CDZ Why do some people feel threatened by Gay marriage & equality for Gays

[Fair&Balanced]

Just changing the tack here a bit.

Is part of the issue a misconception in that people think that being Gay is a choice ?

Being gay IS a choice

who cares. We have the freedom to choose things in this country without some busybody telling us "no you can't , that's gross"

 

[Wilbur Right]

There's just no "winning" with folks here.

No. But there is learning. You just don't know for sure who got educated.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Just changing the tack here a bit.

Is part of the issue a misconception in that people think that being Gay is a choice ?

Being gay IS a choice

who cares. We have the freedom to choose things in this country without some busybody telling us "no you can't , that's gross"

It isnt a choice.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Just changing the tack here a bit.

Is part of the issue a misconception in that people think that being Gay is a choice ?

Being gay IS a choice

who cares. We have the freedom to choose things in this country without some busybody telling us "no you can't , that's gross"

It isnt a choice.

of course it is, but so what?

 

[320 Years of History]

There's just no "winning" with folks here.

No. But there is learning. You just don't know for sure who got educated.

Oh, trust me; learned folks know who else also is well educated...Well educated folks may not be well educated on every topic, but being well educated, they know how and where to discursively desist. In short, truly learned people do not engage in discussions that transcend the scope of their knowledge. Instead, they shift from speaker to being listener, unless, of course, it becomes clear the speakers know even less than they, in which case sage folks merely condone them as would a jurist.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There's just no "winning" with folks here.

No. But there is learning. You just don't know for sure who got educated.

Oh, trust me; learned folks know who else also is well educated...Well educated folks may not be well educated on every topic, but being well educated, they know how and where to discursively desist. In short, truly learned people do not engage in discussions that transcend the scope of their knowledge. Instead, they shift from speaker to being listener, unless, of course, it becomes clear the speakers know even less than they, in which case sage folks merely condone them as would a jurist.

Yep! Then there's people like you who can shovel it all day long...

....and still not make a point.

Shall we discuss the merits of marriage equality for all mature companions or do you just want to bore us to tears with your cut and pastes?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[320 Years of History]

Just changing the tack here a bit.

Is part of the issue a misconception in that people think that being Gay is a choice ?

That is a whole different matter from the one of being threatened by gay marriage equality. You just opened the door for the "wingnuts" to jump in...good luck trying to have a serious and mature discussion with them....

 

[OldLady]

I fail to see how you went from my argument to where you've wound up.

Might psychological projection or tilting at windmills offer an explanation?

"...look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes; for this is righteous warfare, and it is God's good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth."

"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.
-- Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote​

Or might it instead be something so simple as general incoherence?

I can't say for I don't see the remark to which you refer. I suspect, however, that whatever is written, it's not among the "pearls" that merit my removing the writer from my ignore list.

(<poke, poke> I think you know what I'm referring to...LOL)

Actually, I think the ignored poster is presenting a good example of trolling. Different thread, I know.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Just changing the tack here a bit.

Is part of the issue a misconception in that people think that being Gay is a choice ?

That is a whole different matter from the one of being threatened by gay marriage equality. You just opened the door for the "wingnuts" to jump in...good luck trying to have a serious and mature discussion with them....

Its sort of linked. If people think that you have a choice then perhaps it is harder for them to understand why folk prefer an alternative lifestyle to their own.
I must confess I didnt know that there was a view that it was "a matter of choice" till I joined this forum.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The issue is a simple one. Legal definition should revolve around the promulgation of reproduction and survival of human race through heterosexual marraige. If you cannot biologically produce based on two people of same birth gender engage in sexual intercourse, then legal marraige should not be extended. I could see exception for inheritance issues if the two have been life partners for a specific period of time based on the judgement of individual states. But, have all the love you want between each other. I don't care. I don't want to see people beat up or physically attacked over sexual preference or identity. But I want my rights, and my child's rights respected in society and public schools.

That's a real Catholic stance, my friend. No disrespect to Catholicism, but our laws are not supposed to be upholding a particular Church's religious values. It says so in the Constitution somewhere.

Then you're fine with allowing all mature willing companions to arrange their marriages as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions...

That's good! Because I don't care if those first cousins marry... Then there's the little old woman down the street who has a seeing eye dog and they're pretty fond of each other too.

Far be it from me to interfere with how people wish to arrange their lives...

*****CHUCKLE*****

I fail to see how you went from my argument to where you've wound up. Allowing two men or two women to legally marry has nothing to do with bestiality; you are obviously trying to conflate homosexuality with perversion, and I've already said my piece about that.

He's being ridiculous. Notice he dropped the world "willing" from his statement when I pointed out that willing is the same as consenting and animals can't consent.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Just changing the tack here a bit.

Is part of the issue a misconception in that people think that being Gay is a choice ?

That is a whole different matter from the one of being threatened by gay marriage equality. You just opened the door for the "wingnuts" to jump in...good luck trying to have a serious and mature discussion with them....

Its sort of linked. If people think that you have a choice then perhaps it is harder for them to understand why folk prefer an alternative lifestyle to their own.
I must confess I didnt know that there was a view that it was "a matter of choice" till I joined this forum.

I'm convinced that it is a choice.


I'm equally convinced that it is a choice that Americans are free to make as they see fit.


I see ZERO conflict in those two stances

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I fail to see how you went from my argument to where you've wound up.

Might psychological projection or tilting at windmills offer an explanation?

"...look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes; for this is righteous warfare, and it is God's good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth."

"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.
-- Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote​

Or might it instead be something so simple as general incoherence?

I can't say for I don't see the remark to which you refer. I suspect, however, that whatever is written, it's not among the "pearls" that merit my removing the writer from my ignore list.

(<poke, poke> I think you know what I'm referring to...LOL)

Actually, I think the ignored poster is presenting a good example of trolling. Different thread, I know.

It's you who wish to ignore equality for all mature willing companions to marry.

I'm dead serious about this darlin'.

It's you who refuses to understand my position...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

He's being ridiculous. Notice he dropped the world "willing" from his statement when I pointed out that willing is the same as consenting and animals can't consent.

Once again you're seeing things that are not there.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I fail to see how you went from my argument to where you've wound up.

Might psychological projection or tilting at windmills offer an explanation?

"...look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes; for this is righteous warfare, and it is God's good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth."

"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.
-- Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote​

Or might it instead be something so simple as general incoherence?

I can't say for I don't see the remark to which you refer. I suspect, however, that whatever is written, it's not among the "pearls" that merit my removing the writer from my ignore list.

(<poke, poke> I think you know what I'm referring to...LOL)

Actually, I think the ignored poster is presenting a good example of trolling. Different thread, I know.

View attachment 86534

It's you who wish to ignore equality for all mature willing companions to marry.

I'm dead serious about this darlin'.

It's you who refuses to understand my position...

*****CHUCKLE*****

How the fuck can an ANIMAL be willing to marry??????

 

[Holos]

How the fuck can an ANIMAL be willing to marry??????

If we first assume that marrying involves husband and wife, two samples of endless varieties of endless animal expressions, under a single circumstance (or constant to be), or even only one variety of those endless expressions represented at least twice to form the constant, the animal requires only to choose between three options: husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife.

Good question, simple answer.

There is more to the answer than the question requirements though. In the context of the question a fourth option is irrelevant and three options conclusive and direct. However, after the animal has already willed, a fourth option to be constant can also be included within the comprehension of marriage to proceed in its own unique conditions: wife and husband.

Applied mathematics.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

How the fuck can an ANIMAL be willing to marry??????

If we first assume that marrying involves husband and wife, two samples of endless varieties of endless animal expressions, under a single circumstance (or constant to be), or even only one variety of those endless expressions represented at least twice to form the constant, the animal requires only to choose between three options: husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife.

Good question, simple answer.

There is more to the answer than the question requirements though. In the context of the question a fourth option is irrelevant and three options conclusive and direct. However, after the animal has already willed, a fourth option to be constant can also be included within the comprehension of marriage to proceed in its own unique conditions: wife and husband.

Applied mathematics.

We don't start from a position that marriage includes a husband and a wife. We start with the assumption that a marriage includes consenting adults.

Children can't consent , so you can't marry children
Animals can't consent, so you can't marry animals
Your car can't consent, so you can't marry your car

and so on and so forth.

 

[Holos]

We don't start from a position that marriage includes a husband and a wife. We start with the assumption that a marriage includes consenting adults.

Children can't consent , so you can't marry children
Animals can't consent, so you can't marry animals
Your car can't consent, so you can't marry your car

and so on and so forth.

If the assumption is that children can't consent then they can't come to be consenting adults, since the preemptive assumption of consenting adults is substantiated by the fact that adults are children who have been capable of holding more titles from the moment they learned how to read using their continuous associative success. If a holder of the title adult does not hold in the same manner the title of child then they have no legitimacy for success n their life, consensual or otherwise. There will always be a problem in the neighborhood, always a problem in the city, always a problem at work, always a problem in the country, always a problem with themselves that they are effectively powerless to participate in to customize it in their benefit and of all those involved.

The title of animal is one more that a successfully associating child is capable of holding and integrating.

True, you cannot marry children. Children marry themselves.
True, you cannot marry animals. Animals marry themselves.

Logic.

One argumentative mistake insistently continued and your argumentative progress is completely detrimental in retraction to the resetting of your logic.

We should be paying closer attention to our initiating assumptions in an argument.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

How the fuck can an ANIMAL be willing to marry??????

People in England, India, and other places around the world, marry their pets all the time. There's even a woman in Britain who married a roller coaster...

Are you capable of accepting a animals willingness to be a companion to a person or do you require they consummate the relationship to show their willingness?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Not threatened by gays......I know it will be used to attack churches the same way it is now used to attack bakers, photographers and wedding planners.......

so make your stand as "they have a right to marry or whatever, they don't have a right to force others to work for them , take part in their weddings or otherwise be nice to them" rather than "marriage is for a man and a woman only"

In the Catholic church it is.....and they should be allowed that belief. I believe in civil unions for all, religious ceremonies for the religious.......

Government marriage licenses are NOT religious. That's just a fact.

Marriage is designed by God. God made Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. That is the only fact you need to know. If it had not been that way, we would not be having this discussion right now. Because there wouldn't have been pro-creation. Two men cannot have a child. Two women cannot have a child. The human race would die out.