The Homosexual Agenda, The aclu, And Your Children...

[007]

Not really... he kicks butt on a regular basis. But I can see where that would annoy you.

Well... you're the only one that sees that. But I can see where that would annoy you.

 

[jillian]

Well... you're the only one that sees that. But I can see where that would annoy you.

Try to write your own material.

 

[mattskramer]

Whatever... no matter how you slice it, you're a fraud and an equivocator.

You don't debate... you troll around the board being a fucking pain to most all here that talk intelligently. Your total repituare is 99% sass and bullshit.

That is an excellent example of an ad hominem. You are so good at creating them. Good job.

 

[Kagom]

GOOOooood... perhaps you're finally getting tired of lying to yourself.

I never lie to myself.

 

[Larkinn]

Whatever... no matter how you slice it, you're a fraud and an equivocator.

Whatever? Whatever meaning you are a bald faced liar? You make claims, aren't willing to back them up, and then lie about them. You are pathetic.

You don't debate... you troll around the board being a fucking pain to most all here that talk intelligently. Your total repituare is 99% sass and bullshit.

Its repitoire, actually. And I'm mostly a pain to lying fuckwits like yourself.

 

[007]

Try to write your own material.

Hmmm... it's getting hard to tell you apart from Larkinn.

 

[007]

I never lie to myself.

You think what you do is normal Kag... you're LIVING a lie.

 

[Kagom]

You think what you do is normal Kag... you're LIVING a lie.

Umhmm...whatever.

 

[Gunny]

Nope. I’m not trying to obfuscate.



You seem to have missed my point or you are trying to avoid it. You will find small groups of groups that are trying to do things that are wrong. You will find larger groups of such people trying to do things that are good. Homosexuals, as a whole, are not doing things that are bad. They do not have an evil agenda. Some individual homosexuals may have created groups that are attempting to do bad things. You can find such in any group. “White Pride” groups have segments of violent skinheads.

I haven't missed your point at all. As I said, you are trying to obfuscate. We aren't discussing what other little groups may or may not do.

I don't recall saying that homosexuals as a whole were "bad" nor have an "evil agenda."



The relationship is still a choice. Someone may be attracted to people outside his or her race. Likewise, someone may be attracted to people inside his or her own sex. Anyway, if you don’t like the comparison between interracial relationships and homosexual relationships, we can compare interfaith relationships with homosexual relationships. In certain segments of America it used to actually be illegal for people for different religions to get married. As opposed to views held by many homosexuals, I do think that the issue ultimately is choice (choice to wed inside your sex, outside your race, outside your religion. It is a comparison between apples and apples (perhaps big apples and small apples).

The relationship may be a choice, however, race is NOT a choice while sexual behavior IS.

You'll have to back up the "illegal for different religions to get married" statement.

"You can’t force people to change their hearts and minds about something being right or wrong just because the government declares it so."

It is a true statement. Some people think that we should have racial segregation. People think that interracial marriage is wrong. Some people think that abortion is wrong. Legislation does not change the hearts of many people but it likely influences their behaviors.

And when the behavior of the vast majority is "influenced" (read: having it shoved down their throats) via tyranny of the minority, the majority rebels. All such legislation does is foster resentment and hatred.

 

[Gunny]

Using logic and proper vocabulary is to play word games?!? Whatever. It would seem that avoiding logic and not understanding vocabulary would be to play word games.

Purposefully choosing a meaning other than what was clearly intended for the purpose of twisting an argument, and hiding behind a smokescreen of semantics is dishonest.

It isn't about proper use of voacbulary. It's about MISuse of vocabulary which creates a convoluted logic.

 

[Gunny]

There's not a damned thing dishonest about it. Dishonest would be claiming gays do not ALREADY have EXACTLY the same rights as heterosexuals. A law allowing gays to marry is exclusively beneficial only to them. They make up less than 10% of the population.


[/ QUOTE] GAYS do NOT have all the same rights as hetros, they are not allowed to marry. That is discrimionation. Not only regarding the word marraige, but the fact that they are refused certain Legal rights that only marriage can offer. If those laws were changed, that would be a different story.

Gays are allowed to marry. They can marry a person of the opposite gender the very same as I can.

If they want the so-called "legal rights" marriage offers, again, they have every legal right to get married the same as I do.

 

[Gunny]

Not really... he kicks butt on a regular basis. But I can see where that would annoy you.

Who's butt does he kick, and which message board would THAT be happening on?

 

[Doug]

Two questions:

-- what legal rights does an unmarried couple miss out on?


-- suppose these legal rights were extended to unmarried couples, without the definition of marriage (a union between people of opposite sexes) being changed. Would the militant supporters of gay marriage be happy with that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Two questions:

-- what legal rights does an unmarried couple miss out on?


-- suppose these legal rights were extended to unmarried couples, without the definition of marriage (a union between people of opposite sexes) being changed. Would the militant supporters of gay marriage be happy with that?

Several rights stick out. Tax breaks ( assuming one thinks married people get a break) and the biggest is the difficulty in making sure your partner is the person that legally gets everything and has the legal right to make decisions for you while incapacitated. Same with Children, if one partner is the "legal" parent the other may have no rights if something happens to that parent. There are solutions to most of these issues but they require numerous documents and not all courts put the weight they should on them.

Civil Unions would solve those issues. The militants will NOT accept that though, they are on record as opposing civil unions and insisting on "marriage"

 

[Gunny]

Two questions:

-- what legal rights does an unmarried couple miss out on?


-- suppose these legal rights were extended to unmarried couples, without the definition of marriage (a union between people of opposite sexes) being changed. Would the militant supporters of gay marriage be happy with that?

Excellent point ... one which I have made many times; yet, no one is willing to address. The problem here are insurance companies and hospitals and such being allowed to dictate who one can and cannot consider "next of kin." It suits their financial bottom line.

Problem is, just as many were not against civil union, that is not good enough for those vocal flamers driving the gay agenda train that allegedly doesn't exist according to several in this thread. They demanded marriage or nothing. They got nothing, and the gays who could care less about the semantics got screwed.

 

[jillian]

Excellent point ... one which I have made many times; yet, no one is willing to address. The problem here are insurance companies and hospitals and such being allowed to dictate who one can and cannot consider "next of kin." It suits their financial bottom line.

Problem is, just as many were not against civil union, that is not good enough for those vocal flamers driving the gay agenda train that allegedly doesn't exist according to several in this thread. They demanded marriage or nothing. They got nothing, and the gays who could care less about the semantics got screwed.

There are always going to be a vocal minority. I don't think most gay people would have an objection to civil unions if it gives them the same legal rights as a married couple. Ultimately, there's a recognition of the relationship and it doesn't matter what you call it.

This view of gays as radical is kind of silly. Yes...there are radicals. But most are high-income, conservative types who simply want to be treated like everyone else. But, if the loud minority weren't raising their voices, we wouldn't even be having this debate. ;o)

 

[Larkinn]

The relationship may be a choice, however, race is NOT a choice while sexual behavior IS.

Sex is not a choice, which specifically determines sexual orientation.

Gays are allowed to marry. They can marry a person of the opposite gender the very same as I can.

However a woman is NOT allowed to marry the same individuals you are. Therefore there is discrimination based on sex.

 

[Larkinn]

Civil Unions would solve those issues. The militants will NOT accept that though, they are on record as opposing civil unions and insisting on "marriage"

I find it striking that you consider individuals "militants" for refusing to adhere to a doctrine the USSC struck down 40 years ago, and one which nobody would even think of applying even more to race...but yet its ok for sexual orientation somehow.

 

[doniston]

There are always going to be a vocal minority. I don't think most gay people would have an objection to civil unions if it gives them the same legal rights as a married couple. Ultimately, there's a recognition of the relationship and it doesn't matter what you call it.

This view of gays as radical is kind of silly. Yes...there are radicals. But most are high-income, conservative types who simply want to be treated like everyone else. But, if the loud minority weren't raising their voices, we wouldn't even be having this debate. ;o)

I absolutely agree.

 

[doniston]

Sex is not a choice, which specifically determines sexual orientation.

I beleive you are speaking of GENDER, not sex, but in either case that is not always correct. Gays who are truely gay are exceptions.

However a woman is NOT allowed to marry the same individuals you are. Therefore there is discrimination based on sex.

That is true, but that is also flat garbage. -just playing silly games with the facts.