U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Deep Dirty South
5,190 posts, read 5,081,372 times
Reputation: 3860

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355 View Post
There is no proof that people are born gay. Until you have factual 100% proofs than your claim is dismissed and your argument is ignored.
Again, although this isn't true at any rate, whenever someone brings up this disingenuous line of nonsense, I feel compelled to say: "Who freakin' cares?"

Makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether or not a person "chooses" to be gay. They should have the same rights and privileges and everyone else. It harms nobody and is nobody else's business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355 View Post
Ah the race card... The desperate attempt fallacy that says you don't even have an argument. It's so stupid to bring up as it has nothing to do with gay marriage...
*sigh*

Another one with a serious deficit in reading comprehension. I am not equating race with gender preference. I am pointing out the FACT that the same kind of ignorant bigots who opposed interracial marriage decades ago put forth the exact same "arguments" today with regards to same sex marriage.

The same baseless, wrong-headed, nonsensical arguments.

And today we rightly viewthose anti-interracial marriage proponents as backwards, regressive anachronisms. Which they were.

And in short time, the people using those baseless arguments against same sex marriage will be viewed the same way. As they well should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355 View Post
I see it like smoking, it's unhealthy and bad and something that society should discourage.
Why? What is your basis for making such claims?

Quote:
Just like we don't allow smokers to smoke wherever they want, we shouldn't allow gays to get married either.
Smoking kills, and second hand smoking is harmful as well. Homosexuality, on the other hand, harms nobody, impinges on nobody's rights and is nobody else's business. But I suppose it would be hard for a person who conflates homosexuality with incest, pedophilia and bestiality to comprehend that.

Quote:
They are welcomed to same benefits...
But in most of the country, they aren't welcome to the same benefits. Hence the problem.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:08 PM
 
3,414 posts, read 6,929,499 times
Reputation: 1467
Also, "consent" is a very new idea. You used to marry who you were told to marry. In some cultures it's still that way.

Nothing that applied to marriage, applies now. It's a new day. All bets are off.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Soldotna
2,256 posts, read 2,048,544 times
Reputation: 1076
You are asking the wrong question OP.

The question is not whether people should be able to marry whomever or whatever they wish.

They question is why is government, state or federal, involved in licensing something which is basically just a contract between private parties?

Who gave them that power and why do you and most others accept that?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Deep Dirty South
5,190 posts, read 5,081,372 times
Reputation: 3860
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
[/b]

Why the heck does anyone need to prove anything to you. Who made you superior. People are who they are. If you can't accept that then it's your problem
Seriously. I love how people rant about how gender preference in sexuality is a choice.

I have many gay friends and a couple of gay family members. Ask any one of them or anyone in their circles and they will all tell you that when they began to awaken sexually, they just happened to find they were attracted to members of the same sex. Of course, there are variables in this...some people are not 100% absolutely oriented one way or another.

This is anecdotal evidence, true, but it is substantial.

I wonder if the people so freaked out by homsexuality had to struggle with their sexual orientation. Most likely not. Most likely they discovered they had a natural attraction to people of the opposite sex. It's no different for homosexual people.

But once more--whether or not it is a choice is completely irrelevant.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:14 PM
 
3,414 posts, read 6,929,499 times
Reputation: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffis View Post
Again, although this isn't true at any rate, whenever someone brings up this disingenuous line of nonsense, I feel compelled to say: "Who freakin' cares?"

Makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether or not a person "chooses" to be gay. They should have the same rights and privileges and everyone else. It harms nobody and is nobody else's business.



*sigh*

Another one with a serious deficit in reading comprehension. I am not equating race with gender preference. I am pointing out the FACT that the same kind of ignorant bigots who opposed interracial marriage decades ago put forth the exact same "arguments" today with regards to same sex marriage.

The same baseless, wrong-headed, nonsensical arguments.

And today we rightly viewthose anti-interracial marriage proponents as backwards, regressive anachronisms. Which they were.

And in short time, the people using those baseless arguments against same sex marriage will be viewed the same way. As they well should.



Why? What is your basis for making such claims?



Smoking kills, and second hand smoking is harmful as well. Homosexuality, on the other hand, harms nobody, impinges on nobody's rights and is nobody else's business. But I suppose it would be hard for a person who conflates homosexuality with incest, pedophilia and bestiality to comprehend that.



But in most of the country, they aren't welcome to the same benefits. Hence the problem.
I wouldn't talk in such a prejudiced fashion about incest, pedophilia and bestiality. Who are you to talk about them the way straight people used to talk about you? What is it? Since you're aboard you want them to pull up the rope? Very closed-minded of you. Want for them what you want for yourself. They want their right to love, too.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:16 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 13,873,305 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post

You're right. There is not one. There are nine. NT = New Testament, OT = Old Testament.
Classic mindless regurgitation of cherry-picked verses out-of-context. Especially - out of context of the original languages and cultures:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NT) - English word 'homosexuals' is an incorrect translation of the Greek word 'arsenokoites' and was first introduced in 1947. The verse was previously used to condemn masturbators for centuries.

Leviticus 20:13 (OT) - Canaanite male temple prostitutes

1 Timothy 8-10 (NT) - Same word 'arsenokoites' that was mistranslated in 1 Cor 6.

Leviticus 18:22 (OT) -Canaanite male temple prostitutes

Romans 1:26-28 (NT)- 1st century Corinthians using ritual sex practices (both vaginal and anal) to worship fertility gods in pagan temples- no reference to homosexuals. (btw, the women were having anal sex with the men, not with each other- according to early church fathers like Clement and Augustine)

1 Corinthians 7:2 (NT) - Referring to heterosexuals. Paul didn't think much of marriage did he?

Jude 1:7 (NT) - no reference to homosexuals- uses the Greek word 'heterosarkos' and translates it as 'strange flesh'- referring to angels.

Mark 10:6-9 (NT) - Creation myth - context was divorce.

Genesis 19:1-29 (OT) -no reference to homosexuals. Male rape was commonly used to dominate and humiliate strangers and prisoners of war. Most males who rape other men are heterosexual.


So what else have you got to support your prejudice?

And what the heck does have to do with civil marriage in the 21st century anyway?

Last edited by Ceist; 08-31-2013 at 10:38 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:26 PM
 
29,797 posts, read 13,041,933 times
Reputation: 12211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffis View Post
Seriously. I love how people rant about how gender preference in sexuality is a choice.

I have many gay friends and a couple of gay family members. Ask any one of them or anyone in their circles and they will all tell you that when they began to awaken sexually, they just happened to find they were attracted to members of the same sex. Of course, there are variables in this...some people are not 100% absolutely oriented one way or another.

This is anecdotal evidence, true, but it is substantial.

I wonder if the people so freaked out by homsexuality had to struggle with their sexual orientation. Most likely not. Most likely they discovered they had a natural attraction to people of the opposite sex. It's no different for homosexual people.

But once more--whether or not it is a choice is completely irrelevant.
I have many gay friends too but their sexual orientation has never been a part of any conservation. I could care less who they love. They are my friends.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Deep Dirty South
5,190 posts, read 5,081,372 times
Reputation: 3860
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
I have many gay friends too but their sexual orientation has never been a part of any conservation. I could care less who they love. They are my friends.
Hear, hear!

Well spoken.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:36 PM
 
Location: I live wherever I am.
1,935 posts, read 4,548,944 times
Reputation: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
He couches his arguments in superstitious claptrap, then insists there's no "proof" that gays are born that way. Then he challenges the rest of us to match wits with him? Too funny.
I could match wits with him with my brain stored in a Tupperware container in the fridge.
You opened yourself up to more than a few Tupperware containers full of jokes with that one. I'm sure I'm not the only one who recognized that. Fortunately for you, I'm a nice guy and I won't tear you apart with any of them.

Superstitious claptrap? God's going to have a field day with that one on your day of judgment. I'm glad I won't be there to witness it. I'd have to try even harder to restrain the jokes if I were.

By the way, I didn't challenge the rest of you to match wits with me. I wouldn't want to embarrass y'all like that. I told one person who attacked my comprehensive ability that he would not want to match wits with me. I love how you change things around and manipulate words to suit your purposes. So typical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
I still want to know what this means.
I had my first crush, that I can recall, at age 2. And I had an endless stream of them since then. It didn't die upon getting married - it just stopped moving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonymouseX View Post
You are asking the wrong question OP.

The question is not whether people should be able to marry whomever or whatever they wish.

They question is why is government, state or federal, involved in licensing something which is basically just a contract between private parties?

Who gave them that power and why do you and most others accept that?
A very good question. I guess it can be said that I accept it because I have no choice. I don't like it, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage, but what choice do I have?

I know of no politician out there who is actively advocating for the removal of government from marriage. Surely some libertarians are doing so but they'll never be elected as long as the special interests and deep pockets keep supporting Republicans and Democrats. I could vote for such minor-party candidates until my fingers fall off and they still won't get elected. Even if they did get elected, they'd never amass any kind of Senate nor House majority in support of something so monumental as the removal of government from marriage - unless a whole bunch of like-minded people get elected. Won't happen, because, again, special interests with deep pockets... combined with an increasingly apathetic and ignorant voting populace.

Too many people believe that government is the only entity that should have authority to determine what is, and is not, a marriage - that it's extremely unlikely that any politician of any party who would advocate for removal of government from marriage would be "electable".

Essentially, I accept it begrudgingly because it's a consequence of our ever-strengthening tyrannical government. The government no longer fears the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NT) - English word 'homosexuals' is an incorrect translation of the Greek word 'arsenokoites' and was first used in 1947. The verse was previously used to condemn masturbators for centuries, not homosexuals.

Leviticus 20:13 (OT) - Canaanite male temple prostitutes

1 Timothy 8-10 (NT) - Same word 'arsenokoites' that was mistranslated in 1 Cor 6.

Leviticus 18:22 (OT) -Canaanite male temple prostitutes

Romans 1:26-28 (NT)- 1st century Corinthians using ritual sex practices (both vaginal and anal) to worship fertility gods in pagan temples- no reference to homosexuals. (btw, the women were having anal sex with the men, not with each other- according to early church fathers like Clement and Augustine)

1 Corinthians 7:2 (NT) - No reference to homosexuals

Jude 1:7 (NT) - no reference to homosexuals- uses the Greek word 'heterosarkos' and translates it as 'strange flesh'- referring to angels.

Mark 10:6-9 (NT) - no reference to homosexuals.

Genesis 19:1-29 (OT) -no reference to homosexuals. Male rape was commonly used to dominate and humiliate strangers and prisoners of war. Most males who rape other men are heterosexual.

So what else have you got?
Just because some of those verses give no reference to homosexuals doesn't mean that they do not give a very strong reference to what DOES constitute a valid marriage. If a man is to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and if woman was made for man, and etc, and etc, then obviously anything contrary is exactly that - contrary.

And as for your blathering on and on about what the Greek says and how they were talking about male temple prostitutes and whatever, again, I don't give a rip. Are you going to stand before Almighty God Himself and try to play that card when He asks you why you supported something that He deemed "perversion"? Frankly, I think you're putting up a bunch of smoke and mirrors. It's all the same story - people will interpret the Bible endlessly so that it says what they want it to say, such that it supports, or at least does not condemn, whatever they want to do. My ex-father-in-law used the Bible to support his smoking habit. It's not just sex outside of a heterosexual exclusive marriage that people will try to justify using the Bible. You wouldn't listen to me if I tried to explain things to you. The fact that you attempted rebuttal of those Bible verses makes that obvious.

But you will listen to God. And by then it'll be too late. Disbelieve that if you will, but in so doing you are gambling "all-in" with your eternity.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:43 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,130,140 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Dude, you have no idea who you're dealing with. You wouldn't want to match wits with me in a head-to-head test of reading comprehension.

I understand that nobody made any such claim directly. But they made that claim indirectly by bashing me for arguing that it should not be all about age. In so doing they were asserting a contrary position, that being that it IS all about age, and therefore there is reason to assume that they feel that there's a significant difference in the ability of a 15 year / 364 day old person to consent, and the ability of that same person to consent on his/her 16th birthday.



FINALLY we're getting somewhere. Okay.

So why set the age of consent at 16? Why vary it from state to state such that in some states it's 18? What's the deal - someone at age 16 is intellectually capable enough to consent if he/she lives in one state but merely by moving to another state his/her intellectual capability suddenly regresses by two years and now he/she won't be intellectually capable of consenting until age 18? What the heck?!

I agree that young people should not be exploited and that safeguards should be in place to prevent this. Hence why I suggest a psychological test or examination of some kind. Back in the day, in America, people would marry at age 14 or 15 and nobody thought twice about it. These days, people of that age and younger are acting like married couples (having sex, having children) even though they don't call it marriage. In other countries these days, people below the American age of consent get married all the time and it is not called abuse in their country nor is it called abuse in America. If it were, there'd be a heck of a lot more outrage about it than there is - I know of no such measurable outrage. I hear outrage about child labor, starving children, sick children, homeless children... nothing about people under age 16 who get married in other countries even if it's an arranged marriage.



You don't get it. I don't believe there is such a thing as a gay person. I believe that there are people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. I know that lots of people disagree with me, so don't y'all start with your hooting and hollering about how you think they're born gay. I know you feel that way, I disagree, you won't convince me to change my mind, so don't waste your keypresses. But if I had stated this for the record even 40 years ago, most people would have agreed with me. My, how times change. *sigh*



You're right. There is not one. There are nine. NT = New Testament, OT = Old Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NT)
Leviticus 20:13 (OT)
1 Timothy 8-10 (NT)
Leviticus 18:22 (OT)
Romans 1:26-28 (NT)
1 Corinthians 7:2 (NT)
Jude 1:7 (NT)
Mark 10:6-9 (NT)
Genesis 19:1-29 (OT)

Reject the Word of God at your own peril. Call it "hate", "fear", "ignorance", "bigotry", or whatever, as long as you're man enough (or woman enough) to accept the consequences of that when your judgment day comes. If you will accept whatever consequences would arise as a result of your speech, you have my full respect for your right to free speech even if I disagree with what you say.

And know that it's easy enough for me to see how someone who does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God would find no logical basis for rejecting gay marriage nor anything that is today called "gay rights". I reject it on moral grounds. I admit that any secular/scientific information I could find, to support why gay people should not be allowed to marry, would be weak at best. But for me, the Word of God is sufficient. It won't be sufficient to prevent gay marriage from eventually becoming legal in America as well as at the state level in most (if not all) states, but it is sufficient for me.



A widow/widower is a non-virgin (I hope). They're allowed to remarry.

Someone who got divorced is a non-virgin (again, I hope). Assuming the divorce came about as a result of one or both of the two permissible conditions in the Bible, and the person remarrying was not the perpetrator of those conditions, he/she is allowed to remarry with no punishment.

There's also the forgiveness of sins. If you ask Jesus to forgive your sins with true contrition in your heart, they are removed from you as far as the east is from the west (that line is from Psalm 103:12, in case you wondered). Jesus took our punishment already, as long as we look to Him for forgiveness. Hence - no stoning. (Plus, when was the last time any Christian anywhere stoned anyone to death?)



I never insulted anyone's relationships. You can't name me one person whose relationship I directly insulted. I stated disapproval of a certain type of relationship - that is not a direct attack on anyone. (Apparently you don't respect my right to free speech.) It is not an insult to any specific person to say that I disapprove of a course of action which that person happens to be taking. I don't approve of smoking - does that mean all smokers should feel insulted by me? I don't approve of extramarital sex - does that mean all people who have sex outside of marriage should feel insulted by me? Come on, grow a spine.



I agree. The point of my question was to bring that out, and I'm glad you admitted to it openly. Thus it is equally silly to state, whether directly or indirectly, that consent should be based upon age. To state that consent should be based upon the attaining of some exact number of years implies that the ability to give consent improves dramatically at that particular birthday - or, at least, that the more important thing is making life easy for lawmakers and their cronies, rather than protecting the vulnerable from exploitation. (And if it's that last one, we must agree that having a defined "age of consent" is, in actuality, stupid. Come to think of it, it's stupid in both cases.)

Consent should be based upon intellectual maturity and understanding of the far-reaching effects of exactly what is being consented to. I grant, the vast majority of people don't achieve that until they have aged to a certain point. But I say that even most people who have reached the age of consent in their home state really don't understand what it means to consent to, or enter into a covenant for, something such as marriage. Look at the divorce rate these days for people who get married as teenagers, even if they are over the age of consent. Apparently, being the government-sanctioned "age of consent" is not a good indicator of one's true ability to consent or enter into the covenant of marriage.



God makes it very clear, in His Word, that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is to be between one woman and one man only. See the nine passages I quoted above. Were you to see Almighty God today and be questioned by Him about why, as one who claims to be Christian, you think homosexuality is okay even though He said very clearly that it is not, what would you say to Him in response?



I said nothing of the kind, my misconstruing friend. Truthfully, I believe there is a special circle of hell reserved for those who abuse children and never come to true repentance therefrom.



Fortunately for you, you are way off base. At least you were willing to concede that possibility.



Ah, but I never said anything about child abuse or animal abuse. I didn't talk about abusing children - I talked about marrying them. Our current legal definition of a "child" is nebulous in that it varies from state to state but in many states it is "one who has not yet attained the age of 16 years". I say that a child is someone who lacks intellectual maturity characteristic of an average young adult. The Bible backs me up on this. Check out 1 Corinthians 13:11. A child is one who thinks, speaks, and reasons like a child. A man is one who has done away with childish things.

Here's another illustrative example. 36-year-old woman with intellectual capacity of an 8-year-old. Adult or child? Should such a woman enter into any kind of contract, or give any kind of consent?

I also never talked about abusing animals. I talked about marrying them. I never suggested bringing any kind of harm to animals, nor did I suggest bringing any kind of harm (mental or physical) to children. I don't believe that any 5-year-old, for example, regardless of intelligence quotient or life experiences, will be capable of consenting to anything or contracting for anything. As a teacher, I've been around a lot of different kids and I can tell you that I've never found one under age 13 who acted truly adult-like... and even at those young teen ages, examples of such ultra-mature people are few and far between. (It depends mostly on parenting.) So I say that those most susceptible to being exploited would be protected in the event of the "age of consent" being replaced by the "test of ability to consent" or whatever it'd be called. Such a test might allow people as young as 13 to (for instance) get married... and it might catch people even up to age 20 (or beyond!) who aren't yet ready. That's the beauty of it. It's a much better way to determine true ability to consent to something, and protect those who are not yet ready from being harmed or exploited, than is the setting of an arbitrary age boundary.

By the way, this notion of a "test of ability to consent" is used very frequently in today's America, though not in a legally binding sense. It's called premarital counseling. Many are the pastors who will not marry a couple if they feel that the couple doesn't know what they're getting into, or that they're so incompatible that severe problems are likely in the foreseeable future.
All baloney to support your religious agenda to defame gay people. I never chose to be gay, nor has anyone that I know of who are gays or lesbians made the choice. Answer this, did you choose to be straight? Do you think that straight people have a better grasp about what gay is then gay people? Honestly, you are just spouting off anything to support your agenda of hate and it is hate when one denegrates a group of people for no other reason than who they are. And Dude give up the age of consent bull, you are looking rather foolish pursuing this route.
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:35 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top