can show consent. Communication is not limited to speech.

A dog, much like a very young child, would show love regardless of sexual abuse. This is not the same thing as consent.

The laws against polygamy, are , once again, to help create a society with stable families for the benefit of children.

By the way, some peta activists are trying to get animal marriage legal.

The laws against polygamy were introduced in order to get rid of the Latter Day Saints not to promote stable families for the benefit of children. Previous to that time, the few that practiced polygamy in the US were from other countries and their marriages were recognized by the US government. The introduction of a new religion considered a cult that allowed this form of marriage created a movement to end such recognition.

 

[OCA]

This is one of Rush Limbaugh's favorite non-sequitors. It is meaningless and I defy you to explain what it means. By repeating it endlessly it has gained creedence among impressionable radio junkies. Special rights my ass.

Let me explain this to the slower of our members.....it means that you and I, queer or straight, are born with the same inalienable rights and under the law and under acceptable behavior you nor I, queer nor straight are allowed to marry someone of the same sex. It has been deemed unlawful and immoral much the same as murder or rape, equally as reprehensible. So in actuality queers(queer by choice no matter how you argue it) are arguing for special rights, they are arguing for the right to break laws without repercussion. The law in most states says you can't marry the same sex, if allowed to do that it would be special rights.

Queer marriage is just the vehicle to legitimize their perversion of choice, its all about legitimization.

 

[OCA]

Why should the govt. be concerned with a 6000 year old institute? Last I checked our govt. hasn't been around that long. The fact that religion teaches people to hate gays doesn't make it right.

You have your facts wrong. Religion doesn't teach to hate gays, hate the sin love the sinner, got it? Now go along to study hall.

The bible cannot be interpreted in any other way on this subject other than if you practice homosexuality and haven't repented and stopped before you die you're going to hell, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

 

[Merlin1047]

Why should the govt. be concerned with a 6000 year old institute? Last I checked our govt. hasn't been around that long. The fact that religion teaches people to hate gays doesn't make it right.

Where is your basis for the "fact" you cite that "religion teaches people to hate gays". I believe that it is probably more factual to state that you just pulled that statement out of your butt.

Christianity teaches that homosexuality is WRONG. It does not encourage hatred of homosexuals. But homosexual groups, and apparently you as well, conclude that anyone who believes that homosexuality is a perversion and aberrant behavior must therefore hate homosexuals. Perhaps that's because you cannot support your arguments in favor of homosexuality through reliance on any reason or logic and so you must resort to villifying anyone holding an opposing view.

And just because a practice has been around for a long time doesn't make it right. I believe that if you'll continue your research, you'll find that pedophelia has been around longer than homosexuality. Perhaps the next child molesting pervert who goes to trial should try that for his defense.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A dog, much like a very young child, would show love regardless of sexual abuse. This is not the same thing as consent.


The laws against polygamy were introduced in order to get rid of the Latter Day Saints not to promote stable families for the benefit of children. Previous to that time, the few that practiced polygamy in the US were from other countries and their marriages were recognized by the US government. The introduction of a new religion considered a cult that allowed this form of marriage created a movement to end such recognition.

Normal sexual intercourse with a dog isnt abuse.

A male dog will have sex with a female human, how could that be abuse when the male dog is the perp?

In our modern society, laws against polygamy are to make stable families, regardless of the original intentions. Im not sure how you can prove original intentions anyways. I wasnt there, were you?

 

[green lantern]

"Homophobe" is just another left-wing label used to dishonestly question the masculinity/security of anyone who thinks homo's ain't normal people. Nothing more than the usual, attempted guilt trip.

My masculinity is just fine, and I don't fear any latent homosexual desires that may "crop up out of nowhere," AND homo's STILL ain't normal people.

i agree, it is a leftwing label, and it is trotted out every time someone dares question the "gay" lifestyle, or dare suggests that being "gay" is a choice.

 

[no1tovote4]

Normal sexual intercourse with a dog isnt abuse.

A male dog will have sex with a female human, how could that be abuse when the male dog is the perp?

In our modern society, laws against polygamy are to make stable families, regardless of the original intentions. Im not sure how you can prove original intentions anyways. I wasnt there, were you?

A human having sex with a dog is sexual abuse of that animal. Regardless of the fact that the dog may not understand and will forgive doesn't mean that he can consent. No matter how you slice it there is no way for a dog to consent to this activity, they simply do not have the capacity. Much like a child.

You can tell the intent of the laws by the arguments that they made on the floor of the House and Senate when making the laws. The laws were made in an attempt to end the Latter Day Saints. This is one of the reasons that they moved from Illinois to Utah, those that remained in Illinois consented to keep their marriages 1 to 1, those that left did not. The laws were passed on a Federal Level because they were still in a US Territory, this caused the LDS church in Utah to "officially" accept the law of the land.

And as for the male dog having sex with a female human not being abuse, that would be the same as a young male human having sex with a female human. Taking advantage of an animal is still not consent and is abuse of the animal, just as it would be with a child. The animal cannot consent to such activity, it must be coerced.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A human having sex with a dog is sexual abuse of that animal. Regardless of the fact that the dog may not understand and will forgive doesn't mean that he can consent. No matter how you slice it there is no way for a dog to consent to this activity, they simply do not have the capacity. Much like a child.

You can tell the intent of the laws by the arguments that they made on the floor of the House and Senate when making the laws. The laws were made in an attempt to end the Latter Day Saints. This is one of the reasons that they moved from Illinois to Utah, those that remained in Illinois consented to keep their marriages 1 to 1, those that left did not. The laws were passed on a Federal Level because they were still in a US Territory, this caused the LDS church in Utah to "officially" accept the law of the land.

And as for the male dog having sex with a female human not being abuse, that would be the same as a young male human having sex with a female human. Taking advantage of an animal is still not consent and is abuse of the animal, just as it would be with a child. The animal cannot consent to such activity, it must be coerced.

Using that logic, we shouldnt be able to own dogs either then. Comparing an adult male dog to a child doesnt work. The male dog is fully mature sexually, and capable of making choices. If another male tries to mount it, it will bite at him and not allow it. The child is not mature physically sexually and the abuse is not only physical, but also emotional, of which it isnt possible to emotionally hurt the dog.

Consent is given just as the dog consents for you to own them.

The LDS arguement would have worked then, but not now. We are no longer attempting to get rid of the LDS via laws, yet polygamy remains illegal, and will, and the purpose is not to rid us of the LDS, but to make stronger families. We have to work with todays reasons for the laws, not the original reason.

 

[no1tovote4]

Using that logic, we shouldnt be able to own dogs either then. Comparing an adult male dog to a child doesnt work. The male dog is fully mature sexually, and capable of making choices. If another male tries to mount it, it will bite at him and not allow it. The child is not mature physically sexually and the abuse is not only physical, but also emotional, of which it isnt possible to emotionally hurt the dog.

Owning an animal doesn't make it consent to have sex with them. It isn't possible to emotionally hurt an animal? Really? Well, okay but if it is impossible to emotionally hurt an animal it would also be impossible for them to have the emotional and intellectual responsibility necessary to make decisions of that nature. We would not allow people to beat a dog to death daily just because they owned them, nor should we allow them to make a victim of them otherwise. It is necessary to understand a difference between choices two or more adults make than one made for an owned animal regardless of its ability to make those choices for itself.

Consent is given just as the dog consents for you to own them.

The dog does not have the intellectual capacity to consent to ownership, it is simply a reality for it. It no more chooses its owners than a grasshopper chooses where it is born.

The LDS arguement would have worked then, but not now. We are no longer attempting to get rid of the LDS via laws, yet polygamy remains illegal, and will, and the purpose is not to rid us of the LDS, but to make stronger families. We have to work with todays reasons for the laws, not the original reason.

Polygamy remains illegal for religious reasons and not for any other logical reason. The laws were created, and held, to force a religous cult to maintain the norm. That they are pushed to say, "For the kids!" doesn't change the fact of the reasoning behind why they were put into law. You stated that the reason that those laws were made was to create better families, I gave the history behind the fact that reasoning never was called into play when the laws were made. That it is used now to keep them on the books doesn't change the reason behind the laws enactment.

 

[Avatar4321]

A human having sex with a dog is sexual abuse of that animal. Regardless of the fact that the dog may not understand and will forgive doesn't mean that he can consent. No matter how you slice it there is no way for a dog to consent to this activity, they simply do not have the capacity. Much like a child.

You can tell the intent of the laws by the arguments that they made on the floor of the House and Senate when making the laws. The laws were made in an attempt to end the Latter Day Saints. This is one of the reasons that they moved from Illinois to Utah, those that remained in Illinois consented to keep their marriages 1 to 1, those that left did not. The laws were passed on a Federal Level because they were still in a US Territory, this caused the LDS church in Utah to "officially" accept the law of the land.

And as for the male dog having sex with a female human not being abuse, that would be the same as a young male human having sex with a female human. Taking advantage of an animal is still not consent and is abuse of the animal, just as it would be with a child. The animal cannot consent to such activity, it must be coerced.

Actually the expulsion from Illinios had nothing to do with Polygamy. The practice wasn't even openly practiced until 1854, 7 years after the move to the Rockies. The government didnt begin creating and enforcing Polygamy laws until after the Civil war. In fact, it was one of the platforms the Republican party was created on. Anti Slavery, anti polygamy. The anti slavery was the main platform they were working on until after the war. Which naturally the Saints fought in the courts arguing first amendment rights.

Interestingly enough, if the Supreme Court ever tried to read gay marriage into the Constitution they would have to overturn the ruling that sustained the prohibition of polygamy.

 

[Powerman]

Yep. I think it's time to call in the heavy guns with that comment.


Heavy Gun -------->

Well it does say in the bible to kill gay people. If you really want me to give you a link to a book that you proclaim to know about then I will but it shouldn't be needed since you already know everything about the bible.

 

[Powerman]

Dogs can show consent. Communication is not limited to speech.

The laws against polygamy, are , once again, to help create a society with stable families for the benefit of children.

By the way, some peta activists are trying to get animal marriage legal.

A dog can not show consent to get married. Are you fucking retarded or just trying to be funny?

 

[Powerman]

You have your facts wrong. Religion doesn't teach to hate gays, hate the sin love the sinner, got it? Now go along to study hall.

The bible cannot be interpreted in any other way on this subject other than if you practice homosexuality and haven't repented and stopped before you die you're going to hell, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

That's really cute but this isn't a theocracy. I could care less what the bible says about repenting for homosexual activity. Why don't we go ahead and make pre marital sex a crime worthy of the death penalty while we're trying to be the fucking morality police around here. Give me a break. Keep your stupid superstitions out of the govt.

 

[Hobbit]

That's really cute but this isn't a theocracy. I could care less what the bible says about repenting for homosexual activity. Why don't we go ahead and make pre marital sex a crime worthy of the death penalty while we're trying to be the fucking morality police around here. Give me a break. Keep your stupid superstitions out of the govt.

There's a difference between allowance and legitimacy. Overturning sodomy laws was allowance. That, I believe was fair, and I don't really have much of a problem with it. However, changing the definition of a 6000 year old religious institute to allow gays to marry is a slap in the face to that institute. You might as well spit on the Pope. It also endorses homosexuality and gives it legitimacy. Most people in this country don't want to do that. Last time I heard the statistics, it was something like 90% of the people in this country DON'T want gay marriage.

 

[dmp]

Ya know....who would CHOOSE to be a rapist...dealing with the public scorn - Those people MUST be born that way. Really. So - since there isn't a gene which specifically tells people NOT to be a rapist, I must conclude we should be accepting of their lifestyle - why force them to live in denial? Let's legalize rape.

:-/

 

[Powerman]

Ya know....who would CHOOSE to be a rapist...dealing with the public scorn - Those people MUST be born that way. Really. So - since there isn't a gene which specifically tells people NOT to be a rapist, I must conclude we should be accepting of their lifestyle - why force them to live in denial? Let's legalize rape.

:-/

That's just stupid...homosexuality in and of itself involves consensual sex in the same way that heterosexuality does. Rape is a violent crime. You trying to comflate the 2 of them just makes you look silly.

 

[Powerman]

There's a difference between allowance and legitimacy. Overturning sodomy laws was allowance. That, I believe was fair, and I don't really have much of a problem with it. However, changing the definition of a 6000 year old religious institute to allow gays to marry is a slap in the face to that institute. You might as well spit on the Pope. It also endorses homosexuality and gives it legitimacy. Most people in this country don't want to do that. Last time I heard the statistics, it was something like 90% of the people in this country DON'T want gay marriage.

Maybe the Pope needs a good spitting on. Anyone that is covering up cases of child molestation is an evil man in my book. And I don't get this whole 6000 year old institution nonsense and how it applies to the law. Marriage is sacred only if you want it to be. 2 atheists can easily marry eachother in this country. Why 2 gay people can't is beyond me. No one said that we had to allow them to get married in a church.