The looming war over gay marriage

[elvis]

What the hell are you talking about?

Yurt is talking about rapists, most of us are talking about consensual sex between two adults.

does a rapist have the right to be aroused?

You tell me. You're the expert.

Yes, you should have the right to be aroused when Chris takes his pants off. but that doesn't give you the right to rape him up the ass. He has to give you permission first, which he undoubtedly will.

 

[Toro]

and there you are....stating that it is the ACT, that makes it so

No, it is not the act that makes it so. If one is attracted to women but is too shy to ever make a move and dies a virgin, he is still a heterosexual.

Two people having consensual sex is not harmful. To ban an act requires that the act be harmful. Otherwise, it is merely prejudice and/or ignorance.

 

[Toro]

act....that is the key

sexuality may or may not be hardwired and to use the wild kingdom as an example to show that humans are hardwired sexually shows you really don't understand sexuality at all.

And if you think that it isn't related to nature, you don't know much about biology.

 

[Yurt]

and there you are....stating that it is the ACT, that makes it so

No, it is not the act that makes it so. If one is attracted to women but is too shy to ever make a move and dies a virgin, he is still a heterosexual.

To ban an act requires that the act be harmful. Otherwise, it is merely prejudice and/or ignorance.

if i dream of rape......does that make me a rapist?

as to the banning of an act....not true...any government can ban any act, regardless if it is harmful...and it is only you that says it is prejudice or ignorance...

 

[Yurt]

act....that is the key

sexuality may or may not be hardwired and to use the wild kingdom as an example to show that humans are hardwired sexually shows you really don't understand sexuality at all.

And if you think that it isn't related to nature, you don't know much about biology.

i never said that, you are not paying attention

 

[Father Time]

The Hawkeye State has seen more than its share of bruising political battles. Despite not having a presidential nominating process in 2010, the coming year will see one of the biggest political fights in Iowa history: The War Over Gay Marriage.

That's their biggest fight? Not any of the primaries but this?

 

[Father Time]

if a rapist has the right to be aroused, depo provera should not be used.

What the hell are you talking about?

Yurt is talking about rapists, most of us are talking about consensual sex between two adults.

does a rapist have the right to be aroused?

Yeah, but there's a huge difference between being aroused and rape. If a rapist were to masturbate alone in their house they'd be aroused and they wouldn't be hurting anyone.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

and there you are....stating that it is the ACT, that makes it so

No, it is not the act that makes it so. If one is attracted to women but is too shy to ever make a move and dies a virgin, he is still a heterosexual.

To ban an act requires that the act be harmful. Otherwise, it is merely prejudice and/or ignorance.

if i dream of rape......does that make me a rapist?

go get a dictionary, moron...

 

[Toro]

if i dream of rape......does that make me a rapist?

No more than dreaming about scoring the winning TD in the Super Bowl makes you an NFL player.

as to the banning of an act....not true...any government can ban any act, regardless if it is harmful

That is true. My mistake. Let me restate - The government should not be banning acts that harm no one and is freely consented to by adults.

...and it is only you that says it is prejudice or ignorance...

No, it is not only me.

 

[logical4u]

You mean the special right to marry the one you love that 97% of the rest of the population has?

No one has a 'right' to marry the person that they love. Ask any adult and they will tell you a sob story of their first love ending up with someone else. It is a fact of life (probably for 96% of us). People select a person they think will make a good life partner for individual reasons (and most of the time that includes plans of having their own children). They work hard at the relationship and if everything goes okay, they get married (when the work really starts, marriage is not for wimps). Many people never get married (even some heterosexuals), it just doesn't happen, so please quit with the 'right to marry' crap.

The government - "Big Government" - is denying a small portion of the population the right to enter into a legally binding contract with another willing person that is available to the other 97% of the population.

You are on the wrong side of history. It is only a matter of time before gay marriage happens.

So, based on your arguement: people should not be denied the right to marry their parent or close relative, or animal of their choosing?
That small portion of the population has the right to marry, they have just chosen to marry people that they are forbidden (lawfully) to marry. There is a big difference. That is an additional "right", not equal "right".

 

[logical4u]

I gotta say, it's both hilarious and disgusting to see all the "Good Conservative Christians" on this board who constantly whine about Obama taking away their rights in a non-existent fashion to be actively supporting the taking of rights from others.

Bravo!

No one has taken your rights. You have the right to marry. It is 'your' problem that you chose a person that is off limits; get over it and choose better, or choose to be alone.

Those that want homosexual marriage are about taking the rights from others: the right not to have their child (produced from a heterosexual union in over 99.9% of the time) indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle via the school system that will be required "by law" to "support" the "legal" act, not to have their family line ended, because their child has been targeted and recruited and convinced that they are 'gay', not to have their grandchildren neglected because a homosexual parent is more concerned with pleasing a lover than protecting the child, etc. Homosexuality, IMHO is anti-family, anti-society and harmful in the long run to any culture. It celebrates imorality, encourages abuse, molestation, and humiliation, while those that push its' agenda claim to have integrity and honor, agian IMHO.
I repeat, those that are pushing this 'agenda' are more concerned with infringing on others rights than having 'equal' rights.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting article. Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GssdKvp4pLo&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[JD_2B]

Well, we might as well just outlaw the marrying of foreigners, too, then... And completely outlaw the idea of getting married a second time as well. May as well go ahead and toss out the option of getting divorced, entirely, as long as we are discussing infringing upon the rights of others. With divorces, the child is being raised just as immorally, one can argue, because they are being taught that it is better for two people to live separately and remarry another person, having a whole new unrelated person in the home, living amongst the children.. Willfully doing a number on a child's perception of trust and what family really means/ how it interacts.
Also, changing the bloodline by then having children with a different parent, also messes up the morality and the blood line as well.
It makes children NOT understand that marriage is something that should be taken very seriously and worked very hard on- not something that people should enter into and leave without so much as a second thought.

/End Sarcasm/

There are a lot of things we could say should be outlawed based on the immoral nature of those things remaining legal, but we will not outlaw them, because every person has a right to be themselves, an individual, and make whatever choices they so choose, even if they mess up their children's moral compass in the process.

 

[CurveLight]

No one has a 'right' to marry the person that they love. Ask any adult and they will tell you a sob story of their first love ending up with someone else. It is a fact of life (probably for 96% of us). People select a person they think will make a good life partner for individual reasons (and most of the time that includes plans of having their own children). They work hard at the relationship and if everything goes okay, they get married (when the work really starts, marriage is not for wimps). Many people never get married (even some heterosexuals), it just doesn't happen, so please quit with the 'right to marry' crap.

The government - "Big Government" - is denying a small portion of the population the right to enter into a legally binding contract with another willing person that is available to the other 97% of the population.

You are on the wrong side of history. It is only a matter of time before gay marriage happens.

So, based on your arguement: people should not be denied the right to marry their parent or close relative, or animal of their choosing?
That small portion of the population has the right to marry, they have just chosen to marry people that they are forbidden (lawfully) to marry. There is a big difference. That is an additional "right", not equal "right".

Animals cannot consent to humans so no, bestiality (which is rape in its purest form) is not analogous to same sex marriage. As for the incestuous comparison, if consenting adults want to be married in incest, then let them. Arguing it is a moral crime is irrelevant because the Constitution was drafted on the principle of equality among citizens.

Gays are not forbidden from getting married. They are forbidden from the Constitution. The argument gays have the same rights as everyone else is disingenuous and the motivation behind the dishonesty is nobody can provide an honest justification for denying equal rights. This is also reflected through the infinite comparisons of bestiality, pedophilia, and incest to gays. The purpose of those poor analogies is to demonize gays in hopes of distracting the audience from realizing bigotry is insufficient evidence for degrading citizens and denying the Constitution based on homophobia. Saying gays have equal rights is exactly as ridiculous as saying women had equal rights when only men could vote.

 

[CurveLight]

I gotta say, it's both hilarious and disgusting to see all the "Good Conservative Christians" on this board who constantly whine about Obama taking away their rights in a non-existent fashion to be actively supporting the taking of rights from others.

Bravo!

No one has taken your rights. You have the right to marry. It is 'your' problem that you chose a person that is off limits; get over it and choose better, or choose to be alone.

Those that want homosexual marriage are about taking the rights from others: the right not to have their child (produced from a heterosexual union in over 99.9% of the time) indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle via the school system that will be required "by law" to "support" the "legal" act, not to have their family line ended, because their child has been targeted and recruited and convinced that they are 'gay', not to have their grandchildren neglected because a homosexual parent is more concerned with pleasing a lover than protecting the child, etc. Homosexuality, IMHO is anti-family, anti-society and harmful in the long run to any culture. It celebrates imorality, encourages abuse, molestation, and humiliation, while those that push its' agenda claim to have integrity and honor, agian IMHO.
I repeat, those that are pushing this 'agenda' are more concerned with infringing on others rights than having 'equal' rights.

Could you name two direct harms on society clearly caused by gay marriage?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So, based on your arguement: people should not be denied the right to marry their parent or close relative, or animal of their choosing?
That small portion of the population has the right to marry, they have just chosen to marry people that they are forbidden (lawfully) to marry. There is a big difference. That is an additional "right", not equal "right".

Moron

Nice attempt at obfuscation. My marriage/divorced/widowed/single status has nothing to do with the fact that gay men are perfectly legal to marry a woman of their choice. Just like everyone else. If they are given the right to marry the man of their choice are you ready for the pedophile to have the right to marry the little boy of their choice? Or how about the zoophile marrying the animal of their choice?

Strawman.

Children under the age of 18 do not have full rights under the law. Animals do not have full rights under the law. We do not allow either full power to sign legal contracts.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I gotta say, it's both hilarious and disgusting to see all the "Good Conservative Christians" on this board who constantly whine about Obama taking away their rights in a non-existent fashion to be actively supporting the taking of rights from others.

Bravo!

No one has taken your rights. You have the right to marry. It is 'your' problem that you chose a person that is off limits; get over it and choose better, or choose to be alone.

Those that want homosexual marriage are about taking the rights from others: the right not to have their child (produced from a heterosexual union in over 99.9% of the time) indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle via the school system that will be required "by law" to "support" the "legal" act, not to have their family line ended, because their child has been targeted and recruited and convinced that they are 'gay', not to have their grandchildren neglected because a homosexual parent is more concerned with pleasing a lover than protecting the child, etc. Homosexuality, IMHO is anti-family, anti-society and harmful in the long run to any culture. It celebrates imorality, encourages abuse, molestation, and humiliation, while those that push its' agenda claim to have integrity and honor, agian IMHO.
I repeat, those that are pushing this 'agenda' are more concerned with infringing on others rights than having 'equal' rights.

Could you name two direct harms on society clearly caused by gay marriage?

Homophobes like NoLogic4U have to see other people be happy

Closet homosexuals like NL4U Might come out of the closet and abandon their families

 

[Big Fitz]

No one has taken your rights. You have the right to marry. It is 'your' problem that you chose a person that is off limits; get over it and choose better, or choose to be alone.

Those that want homosexual marriage are about taking the rights from others: the right not to have their child (produced from a heterosexual union in over 99.9% of the time) indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle via the school system that will be required "by law" to "support" the "legal" act, not to have their family line ended, because their child has been targeted and recruited and convinced that they are 'gay', not to have their grandchildren neglected because a homosexual parent is more concerned with pleasing a lover than protecting the child, etc. Homosexuality, IMHO is anti-family, anti-society and harmful in the long run to any culture. It celebrates imorality, encourages abuse, molestation, and humiliation, while those that push its' agenda claim to have integrity and honor, agian IMHO.
I repeat, those that are pushing this 'agenda' are more concerned with infringing on others rights than having 'equal' rights.

Could you name two direct harms on society clearly caused by gay marriage?

Homophobes like NoLogic4U have to see other people be happy

Closet homosexuals like NL4U Might come out of the closet and abandon their families

Ahhh yes. Those who disagree with special gay rights are homophobes or on the 'down low'. We've devolved that far in our intellectual (or lack there of) discourse.. Gotcha.

Does this mean I get to start throwing around gay slurs with impunity too? You know... a little quid pro quo?

 

[CurveLight]

Could you name two direct harms on society clearly caused by gay marriage?

Homophobes like NoLogic4U have to see other people be happy

Closet homosexuals like NL4U Might come out of the closet and abandon their families

Ahhh yes. Those who disagree with special gay rights are homophobes or on the 'down low'. We've devolved that far in our intellectual (or lack there of) discourse.. Gotcha.

Does this mean I get to start throwing around gay slurs with impunity too? You know... a little quid pro quo?

In this issue it is heteros who have the special rights just as men had the special right to vote while women were denied. In both cases the discrimination is based on the crotch watch.

 

[Big Fitz]

In this issue it is heteros who have the special rights just as men had the special right to vote while women were denied. In both cases the discrimination is based on the crotch watch.

Horseshit. What a disingenuous attempt at equivalency. The majority status of being able to marry the opposite gender has been the status quo for humanity since it began. Your attempt to say the two are the same is an utter lie based on pure philosophical dishonesty and you know it.