Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Homosexuality

bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 2:39:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Non-aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle, or the non initiation of force, states that no arbitrary law or restriction, whether government mandated or socially crafted, shall be put on members of society and the common citizenry of any civil nation, if this "transgression" is victim-less.

Simply put, if you do not hurt others, the government and society does not have just cause to restrict you from action.

The whole idea of the non aggression principle is that human conduct is not barred, so long as it's not violent.

Homosexuality Debate

The right wing debate of homosexuality is often one that is inhibited by the 2nd most divisive, evil, and authoritative institution on Earth - religion. It's quite an ignorant statement to show that gays should be deprived of marriage equality for the sake of religion, as religion has also been the institution that has harbored acts far worse than desire for a partner of the same sex.

The Roman Catholic church supported nationalism and Anti-Semitism in the 1930s, as did the Muslims. Currently, great amounts of violence is created in the name of religion. Science and reason are trumped in the lust for faith and hope of some divine creator that you cannot even prove by a rational degree.

To simply state that homosexuality should be restricted is very ignorant indeed. All humans, regardless of origin or religion have equal rights, being the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. These rights are explicitly stated once the government recognizes them, and if they do not, you have just cause to fight for its recognition.

To come such a long way in human history for progress in the realms of reason and logic, and then toss this aside because of religious lust - is in my opinion, plain absurd. If no harm is done to you, then there isn't just cause to legislate it.

I personally find that the gov. should get out of marriage altogether, but on a principle basis, gays should have the right to engage in civil union, just as others do. If it's two consenting adults, it's legal.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 2:56:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
When I say 2nd most, I'm stating that gov. is the worst, and then religion.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:06:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Agree with most of this, but:
At 1/27/2016 2:39:24 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I personally find that the gov. should get out of marriage altogether, but on a principle basis, gays should have the right to engage in civil union, just as others do. If it's two consenting adults, it's legal.
Are you saying it shouldn't be the job of the Federal government and that it should be a state issue, or that government shouldn't be included in it all (including the ability to perform wedding ceremonies and issue marriage licenses), because if that were the case, wouldn't it fall to religious institutions to do those very things?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:09:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 3:06:05 AM, Torton wrote:
Agree with most of this, but:
At 1/27/2016 2:39:24 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I personally find that the gov. should get out of marriage altogether, but on a principle basis, gays should have the right to engage in civil union, just as others do. If it's two consenting adults, it's legal.
Are you saying it shouldn't be the job of the Federal government and that it should be a state issue, or that government shouldn't be included in it all (including the ability to perform wedding ceremonies and issue marriage licenses), because if that were the case, wouldn't it fall to religious institutions to do those very things?

Religious institutions can perform marriages, and non-religious institutions can perform marriages. It should be regulated to at least a state level, rather than a federal one. I don't know all the minutia of it though.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 4:04:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 2:39:24 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Non-aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle, or the non initiation of force, states that no arbitrary law or restriction, whether government mandated or socially crafted, shall be put on members of society and the common citizenry of any civil nation, if this "transgression" is victim-less.

Simply put, if you do not hurt others, the government and society does not have just cause to restrict you from action.

The whole idea of the non aggression principle is that human conduct is not barred, so long as it's not violent.

Homosexuality Debate

The right wing debate of homosexuality is often one that is inhibited by the 2nd most divisive, evil, and authoritative institution on Earth - religion. It's quite an ignorant statement to show that gays should be deprived of marriage equality for the sake of religion, as religion has also been the institution that has harbored acts far worse than desire for a partner of the same sex.

The Roman Catholic church supported nationalism and Anti-Semitism in the 1930s, as did the Muslims. Currently, great amounts of violence is created in the name of religion. Science and reason are trumped in the lust for faith and hope of some divine creator that you cannot even prove by a rational degree.

To simply state that homosexuality should be restricted is very ignorant indeed. All humans, regardless of origin or religion have equal rights, being the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. These rights are explicitly stated once the government recognizes them, and if they do not, you have just cause to fight for its recognition.

To come such a long way in human history for progress in the realms of reason and logic, and then toss this aside because of religious lust - is in my opinion, plain absurd. If no harm is done to you, then there isn't just cause to legislate it.

I personally find that the gov. should get out of marriage altogether, but on a principle basis, gays should have the right to engage in civil union, just as others do. If it's two consenting adults, it's legal.

I find this to be an extremely ignorant post. You assume like most religion hating atheists that Roman Catholicism embodies all of Christianity, which simply isn't true. Have you not heard of Protestants...? If you want to find the real meaning of Christianity, read the gospels. I'll ask any person, where does Jesus Christ, the embodiment of God, tell the people of the world to be anti-Semitic? Where does he tell us not to love thy neighbor as them self? And there isn't anything wrong with nationalism, what do you think we should all be anti-America?

Back to the debate, If you think homosexuals should have the right to engage in civil union, which I agree with, they already do. It's called a domestic partnership and it's legally recognized. The debate revolving the issue of homosexuality is not a debate of how all Christians are evil and hate gays, which is possibly the most ignorant thing ever to say, it's a debate of what marriage is, and people who disagree with gay marriage say that marriage is between a man and a woman. There's absolutely no animosity between me and gay people, my uncle is gay and I fully respect his decision. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the purpose is to have children with the one you love and start a family.

This is only my opinion however, and since I believe in Democracy, I believe it should be up to the people of each individual state to decide.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 4:14:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 4:04:18 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 2:39:24 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Non-aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle, or the non initiation of force, states that no arbitrary law or restriction, whether government mandated or socially crafted, shall be put on members of society and the common citizenry of any civil nation, if this "transgression" is victim-less.

Simply put, if you do not hurt others, the government and society does not have just cause to restrict you from action.

The whole idea of the non aggression principle is that human conduct is not barred, so long as it's not violent.

Homosexuality Debate

The right wing debate of homosexuality is often one that is inhibited by the 2nd most divisive, evil, and authoritative institution on Earth - religion. It's quite an ignorant statement to show that gays should be deprived of marriage equality for the sake of religion, as religion has also been the institution that has harbored acts far worse than desire for a partner of the same sex.

The Roman Catholic church supported nationalism and Anti-Semitism in the 1930s, as did the Muslims. Currently, great amounts of violence is created in the name of religion. Science and reason are trumped in the lust for faith and hope of some divine creator that you cannot even prove by a rational degree.

To simply state that homosexuality should be restricted is very ignorant indeed. All humans, regardless of origin or religion have equal rights, being the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. These rights are explicitly stated once the government recognizes them, and if they do not, you have just cause to fight for its recognition.

To come such a long way in human history for progress in the realms of reason and logic, and then toss this aside because of religious lust - is in my opinion, plain absurd. If no harm is done to you, then there isn't just cause to legislate it.

I personally find that the gov. should get out of marriage altogether, but on a principle basis, gays should have the right to engage in civil union, just as others do. If it's two consenting adults, it's legal.

I find this to be an extremely ignorant post. You assume like most religion hating atheists that Roman Catholicism embodies all of Christianity, which simply isn't true. Have you not heard of Protestants...? If you want to find the real meaning of Christianity, read the gospels. I'll ask any person, where does Jesus Christ, the embodiment of God, tell the people of the world to be anti-Semitic? Where does he tell us not to love thy neighbor as them self? And there isn't anything wrong with nationalism, what do you think we should all be anti-America?

Back to the debate, If you think homosexuals should have the right to engage in civil union, which I agree with, they already do. It's called a domestic partnership and it's legally recognized. The debate revolving the issue of homosexuality is not a debate of how all Christians are evil and hate gays, which is possibly the most ignorant thing ever to say, it's a debate of what marriage is, and people who disagree with gay marriage say that marriage is between a man and a woman. There's absolutely no animosity between me and gay people, my uncle is gay and I fully respect his decision. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the purpose is to have children with the one you love and start a family.

This is only my opinion however, and since I believe in Democracy, I believe it should be up to the people of each individual state to decide.

I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is why I said civil union. I was Christian until about a couple of weeks ago when I became ever more infatuated with Ayn Rand, and I might go back to Christianity if I choose so.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 4:17:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 4:04:18 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
Back to the debate, If you think homosexuals should have the right to engage in civil union, which I agree with, they already do. It's called a domestic partnership and it's legally recognized.
I don't see the need for a distinction between civil unions and marriage, especially if as it's commonly claimed, to offer the exact same privileges as marriage, a distinction is completely unnecessary, and is only there in the first place to appease the religious.

The debate revolving the issue of homosexuality is not a debate of how all Christians are evil and hate gays, which is possibly the most ignorant thing ever to say, it's a debate of what marriage is, and people who disagree with gay marriage say that marriage is between a man and a woman. There's absolutely no animosity between me and gay people, my uncle is gay and I fully respect his decision. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the purpose is to have children with the one you love and start a family.
But that's the same thing they want. To be recognized as married with the person they love and have a family together (even if the means to do that is a little bit different).

This is only my opinion however, and since I believe in Democracy, I believe it should be up to the people of each individual state to decide.
So does he, as clarified in response to me.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 5:47:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Homosexuals already had equal rights with marriage.
The state of California issued a marriage license to Rock Hudson without a hassle.
There is nothing in the law about sexual orientation.
A gay man can marry a gay woman. As long as they are 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex, the state doesn't care if they are gay.
Oh, you don't want to marry a woman, you want to marry your boyfriend?
Straight people don't choose the type of person they marry. If we could, I would marry a teen-aged super-model..............I cant, she has to be someone consenting, this means I can marry a Mexican woman who needs to marry an American citizen to avoid getting deported, but I can't marry a hot chick.
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 12:35:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 2:39:24 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Non-aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle, or the non initiation of force, states that no arbitrary law or restriction, whether government mandated or socially crafted, shall be put on members of society and the common citizenry of any civil nation, if this "transgression" is victim-less.

Simply put, if you do not hurt others, the government and society does not have just cause to restrict you from action.

The whole idea of the non aggression principle is that human conduct is not barred, so long as it's not violent.

Homosexuality Debate

The right wing debate of homosexuality is often one that is inhibited by the 2nd most divisive, evil, and authoritative institution on Earth - religion. It's quite an ignorant statement to show that gays should be deprived of marriage equality for the sake of religion, as religion has also been the institution that has harbored acts far worse than desire for a partner of the same sex.

The Roman Catholic church supported nationalism and Anti-Semitism in the 1930s, as did the Muslims. Currently, great amounts of violence is created in the name of religion. Science and reason are trumped in the lust for faith and hope of some divine creator that you cannot even prove by a rational degree.

To simply state that homosexuality should be restricted is very ignorant indeed. All humans, regardless of origin or religion have equal rights, being the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. These rights are explicitly stated once the government recognizes them, and if they do not, you have just cause to fight for its recognition.

To come such a long way in human history for progress in the realms of reason and logic, and then toss this aside because of religious lust - is in my opinion, plain absurd. If no harm is done to you, then there isn't just cause to legislate it.

I personally find that the gov. should get out of marriage altogether, but on a principle basis, gays should have the right to engage in civil union, just as others do. If it's two consenting adults, it's legal.

What I hate the most is that when I disagree with the SSM decision, the first response I get is that I am homophobic or a bigot. This a ridiculous common leftist tactic, which while effective at stopping the conversation, is extremely bigoted.

It is simple SSM doesn't provide the same societal value as Tradition marriage. Does SSM have great individual value, no doubt. Tradition Marriage protects both the woman and any children, which pushes us in a better direction as a country. State recognition of this makes sense. "Are you one man and one women, great thanks for your service here is your certificate." We are basically baby factories for the state.

My main contention is that the SCOTUS just took a huge dump on Article 10, by making this decision. The gay community had a great opportunity to reduce government intervention and they fvcked it all up. Instead of pushing for more government they should have been fighting to get government out of marriage.

I say PRENUPs for everyone. This is not hard stuff.
Grizzly-Jones
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 9:13:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 2:39:24 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Non-aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle, or the non initiation of force, states that no arbitrary law or restriction, whether government mandated or socially crafted, shall be put on members of society and the common citizenry of any civil nation, if this "transgression" is victim-less.

Simply put, if you do not hurt others, the government and society does not have just cause to restrict you from action.

The whole idea of the non aggression principle is that human conduct is not barred, so long as it's not violent.

Homosexuality Debate

The right wing debate of homosexuality is often one that is inhibited by the 2nd most divisive, evil, and authoritative institution on Earth - religion. It's quite an ignorant statement to show that gays should be deprived of marriage equality for the sake of religion, as religion has also been the institution that has harbored acts far worse than desire for a partner of the same sex.

The Roman Catholic church supported nationalism and Anti-Semitism in the 1930s, as did the Muslims. Currently, great amounts of violence is created in the name of religion. Science and reason are trumped in the lust for faith and hope of some divine creator that you cannot even prove by a rational degree.

To simply state that homosexuality should be restricted is very ignorant indeed. All humans, regardless of origin or religion have equal rights, being the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. These rights are explicitly stated once the government recognizes them, and if they do not, you have just cause to fight for its recognition.

To come such a long way in human history for progress in the realms of reason and logic, and then toss this aside because of religious lust - is in my opinion, plain absurd. If no harm is done to you, then there isn't just cause to legislate it.

I personally find that the gov. should get out of marriage altogether, but on a principle basis, gays should have the right to engage in civil union, just as others do. If it's two consenting adults, it's legal.

Wow I agree.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 9:41:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 12:35:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/27/2016 2:39:24 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Non-aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle, or the non initiation of force, states that no arbitrary law or restriction, whether government mandated or socially crafted, shall be put on members of society and the common citizenry of any civil nation, if this "transgression" is victim-less.

Simply put, if you do not hurt others, the government and society does not have just cause to restrict you from action.

The whole idea of the non aggression principle is that human conduct is not barred, so long as it's not violent.

Homosexuality Debate

The right wing debate of homosexuality is often one that is inhibited by the 2nd most divisive, evil, and authoritative institution on Earth - religion. It's quite an ignorant statement to show that gays should be deprived of marriage equality for the sake of religion, as religion has also been the institution that has harbored acts far worse than desire for a partner of the same sex.

The Roman Catholic church supported nationalism and Anti-Semitism in the 1930s, as did the Muslims. Currently, great amounts of violence is created in the name of religion. Science and reason are trumped in the lust for faith and hope of some divine creator that you cannot even prove by a rational degree.

To simply state that homosexuality should be restricted is very ignorant indeed. All humans, regardless of origin or religion have equal rights, being the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. These rights are explicitly stated once the government recognizes them, and if they do not, you have just cause to fight for its recognition.

To come such a long way in human history for progress in the realms of reason and logic, and then toss this aside because of religious lust - is in my opinion, plain absurd. If no harm is done to you, then there isn't just cause to legislate it.

I personally find that the gov. should get out of marriage altogether, but on a principle basis, gays should have the right to engage in civil union, just as others do. If it's two consenting adults, it's legal.

What I hate the most is that when I disagree with the SSM decision, the first response I get is that I am homophobic or a bigot. This a ridiculous common leftist tactic, which while effective at stopping the conversation, is extremely bigoted.

It is simple SSM doesn't provide the same societal value as Tradition marriage. Does SSM have great individual value, no doubt. Tradition Marriage protects both the woman and any children, which pushes us in a better direction as a country. State recognition of this makes sense. "Are you one man and one women, great thanks for your service here is your certificate." We are basically baby factories for the state.

My main contention is that the SCOTUS just took a huge dump on Article 10, by making this decision. The gay community had a great opportunity to reduce government intervention and they fvcked it all up. Instead of pushing for more government they should have been fighting to get government out of marriage.

I say PRENUPs for everyone. This is not hard stuff.

I'm not talking about SCOTUS. I am extremely conservative in my personal views, but I believe that some personal views should not reflect your political views. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and in case of religion, to be a covenant with God. I do not believe that this is what the state should recognize.

SCOTUS dumped the 10th Amendment, and yes, the ruling should be reversed.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 10:26:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 9:41:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm not talking about SCOTUS. I am extremely conservative in my personal views, but I believe that some personal views should not reflect your political views. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and in case of religion, to be a covenant with God. I do not believe that this is what the state should recognize.
I was under the impression you were an atheist, but if that is your belief, so be it.
SCOTUS dumped the 10th Amendment, and yes, the ruling should be reversed.
How do you figure that? The first section of the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. As far as I'm aware, no one's arguing religious institutions should be forced to perform gay weddings (and if anyone does say that, they're obviously wrong), but States denying the right for gays to marry as a governmental action appears to be a pretty clearly evident violation of the constitution.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 10:38:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 10:26:11 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/27/2016 9:41:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm not talking about SCOTUS. I am extremely conservative in my personal views, but I believe that some personal views should not reflect your political views. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and in case of religion, to be a covenant with God. I do not believe that this is what the state should recognize.
I was under the impression you were an atheist, but if that is your belief, so be it.
SCOTUS dumped the 10th Amendment, and yes, the ruling should be reversed.
How do you figure that? The first section of the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. As far as I'm aware, no one's arguing religious institutions should be forced to perform gay weddings (and if anyone does say that, they're obviously wrong), but States denying the right for gays to marry as a governmental action appears to be a pretty clearly evident violation of the constitution.

I absolutely butchered that last sentence: "...appears to be a pretty clear violation of the constitution."
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 10:43:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 10:26:11 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/27/2016 9:41:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm not talking about SCOTUS. I am extremely conservative in my personal views, but I believe that some personal views should not reflect your political views. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and in case of religion, to be a covenant with God. I do not believe that this is what the state should recognize.
I was under the impression you were an atheist, but if that is your belief, so be it.
SCOTUS dumped the 10th Amendment, and yes, the ruling should be reversed.
How do you figure that? The first section of the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. As far as I'm aware, no one's arguing religious institutions should be forced to perform gay weddings (and if anyone does say that, they're obviously wrong), but States denying the right for gays to marry as a governmental action appears to be a pretty clearly evident violation of the constitution.

Because SCOTUS doesn't make laws, just decides whether it is Constitutional or not.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 11:07:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 10:43:21 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 10:26:11 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/27/2016 9:41:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm not talking about SCOTUS. I am extremely conservative in my personal views, but I believe that some personal views should not reflect your political views. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and in case of religion, to be a covenant with God. I do not believe that this is what the state should recognize.
I was under the impression you were an atheist, but if that is your belief, so be it.
SCOTUS dumped the 10th Amendment, and yes, the ruling should be reversed.
How do you figure that? The first section of the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. As far as I'm aware, no one's arguing religious institutions should be forced to perform gay weddings (and if anyone does say that, they're obviously wrong), but States denying the right for gays to marry as a governmental action appears to be a pretty clearly evident violation of the constitution.

Because SCOTUS doesn't make laws, just decides whether it is Constitutional or not.

Right, and no law was made. SCOTUS found that the ability for states to refuse marriage licenses (and recognition of marriages performed in other states) is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 12:59:33 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Cut the crap, equal protection under the law means Blacks get the same protection as whites.
Their idea is same sex couples should have the same rights as a real couple would.
Couples don't have rights people do.
If a couple is a married man and his 2nd fiance', although they are 2 people who have rights, and they would have the right to marry if he divorced wife #1, The right that the 2nd fiance' has is not the right to marry anyone she wants to.
,look if I want to marry my horse * so the veteranarian's bill will be paid by my health insurance, they won't let me re-define marriage.

*yes, of course she is a female horse what do you think I am, queer?
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 1:21:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 12:59:33 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Cut the crap, equal protection under the law means Blacks get the same protection as whites.
The clause is historically rooted in that, and acted as support to the Civil Rights Act, but that's not the only thing it does. It guarantees equal protections to all citizens of the U.S.
Their idea is same sex couples should have the same rights as a real couple would.
They should, yes, and by way of marriage.
Couples don't have rights people do.
If a couple is a married man and his 2nd fiance', although they are 2 people who have rights, and they would have the right to marry if he divorced wife #1, The right that the 2nd fiance' has is not the right to marry anyone she wants to.
Ha ha, what?
,look if I want to marry my horse * so the veteranarian's bill will be paid by my health insurance, they won't let me re-define marriage.
Are you seriously comparing a horse to a human, and that gay couples want marriage because all they want is some health benefits, and not because, you know, they love each other and want that to be recognized, the same as it is for heterosexual couples.
*yes, of course she is a female horse what do you think I am, queer?
Classy.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 5:11:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 4:04:18 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:

There's absolutely no animosity between me and gay people, my uncle is gay and I fully respect his decision. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the purpose is to have children with the one you love and start a family.

I'd probably use a different choice of words

This is only my opinion however, and since I believe in Democracy, I believe it should be up to the people of each individual state to decide.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 6:41:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The idea here is re-defining marriage. Why is it that only gay people can do this?
Look, A dual species couple has alot more in common with a real married couple than a gay couple. I should have a right to do this.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:17:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 6:41:45 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
The idea here is re-defining marriage. Why is it that only gay people can do this?
Why shouldn't they be able to? You want a long outdated definition of marriage to be the end all of it? Not to mention language isn't sacrosanct, but rather fluid and changes often enough as time passes. I think it's funny that people who are anti-gay marriage and defend their position with the "sanctity of [traditional] marriage" either don't understand that or just don't care about it, at all.
Look, A dual species couple has alot more in common with a real married couple than a gay couple.
Not really.
I should have a right to do this.
A right to make poor analogies? Of course you do, you can do it all day for all I care.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 1:30:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Y'know, when you gay people make a post in this debate, I can turn almost everything you say into a joke.
However since I referred to Supreme court judge Kagan as "that lesbian judge Obama hired" Somehow my posts keep disappearing.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 1:37:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 1:30:43 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Y'know, when you gay people make a post in this debate, I can turn almost everything you say into a joke.
However since I referred to Supreme court judge Kagan as "that lesbian judge Obama hired" Somehow my posts keep disappearing.

So I guess this means you don't have a response?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 1:40:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Homosexuality does harm others though. If you don't believe me try being the smallest white guy in your cell block
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 1:43:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 1:40:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Homosexuality does harm others though. If you don't believe me try being the smallest white guy in your cell block

Someone graduated the Get Hard school of comedy.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 1:46:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
"What I hate the most is that when I disagree with the SSM decision, the first response I get is that I am homophobic or a bigot. "

Some people who oppose SSM are bigots. Some people who are against it are not, However, if you are using the liberal's version of logic, you must be one also, and you are afraid of anyone who is a homo.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 2:00:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 1:30:43 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Y'know, when you gay people make a post in this debate, I can turn almost everything you say into a joke.
However since I referred to Supreme court judge Kagan as "that lesbian judge Obama hired" Somehow my posts keep disappearing.

I'm not gay, and I do not think anyone here is.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 3:42:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 2:32:29 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
If you are not gay, then why do you advocate that "marriage equality' bull**** ?

Probably for the same reason you advocate for the right of women to vote, or blacks to hold public office.

I hope.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...