|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5797 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Don't you think your arguments should amount to a bit more than:
. but I don't agree . this far along in the (2nd) thread? I think you should be taken out and shot. You think you shouldn't be taken out and shot. Is it really the "value of opinion" you want to be arguing about and not the "taken out and shot" bit? Hint ” for the hundredth time: John and Mary can have their opinion all day long; it's their codifying it into a law that represses the self-determination of millions of Americans that's the problem. If you disagree with this bit of "f***ing redundant stuff" could you please say why? Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
It's a great big ugly tumor on my brain that makes me such a bigot. And my Corn Belt past is to blame, too. I'll even admit to some personal responsibility. I'll show you all the contrition you want to see. But none of that will change my opinion that "marriage" is a civil union between a man and a woman, and only that. It's very biological. It's very psychological. It's very natural. It's very productive. And it's pure hell. What more can I tell you. "Marriage," as I have evolved to understand the term, is a two-sex ordeal. I think you should be taken out and shot. You think you shouldn't be taken out and shot. Is it really the "value of opinion" you want to be arguing about and not the "taken out and shot" bit? Hint ” for the hundredth time: John and Mary can have their opinion all day long; it's their codifying it into a law that represses the self-determination of millions of Americans that's the problem. If you disagree with this bit of "f***ing redundant stuff" could you please say why? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot, why do you keep answering people in a smart-ass, wise-guy manner?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
And for the hundred and first time you are welcome to the opinion. I don't get it either. I can't get myself to understand why women would have any interest in men. This is one of the things that clues me that I'm thinking only about sexuality from my point of view. How unfair it would be to make laws based only on my point of view. Especially for you as I think you should be taken out and shot. Hid double post. Edited by lyx2no, : Damn submit button. Edited by lyx2no, : Damn some other thing that didn't behave as I'd expected. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, you don't know the difference? I know some differences, but I don't know the difference that you're referring too.
You choose sides by sticking up for the rights of your fellow Americans and not for a supposed consistency in the meaning of a word. "Marriage" is a word. Homosexuals are humans. Sacrifice the word to the humans. I'm weary of simply redefining a word that's in so many laws like the flip of a light-switch. I'm not totally opposed to redefining the word, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
And for the hundred and first time you are welcome to the opinion. I don't get it either. I can't get myself to understand why women would have any interest in men. This is one of the things that clues me that I'm thinking only about sexuality from my point of view. How unfair it would be to make laws based only on my point of view. Especially for you as I think you should be taken out and shot.
Sorry Taz. I think I might have stepped on your toes with that one. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You've nailed me on that one. I had forgotten the negative public attitude against interracial marriage in 1957, the year I graduated from high school. Thanks for the history lesson. Don't be an asshole, you said prove that people were against inter-racial marriage and I proved it. Concede that the Supreme Court ruling was against the popular consensus at the time, which was the point! This is why we don't let the majority rule in this country!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Vague fears of undefined concerns are hardly reason to repress the self-determination of millions of your fellow Americans.
Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5704 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Well don't forget the Native American Two-Spirits. They definitely had marriages that could be considered homosexual or transsexual in nature. So supposing the affrements were non-sexual, how about we issue marriage licenses to two men without regard of whether they're having sex or not. If they wish to have sex, then that'd just be gravy and the marriage license is silent on the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
I have a difficult time believing that you did, in fact, read anything I have posted to you. But maybe you did. However...did you actually understand any of them? My guess is "no".
Yeah, I read all your fucking redundant stuff, but I don't agree with either the stuff or your opinion of it. Hoot Mon writes: Do me a favor...read this next sentence very slowly and see if maybe you can understand the meaning of the words. So, I'm a bigot because I don't agree with you and your fucking stuff. You are NOT a bigot for disagreeing with me. Let me repeat, but I'll word it in a slightly different manner just in case the meaning of the previous sentence was too difficult for you to understand: Disagreeing with someone does not make either one of them a bigot. And one more try, on the outside chance that even the meaning of that sentence was beyond your grasp: Bigotry is not about a simple disagreement. Got now Hoot Mon? I don't consider you a bigot because you disagree with me. You are a bigot because you want to deny homosexuals the same rights that you have. You are intolerant towards their lifestyle. I do not for one second believe you when you tell us that you have nothing against homosexuals. You have been nothing but insulting in virtually every post you have written. And I'm not talking about being insulting towards me. I could not care less if you insult me. You have used derogatory terms about homosexuals repeatedly, and act as if no one is insulted by them. But again...that's not why I call you a bigot. You are a homophobic bigot because you want to deny homosexuals their Constitutional rights as granted by the 9th and 14 Amendments. And for the love of God, please stop with the "But they have the same rights I do" argument. You said that you had read my previous responses (to this rather weak argument on your part)...so you KNOW what I'm taking about when I talk of gay marriage. It's the rights that come with marriage. As Rrhain put it: marriage is about designating your next-of-kin. And we all know the ramifications of that...so stop with the "but I can't marry a man either" crappola and see if for the first time in over 700 posts you can respond with why you believe that homosexuals should not be allowed to have the same rights as heterosexuals? Remember, please refrain from responding with your tired ol' "but they do have the same rights" and instead address the concept of next-of-kin and why homosexuals should not be allowed to do this with marriage, like you and I can.
Hoot Mon writes: Completely untrue...but you would know this if you had read anything I have previously written about why I consider you a bigot. But maybe, with hope, you will read (and understand) the above stuff and finally understand why I consider you a bigot. You, FO, can't get past the mindset that anyone who disagrees with you is a fucking bigot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2920 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: Lighten up. It was rhetorical. Of course the anti-miscegenation laws weren't worded exactly that way but that was the effect until they were declared unconstitional in 1967. Of course the legislators that passed DOMA didn't admit it was for religious reasons, since they knew that would kill it Constitutionally. But pray tell, what was it based on then, if not religion? It is religious bias which makes folks want to ban same-sex marriage, is it not? If it isn't that, what is it? Or is it just a coincidence that the main proponents of DOMA are the Religious Right and their allies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Lighten up. It was rhetorical. Of course the anti-miscegenation laws weren't worded exactly that way but that was the effect until they were declared unconstitional in 1967. No, the effect was not that marriage was defined as being between the same race.
Of course the legislators that passed DOMA didn't admit it was for religious reasons, since they knew that would kill it Constitutionally. But pray tell, what was it based on then, if not religion? Umm... didn't you read the quote:
quote: It is religious bias which makes folks want to ban same-sex marriage, is it not? I can be but not neccessarily.
If it isn't that, what is it? You really can't think of any other reason?
Or is it just a coincidence that the main proponents of DOMA are the Religious Right and their allies? Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. Is he a part of the Religious Right or just one of their allies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2920 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Aside from bigotry and political expediency (see below re Bill Clinton), no I cannot think of any other reason. The fact that the lawmakers cited "what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years" doesn't prove they were not acting mostly at the behest of religious interests - which in fact they were. It only proves they knew how to cloak their religious motivations in high sounding language. They are after all politicians and are familiar with such techniques. Are you saying religious bigots such as James Dobson were not the main force behind the DOMA?
Bill Clinton signed it for political expediency. He wasn't one of the proponents of it. His WH did not push for the law. It would not have been proposed at all without the RR and their political lackeys in Congress. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4502 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist & the rest,
Catholic, I hope you'll pardon me if I used your thread to join the discussion? I hope to contribute my dime's worth of thinking on the subject. quote: IMHO, not everything legal is valid. For example, if all lawmakers and the president would pass a law prohibiting huricanes, that law would be legal but not valid. Simply because it violates natural law. The same thing with same sex marriage. That law although legal is invalid. It contradicts the law of nature. Phsiologically, the sex organs of male and female were made for each other. Too, these are designed for procreation. just my thought,Pat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
The same thing with same sex marriage. That law although legal is invalid. It contradicts the law of nature. Phsiologically, the sex organs of male and female were made for each other. Too, these are designed for procreation. Show me how they were designed. And even if there normal function is procreation, how does it contradict a law of nature, when there are very few if any scientific theories that can be construed as 100% fact. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024