What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[JakeStarkey]

"No one's liberty is infringed by gay marriage" is answered with "It's an insult to the institution of Marriage."

Only in your mind, not in fact.

 

[Nosmo King]

And you will infringe on her liberty to believe as she finds correct how, and WHY? Rather odd civil rights stance you have.

Blah blah blah.

It's an insult to the instiution of Marriage , A gay wedding is similar to having a wedding ceremony for two cockerspaniels and sitting around and applauding while they hump. The big difference being that at least the cockerspaniels are doing something natural and biologically productive.



So does a civil union [benefits to the consenting adults ] .

Getting back to the cockerspaniels - Unfortunately , as much as I'd like to say that homosexuals are not Human, they did come out of their Mother- so I guess you can consider them somewhat human - or subhuman as the case may be.

So legally , i would have to concede that subhumans are entitled to at least Civil Marriage - there should be a stipulation that they undergo Conversion Therapy for a short period first- something like real people taking blood tests b4 the marriage license is issued.

No religious institution is being forced to provide gays with a "Holy Matrimony" ceremony against their will.

Not Yet anyway

Likewise no religious institution or anyone with religious beliefs has the right to deny gays their legal right to a state sanctioned marriage contract and the benefits derived there from.

Religous Institutions do not make the laws , enforce them or interpret them . But they do certainly have a right to exert whatever influences they have - to have their voices heard and effect the laws, legislation and outcomes.

Yes - I do realize that being a socio-fascist that must be a tough nut for you to swallow - but oppossing views of the politically incorrect still have every right to raise their voices in protest . Don't like it - move to China

Why do you consider homosexuals "sub-human"? Are there others you see this way? What characteristics reduce, in your eyes, one human being to what you consider "sub-human" status? Does someone who fails, in your opinion, to be considered a 'real' human enjoy the rights and protections of all American citizens?

If one of your own children was Gay, would you disown them? Would that be a valid, proper and ethical thing a responsible parent should do? Is it right for anyone reading your manifesto on 'sub-human' status to conclude that you lack the maturity, compassion and experience necessary to be taken seriously, or can we dismiss you and your attitude as, to borrow a phrase, 'sub-human'?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Greenbean Snow now has both him and me on his Ignore List.

Amazing.

You have yourself on your ignore list?

That's a first.

I would shy away from saying he is the dumbest jackass on the USMB , but he's certainly in the top ten. The top three are on my ignore list -see below.

On my Ignore List . Idiots not worth wasting time on.
thebrucebeat - rdean - PaintMyHouse

Pending :JakeStarkey Now Starkey STFU you imbecile.

 

[LockeJaw]

I am a minarchist libertarian so yeah, the more localized the better.

Depends. Are you referring to books promoting homosexuality, or books that happen to have it?

I've read numerous books while in a Catholic private school for class that had homosexual characters but didn't promote it.

Promoting it. Books with homosexual characters are fine. I've read a few with gay characters myself that weren't promoting it also, so yeah Im fine with that.

Okay, but how would you want them to be restricted?
Would you want a federal list, a state list, or a school district list?

Personally, I prefer the idea of district, that way a community widely accepting gays can have less restrictions if they desire, but a more traditional one could be more strict.

 

[Ibentoken]

"No one's liberty is infringed by gay marriage" is answered with "It's an insult to the institution of Marriage."

Only in your mind, not in fact.

Forced servitude against your conscience is tyranny.

 

[GreenBean]

Blah blah blah.

It's an insult to the instiution of Marriage , A gay wedding is similar to having a wedding ceremony for two cockerspaniels and sitting around and applauding while they hump. The big difference being that at least the cockerspaniels are doing something natural and biologically productive.



So does a civil union [benefits to the consenting adults ] .

Getting back to the cockerspaniels - Unfortunately , as much as I'd like to say that homosexuals are not Human, they did come out of their Mother- so I guess you can consider them somewhat human - or subhuman as the case may be.

So legally , i would have to concede that subhumans are entitled to at least Civil Marriage - there should be a stipulation that they undergo Conversion Therapy for a short period first- something like real people taking blood tests b4 the marriage license is issued.



Not Yet anyway

Likewise no religious institution or anyone with religious beliefs has the right to deny gays their legal right to a state sanctioned marriage contract and the benefits derived there from.

Religous Institutions do not make the laws , enforce them or interpret them . But they do certainly have a right to exert whatever influences they have - to have their voices heard and effect the laws, legislation and outcomes.

Yes - I do realize that being a socio-fascist that must be a tough nut for you to swallow - but oppossing views of the politically incorrect still have every right to raise their voices in protest . Don't like it - move to China

I do believe forcing religious institutions to recognize them as married would have a lot less support than just letting them marry. I for one only support gay marriage as long as religious institutions can say they don't have to serve them.

"A Journey of a thousand miiles begins with but a single step " - Some really smart Asian Guy

Twenty years ago you would have laughed at the idea of Queers getting Married at all - Progress is not always good progress - Hitler made a lot of progress in the 20s and 30s -he was considered a progressive - The progess for LGBT is degenrative Progress.

Who says that a Baker has to bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding when he is oppossed to homosexuality ????

 

[CorvusRexus]

Of course I am not. She can believe anything she wants. And I have the right to tell her, or you, that I disagree, just as you are doing above.

The far right is stunned how this has turned around and that it is being treated as it treated their opponents.

This is the way it works in a democracy.

Ever hear the phrase "HEARTS & MINDS"?

That is exactly what the far right and social cons should have done from the beginning, instead of, for decades, scream and yell and curse and so on and so forth.

The SLC gay parade had a Homo Haters site where the evangelicals roundly chastised the crowd for their sins and predicted where they would spend their eternity.

The parade cheer leaders welcomed them nicely over the PA. And when the cheer leaders started leading cheers, they noted the gays and the lesbians and the LGBT and transgender and then they led a cheer for "The Homo Haters, we are so glad you are here."

But the far right and the social con went the way of Harpy and Hell.

And you have the nerve to make your suggestion.

But surely they make up only a small percentile of the people on the right.

I personally know only a handful of people on the right against gay marriage, with many more supporting it. Some of them have never voted other than Republican in their life and watch Fox News all day. Maybe I just live in an area where people are okay with it.
Actually, most people I know who are against it are Democrats.

 

[GreenBean]

"No one's liberty is infringed by gay marriage" is answered with "It's an insult to the institution of Marriage."

Only in your mind, not in fact.

Forced servitude against your conscience is tyranny.

Ibentoken - Welcome Tea Man - could use some more "fake Indians" in Boston Harbor

 

[CorvusRexus]

I am a minarchist libertarian so yeah, the more localized the better.

Promoting it. Books with homosexual characters are fine. I've read a few with gay characters myself that weren't promoting it also, so yeah Im fine with that.

Okay, but how would you want them to be restricted?
Would you want a federal list, a state list, or a school district list?

Personally, I prefer the idea of district, that way a community widely accepting gays can have less restrictions if they desire, but a more traditional one could be more strict.

Excellent, we seem to be in agreement and have common ground on how gays should be treated.


To everyone else: look, compromise is possible.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And you will infringe on her liberty to believe as she finds correct how, and WHY? Rather odd civil rights stance you have.

Blah blah blah.

It's an insult to the instiution of Marriage , A gay wedding is similar to having a wedding ceremony for two cockerspaniels and sitting around and applauding while they hump. The big difference being that at least the cockerspaniels are doing something natural and biologically productive.



So does a civil union [benefits to the consenting adults ] .

Getting back to the cockerspaniels - Unfortunately , as much as I'd like to say that homosexuals are not Human, they did come out of their Mother- so I guess you can consider them somewhat human - or subhuman as the case may be.

So legally , i would have to concede that subhumans are entitled to at least Civil Marriage - there should be a stipulation that they undergo Conversion Therapy for a short period first- something like real people taking blood tests b4 the marriage license is issued.

No religious institution is being forced to provide gays with a "Holy Matrimony" ceremony against their will.

Not Yet anyway

Likewise no religious institution or anyone with religious beliefs has the right to deny gays their legal right to a state sanctioned marriage contract and the benefits derived there from.

Religous Institutions do not make the laws , enforce them or interpret them . But they do certainly have a right to exert whatever influences they have - to have their voices heard and effect the laws, legislation and outcomes.

Yes - I do realize that being a socio-fascist that must be a tough nut for you to swallow - but oppossing views of the politically incorrect still have every right to raise their voices in protest . Don't like it - move to China

at the sheer IRONY of you calling anyone else a "socio-fascist" after your own socio-fascist rant in that post!

 

[Ibentoken]

"No one's liberty is infringed by gay marriage" is answered with "It's an insult to the institution of Marriage."

Only in your mind, not in fact.

Forced servitude against your conscience is tyranny.

Ibentoken - Welcome Tea Man - could use some more "fake Indians" in Boston Harbor

God Bless America.

 

[Silhouette]

I do believe forcing religious institutions to recognize them as married would have a lot less support than just letting them marry. I for one only support gay marriage as long as religious institutions can say they don't have to serve them.

That's because you don't have any of your own children. If you did, your perspective would change in a nanosecond. If you did, you would instantly see how the entire social matrix around your child was a classroom, and not just the drab walls and chain link of the schoolyard. You think learning stops once they step out of there?

Promoting gay marriage is exactly the same thing as promoting homosexuality. Surely you cannot be that dense. Marriage is the top tier, the acme, the apex of adult human achievement as far as social bonding goes and sexuality. It is the mooring to which all the crazy ships in this weird sea try to get to and tie up. Or at least it used to be. It's rusted, needs welding and some new links in the chain to its anchor, but promoting gay marriage is the final blow to its withering integrity.

Then all those ships will bash against each other willy nilly until there's nothing left in the harbor but splintered wood. What vessel will the children sail on then? You're a pirate as well as a crow. I thought you'd like the analogy.

 

[Peach]

Depends. Are you referring to books promoting homosexuality, or books that happen to have it?

I've read numerous books while in a Catholic private school for class that had homosexual characters but didn't promote it.

Promoting it. Books with homosexual characters are fine. I've read a few with gay characters myself that weren't promoting it also, so yeah Im fine with that.

Okay, but how would you want them to be restricted?
Would you want a federal list, a state list, or a school district list?

Personally, I prefer the idea of district, that way a community widely accepting gays can have less restrictions if they desire, but a more traditional one could be more strict.

I attended school in poor rural areas from age 11 onto graduation. Thus, the public library was invaluable. One could order books through inter library loan Today students in many areas are lucky to HAVE libraries, with a few computers, blocking much content. If you wanna read about it, you'll find it, one way or another. I did. I saw a reference to The Fire Next Time, got it at the public library.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ever hear the phrase "HEARTS & MINDS"?

That is exactly what the far right and social cons should have done from the beginning, instead of, for decades, scream and yell and curse and so on and so forth.

The SLC gay parade had a Homo Haters site where the evangelicals roundly chastised the crowd for their sins and predicted where they would spend their eternity.

The parade cheer leaders welcomed them nicely over the PA. And when the cheer leaders started leading cheers, they noted the gays and the lesbians and the LGBT and transgender and then they led a cheer for "The Homo Haters, we are so glad you are here."

But the far right and the social con went the way of Harpy and Hell.

And you have the nerve to make your suggestion.

But surely they make up only a small percentile of the people on the right.

I personally know only a handful of people on the right against gay marriage, with many more supporting it. Some of them have never voted other than Republican in their life and watch Fox News all day. Maybe I just live in an area where people are okay with it.
Actually, most people I know who are against it are Democrats.

If so, the great majority who oppose gay marriage did not correct them publicly for the shame they brought to the anti-equality movement.

 

[CorvusRexus]

It's an insult to the instiution of Marriage , A gay wedding is similar to having a wedding ceremony for two cockerspaniels and sitting around and applauding while they hump. The big difference being that at least the cockerspaniels are doing something natural and biologically productive.



So does a civil union [benefits to the consenting adults ] .

Getting back to the cockerspaniels - Unfortunately , as much as I'd like to say that homosexuals are not Human, they did come out of their Mother- so I guess you can consider them somewhat human - or subhuman as the case may be.

So legally , i would have to concede that subhumans are entitled to at least Civil Marriage - there should be a stipulation that they undergo Conversion Therapy for a short period first- something like real people taking blood tests b4 the marriage license is issued.



Not Yet anyway



Religous Institutions do not make the laws , enforce them or interpret them . But they do certainly have a right to exert whatever influences they have - to have their voices heard and effect the laws, legislation and outcomes.

Yes - I do realize that being a socio-fascist that must be a tough nut for you to swallow - but oppossing views of the politically incorrect still have every right to raise their voices in protest . Don't like it - move to China

I do believe forcing religious institutions to recognize them as married would have a lot less support than just letting them marry. I for one only support gay marriage as long as religious institutions can say they don't have to serve them.

"A Journey of a thousand miiles begins with but a single step " - Some really smart Asian Guy

Twenty years ago you would have laughed at the idea of Queers getting Married at all - Progress is not always good progress - Hitler made a lot of progress in the 20s and 30s -he was considered a progressive - The progess for LGBT is degenrative Progress.

Who says that a Baker has to bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding when he is oppossed to homosexuality ????

Couple of questions.
1. Does a democrat or republican business owner have the right to refuse service to someone of the opposite party?
2. Do you believe a gay baker has the right to refuse service to a heterosexual couple?

Answer mine, then I'll answer yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"No one's liberty is infringed by gay marriage" is answered with "It's an insult to the institution of Marriage."

Only in your mind, not in fact.

Forced servitude against your conscience is tyranny.

What forced servitude? I don't think you understand the issue here.

Following the Constitutional protections for civil liberties for all is not forced servitude.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no minimalist or localist solution to the issue.

Marriage equality is constitutionally protected which the anti-gang knows is coming.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think you're confusing Russia with Uganda.

Nope! Putin signed a law that would impose jail terms on anyone who offends religious believers by using "gay propaganda".

You wanted the exact same law passed here in the USA.

In essence you want to deny your fellow Americans their right to freedom of speech and their right to liberty because it offends those with homophobic religious beliefs.

I'd like to see a link relative to that - I may be wrong , but I thought the legislation in Russia was aimed at gays propagandizing to schoolchildren. If there is religous clause , that alters the equation somewhat.

Separate bills but given the wording anyone advocating homosexuality would be offending those with "religious feelings" against gays.

Vladimir Putin signs anti-gay propaganda bill - Telegraph

In another controversial step, Mr Putin also signed a bill imposing jail terms and fines on those who offend religious believers, seen as a response to last year's anti-Putin stunt by the punk band ***** Riot in a Moscow cathedral.

The other bill signed into law by Mr Putin targets religious offenders and promises to punish actions "demonstrating disrespect to society and done with the goal of offending the believers' religious feelings".
The bill imposes fines and jail terms of up to three years for people who insult believers, with the harshest punishment reserved for offensive actions carried out in places of worship.
Among the punishments to be meted out for the transgressions are compulsory community service and forced labour.
A poll by independent Levada Centre in April showed that 39 percent of Russians believe that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals, while 47 percent disagreed.
This represented a more conservative trend than a poll from 2005 where figures showed 51 percent for and 35 percent against.
Forty-five percent meanwhile said they believe people become homosexual "because of seduction or of their own licentiousness".

 

[CorvusRexus]

I do believe forcing religious institutions to recognize them as married would have a lot less support than just letting them marry. I for one only support gay marriage as long as religious institutions can say they don't have to serve them.

That's because you don't have any of your own children. If you did, your perspective would change in a nanosecond. If you did, you would instantly see how the entire social matrix around your child was a classroom, and not just the drab walls and chain link of the schoolyard. You think learning stops once they step out of there?

Promoting gay marriage is exactly the same thing as promoting homosexuality. Surely you cannot be that dense. Marriage is the top tier, the acme, the apex of adult human achievement as far as social bonding goes and sexuality. It is the mooring to which all the crazy ships in this weird sea try to get to and tie up. Or at least it used to be. It's rusted, needs welding and some new links in the chain to its anchor, but promoting gay marriage is the final blow to its withering integrity.

Then all those ships will bash against each other willy nilly until there's nothing left in the harbor but splintered wood. What vessel will the children sail on then? You're a pirate as well as a crow. I thought you'd like the analogy.

Rather clever analogy, I'll give you that. But I still disagree with your claim. Marriage for gays does not mean they have "Holy Matrimony". And I'll teach any children I might have in the future that.


Specifically addressing your analogy, why does gay marriage have to interfere with the mooring heterosexual marriage is? If heterosexual marriage is considered separate from homosexual marriage, the blow need not fall on it.

 

[Seawytch]

No Holly, I didn't make myself attracted to other women. Do you think you could make yourself attracted to members of the same sex?

No and the reason why I couldn't is because I believe that doing such a thing is against the word of the Lord, therefore it is wrong.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

So if it wasn't you could? Seriously? If so, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're gay and repressed it or you're bi. You can't choose to be attracted to someone.