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.
The difference is that others are not just staying away from homosexuals, or having their opinions of homosexuals. They are actively denying equal rights to homosexuals.
If your friends from work, who you don't agree with had to live their lives by your rules, just because YOU think that is the way they should live, or if you voted for and passed laws that made eating pizza and drinking beer against the law, they would push back.
You can have any opinion you want, but when you use that opinion to deny others the same rights you enjoy that is wrong.
So there is no bigot accusation for my particular dislike mentioned, in the idea of associating in a good friend thing with gay guy's, just want to get things established here.
This is all about the privilege's which come alongside traditional marriage and has nothing to do with a supposed attack and quest to annihilate freedom of character , is this true as well ?
All that is left is a group ( gay movement) that would like to adjust laws and privileges with respects to the marriage contract.
But unfortunately that is not how the movement presents itself is it ? It goes about attempting to force with name calling, smearing, disgruntled character accusations and once itemized and presented, says oh no, the movement is all about issues concerning the poor lovely children and other mean outcomes. ( I agree on outcome complaint.
The thrust of the issue and others are culture orientated issues which have to do with how the culture defines itself, what is tradition, what is celebrated as tradition and why? What is the purpose and working contribution of a specific traditional recognition, all arriving and allowing a society to understand and define itself, goals . Long and short term goals individually contributing to progress.
The expectation of the sure and seen aggressive thrust in this issue and others to be met with silence makes no sense. And is a fundamental premise in the argument. So three things we may be able to establish :
a) there is no such thing as a bigot in this area of comprehensions.
b) this movement and other's similar re moral fabric are attempting to radically change the cultural understandings of a prosperous country built on the family unit, the backbone of the society and use accusatory means as a trick.
c) the expectation of silent reaction to these changes makes no sense in view of what tradition and culture represent toward progress. Iow all it is about is individual preference's and not culture. There would be no interest in refusing to continue recognition of the traditional family model. My only real input on this is simple, one is not the other and man has language, the hetro world would be better off right from the beginning of all this anti-unity to just get another word, simple as that.
Last edited by alexcanter; 01-10-2014 at 06:26 PM..
So there is no bigot accusation for my particular dislike mentioned, in the idea of associating in a good friend thing with gay guy's, just want to get things established here.
This is all about the rights that come alongside traditional marriage and has nothing to do with a supposed attack and quest to annihilate freedom of character , is this true as well ?
All that is left is a group ( gay movement) that would like to adjust laws and privileges with respects to the marriage contract.
But unfortunately that is not how the movement presents itself is it ? It goes about attempting to force with name calling, smearing, disgruntled character accusations and once itemized and presented, says oh no, the movement is all about issues concerning the poor lovely children and other mean outcomes. I agree on that.
The thrust of the issue and others are culture orientated issues which have to do with how, the culture defines itself, what is tradition, what is celebrated as tradition and why? What is the purpose and working contribution of a specific traditional recognition, these all come to allow a society to understand and define itself, goals . Long and short term goals individually contributing to progress.
The expectation of the sure and seen aggressive thrust in this issue and others to be met with silence makes no sense. And is a fundamental premise in the argument. So three things we may be able to establish :
a) there is no such thing as a bigot in this area of comprehensions.
b) this movement and other's similar re moral fabric are attempting to radically change the cultural understandings of a prosperous country built on the family unit, the backbone of the society and use accusatory means as a trick.
c) the expectation of silent reaction to these aggressive and radical changes makes no sense in view of what tradition and culture represent toward progress. Iow all it is about is these individual preference's and not culture.
I'm sorry but if you have fought for decades to be treated equally and have people calling you an abomination at every turn, you would get a little upset too. So maybe if you treat others the way you want to be treated YOU wouldn't get called names, or attacked. People will respond to you the way you treat them.
I don't get your tradition argument. Tradition is not a concern when it comes to the laws of this country.
Tradition has no legal standing.
1. Yes there are bigots. they would be the ones taking away the rights of other American citizens.
2. Nonsense. This movement is about being treated equally under the law as the 14th amendment promises.
3.Again, if you come out spouting lies, and calling names, I will respond with truth and back my position. You get in my face calling me or my family names, or threaten my rights as an American citizen, expect a fight. Give me equal protection of the laws, and stay out of my face, and I will do the same.
I'm sorry but if you have fought for decades to be treated equally and have people calling you an abomination at every turn, you would get a little upset too. So maybe if you treat others the way you want to be treated YOU wouldn't get called names, or attacked. People will respond to you the way you treat them.
I don't get your tradition argument. Tradition is not a concern when it comes to the laws of this country.
Tradition has no legal standing.
1. Yes there are bigots. they would be the ones taking away the rights of other American citizens.
2. Nonsense. This movement is about being treated equally under the law as the 14th amendment promises.
3.Again, if you come out spouting lies, and calling names, I will respond with truth and back my position. You get in my face calling me or my family names, or threaten my rights as an American citizen, expect a fight. Give me equal protection of the laws, and stay out of my face, and I will do the same.
like Ive mentioned before people everywhere have lives to live,
Will hold firm to last observation in my entry :
one is not the other and agreed by orientation scheme
man has language, the hetro world would be better off right from the beginning of all this anti-unity to just get another word, simple as that. That's why words exist.
like Ive mentioned before people everywhere have lives to live,
Will hold firm to last observation in my entry :
one is not the other and agreed by orientation scheme
man has language, the hetro world would be better off right from the beginning of all this anti-unity to just get another word, simple as that. That's why words exist.
Maybe you should re consider some of your own posts about homosexuals if you don't want to be anti-unity. You have said truly disgusting things about homosexuals.
As for getting another word, The only word that matters to the law is marriage, The only word that matters to the federal government is marriage. I could call my marriage a duck, and the government wouldn't recognize it unless I have a MARRIAGE license. Plus UNITY would be everyone sharing the word, and all of the benefits and protections of the law called marriage. UN-UNITY would be having two "separate but equal" unions for different people.
Quote:
Why are you encouraging and supporting something that causes so much disease and not only aids, also functionality problem's, why ? What are you leading people toward in a spirit forum anyway ? how is encouraging this thing good for mankind, exactly ? ( a non answer will be self explanatory.
Your hateful post full of lies from this thread #102, which you do not back up with any actual facts.
Quote:
if my family was walking down the street all 11 plus the youngsters, two prof parents , all very successful and two gay guy's were coming toward doing something obviously making a statement about it, the whole family would not say a word and collectively start heading across the street. I can see my father blocking my mother's visual in posture .
It's not part of our upbringing or life or environment in any way and do not care to be around the idea.
It would be a negative for the grandchildren from the adult world, among other stemming negatives.
Adults are adults and always have an impression on youngster's. Very simple to understand. Example and example in many ways is one of the most important things in a young healthy youngster's life.
How do I know there is no real mating connection between gay people ? that is not a workable question to take seriously and it's not my fault, I didn't create the world.
Your hateful showing how you treat others post #63
The lies you spread, and the actions you take are exactly what you will receive in return.
its a nice try because this is not the Politic's area of the forum but the idea's here and your not alone, want to mix and match politic's and religion... I thought division between state and religion was important, or is it only when it suites?
anyway example is important, the frame which outlines the family unit is more important then the gay unit. The gay unit cannot flourish the species, hey I didn't make up creation or how it works. Plus disease in this era is what it is, highly investigated, documented, researched, statistically categorized allowing a birds eye of what is going on, potencial threats etc...plus if you'd like to know the aids virus has just shown some healthy new advance. Science knows as a fact, the male gay-gay fuels the disease, and...many other healthy interference including other disease, even before HIV, disease. Anyway I gotta go out and chop wood. Mixing rel and politic's won't work, one or the other. And if its the big abhorrent complaint, its the religion issue, if yuh don't like the religion is no differen then if yuh don't like the cooking in a restr...or a employee situation, heres the suggestion box...plunk.
its a nice try because this is not the Politic's area of the forum but the idea's here and your not alone, want to mix and match politic's and religion... I thought division between state and religion was important, or is it only when it suites?
anyway example is important, the frame which outlines the family unit is more important then the gay unit. The gay unit cannot flourish the species, hey I didn't make up creation or how it works. Plus disease in this era is what it is, highly investigated, documented, researched, statistically categorized allowing a birds eye of what is going on, potencial threats etc...plus if you'd like to know the aids virus has just shown some healthy new advance. Science knows as a fact, the male gay-gay fuels the disease, and...many other healthy interference including other disease, even before HIV, disease. Anyway I gotta go out and chop wood. Mixing rel and politic's won't work, one or the other. And if its the big abhorrent complaint, its the religion issue, if yuh don't like the religion is no differen then if yuh don't like the cooking in a restr...or a employee situation, heres the suggestion box...plunk.
Cut and run like you always do when you can't answer for your own remarks.
But gays HAVE families. We are family units. If homosexual fuel AIDS why are more heterosexuals infected world wide? Why do lesbians have the lowest 0 rates of any group? We are homosexuals too.
Cut and run... Have fun, but you have shown that you can't even back up your own assertions.
its a nice try because this is not the Politic's area of the forum but the idea's here and your not alone, want to mix and match politic's and religion... I thought division between state and religion was important, or is it only when it suites?
anyway example is important, the frame which outlines the family unit is more important then the gay unit. The gay unit cannot flourish the species, hey I didn't make up creation or how it works. Plus disease in this era is what it is, highly investigated, documented, researched, statistically categorized allowing a birds eye of what is going on, potencial threats etc...plus if you'd like to know the aids virus has just shown some healthy new advance. Science knows as a fact, the male gay-gay fuels the disease, and...many other healthy interference including other disease, even before HIV, disease. Anyway I gotta go out and chop wood. Mixing rel and politic's won't work, one or the other. And if its the big abhorrent complaint, its the religion issue, if yuh don't like the religion is no differen then if yuh don't like the cooking in a restr...or a employee situation, heres the suggestion box...plunk.
You know what correllates with a decreased rate in the spread of STDs? Monogamy.
You know what state correllates with monogamy? Marriage.
You pretend to care about STDs among gays, yet you want to deny to them the relationship-stabilizing influence of marriage.
And, as jjrose pointed out, when you say 'gay' you invariably mean 'gay men'. You mean 'gay men' because, like most homophobes, you're bizarrely fixated by sex between males. It threatens you in ways that sex between women simply does not. By your 'logic', all women should be in same-sex relationships because those result in the lowest STD transmission rate per all sex/orientation combinations. You're just not willing to apply the logic of your cobbled-together rationalizations. You're just grabbing this and that and hoping it sticks (ie, hoping no one points out how bereft of even the barest logic it is).
Keep pretending to care about this or that. It's all just a mask for your anti-gay animus, and everyone can see that.
It is not. I don't see anyone asserting that. I doubt there is a person in this discussion who thinks that either "change for the sake of change" OR "sameness for the sake of sameness" are good things. We change, or not, when there is a reason to change, or not.
At this point, the case has not been made that changing the definition of marriage to include 2 men or 2 women is something that is needed. Until that case is made, I don't think it's wise to do so.
If the people vote differently, let them do so.
Quote:
The general argument is that all consenting adults who wish to be married should be free to do so.
They already can.
Quote:
By extension, all consenting adults who do not wish to marry a person of the same gender, remain free to make the same choices they've always made. In fact, homosexuality will always be a minority orientation, so 90% or so of married couples will continue to be different genders. Existing marriages are not annulled. So ... nothing changes for you and anyone else who thinks homosexuality is wrong or suboptimal. The ONLY thing that changes is that same sex couples will no longer be marginalized or discriminated against. Since Christianity is, at least on paper, opposed to otherizing, marginalizing, hating, shaming, or discriminating against people for simply being different, this should not be a problem for you.
How it affects me is a complete non-sequitur. It's not even part of the argument. It's irrelevant. We do not make law based on how something will or will not affect the rest of society.
anyway example is important, the frame which outlines the family unit is more important then the gay unit.
So what? Even if that were true, it is not just grounds to ban gays from getting married. The silly thing, though, is that your statement isn't even true. Your comment stems from your own innate sense of superiority some people have which goes like this: "whatever I decide to do is superior to the different choices made by others - because I'm making that choice. I wouldn't make an inferior choice therefore ..."
The point that gets lost here is that the choice you made for yourself may be the superior choice - but only for yourself. This line of thinking displays a rather alarming lack of empathy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter
The gay unit cannot flourish the species, hey I didn't make up creation or how it works.
But you ARE making up the purpose for marriage, which you have no right to do. People get married for a lot of reasons; "flourishing the species" is just one among many. Are you going to force married couples to have a child within a certain time frame or revoke their marriage licenses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter
Plus disease in this era is what it is, highly investigated, documented, researched, statistically categorized allowing a birds eye of what is going on, potencial threats etc
Again, so what? Have you looked at a list of everything that might cause cancer? Should we ban all of those things, too? You can't apply that rationalization ONLY to gay marriage, but if we applied that logic to other diseases, we would be forced to eat tree bark and live in caves to avoid cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter
plus if you'd like to know the aids virus has just shown some healthy new advance. Science knows as a fact, the male gay-gay fuels the disease, and...many other healthy interference including other disease, even before HIV, disease.
Allow me to use my Universal Galactic Translator on the above comment. Ah yes, here comes the translation now.
"I am insecure in my own masculinity and seeing gay men together is like a punch to the stomach because it makes me wonder just how manly I am. If it can happen to them, could it happen to me? Therefore, in order to avoid feeling emasculated, it is best to ban gay marriage altogether so I don't have to see gay men holding hands or kissing each other. This is why men like me who express their anti-gay opinions always focus on male gays, and even then, always focus on gay sex. But girl-on-girl lesbianism is okay, I guess. That doesn't pose a threat to my masculinity the way male-on-male sex does. Sometimes watching two lesbians is even kinda arousing. Now that I've talked about men loving each other, my masculinity meter is showing a major deficit, so I'm going to run off and do something manly - like, say, chop wood."
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter
Anyway I gotta go out and chop wood.
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter
Mixing rel and politic's won't work, one or the other. And if its the big abhorrent complaint, its the religion issue, if yuh don't like the religion is no differen then if yuh don't like the cooking in a restr...or a employee situation, heres the suggestion box...plunk.
This must be one of those "do as I say, not as I do" moments because I'm pretty certain that over 32 states have banned gay marriage - which means they've been mixing politics and religion to quite an astounding degree.
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.
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.
