A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - Promoting American Values

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Southern Man said:
1. That's not the founder's position.
2. As stated, and as linked, they do it to establish dominance over other critters. That's not a homosexual relationship.
3. You appear to have given up on your earlier position that sodomy is healthy. :)
Click to expand...

No....

1) It is the founders position to not have a national religion, which is why we have the seperation of church and state.

2) Again you can make up reasons all you wish... but you need to look up what it means to have or perform a homosexual act.

3) No... my point to you, though you obviously are not intelligent enough to grasp is that sex between a man and a woman can be every bit as unhealthy as anal if one person has a disease. A point you have not refuted.
 
Onceler said:
Ah, no. Not exactly.

The OT was written before Christ's time. Much of what he talks about contradicts a lot of the OT text.

The OT shouldn't even be under any umbrella that calls itself "Christianity." It has nothing to do with Christ.
Click to expand...

false

jesus continually talked about the OT, nothing he says contradicts the OT
 
Southern Man said:
Dude, the OT predicts the coming of the Christ. Jesus said nothing that contradicts the OT: zero zip nada.
Click to expand...
sermon on the mount, Christ says that if your enemy strikes you on the left cheek, offer up your right, in direct contradiction of "Eye for an eye".
 
Socrtease said:
If he JUST called you Dipshit you would win. He showed you why you were wrong, you continued to ignore facts and counter them with religious beliefs and THAT is what makes you a dipshit.
Click to expand...

It is a long established rule of honest debate that the first to utter an insult is the loser and anything else said by him is thus irrelevant. Thanks for playing. :)
 
Superfreak said:
No....

1) It is the founders position to not have a national religion, which is why we have the seperation of church and state.

2) Again you can make up reasons all you wish... but you need to look up what it means to have or perform a homosexual act.

3) No... my point to you, though you obviously are not intelligent enough to grasp is that sex between a man and a woman can be every bit as unhealthy as anal if one person has a disease. A point you have not refuted.
Click to expand...

1. Now you're changing your position.
2. Again, the issue here is homosexuality, not homosexual acts to establish dominance or attack a heterosexual mate.
3. Appeal to ridicule- you lose the argument. :yay:
 
Yurt said:
ok...then surely you support the "natural" behavior to boff one's cat, if the dog does it, its natural!
Click to expand...

Again... just because many species show naturally occurring instances of homosexual behavior does not mean we are going to share every characteristic of the other species.

That said.... there are humans that try having sex with other species as well. So your point is moot.
 
Socrtease said:
sermon on the mount, Christ says that if your enemy strikes you on the left cheek, offer up your right, in direct contradiction of "Eye for an eye".
Click to expand...
Let's review:

Matthew 38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Click to expand...

I see no conflict. You insult me and I should give you the opportunity to do it again, thereby firmly establishing yourself as an asshole before I return the favor.
 
Southern Man said:
1. Now you're changing your position.
2. Again, the issue here is homosexuality, not homosexual acts to establish dominance or attack a heterosexual mate.
3. Appeal to ridicule- you lose the argument. :yay:
Click to expand...

1) Tell me how my position changed... just saying it changed doesn't make it so. As I said, the founders created this country with the fundamental right of freedom of religion. There is NO national religion. Therefore the religious text of one religion is NOT EVER going to be the moral be all end all guideline for this country. No matter how much you personally believe in said text.

2) Given that you have stated within this very thread your opposition to hetero couples having oral or anal sex, it is very much one of the issues. Your pretending that the only reason other species display homosexual acts is for dominance is irrelevant and wrong. It is not always for dominance, but at least you admitted it is a homosexual act. Which means you acknowledge homosexual acts do naturally occur in other species. I applaud your growth.

3) I ridicule you because you continue to act like a coward and refuse to address the point. You said homosexual acts are unhealthy, yet when challenged to show how it is any more unhealthy than heterosexual acts... you run and hide, refusing to answer. That is a clear sign that you LOSE the argument.
 
For those with the 'if animals do it, its natural' argument, there's this:

image007.jpg
 
Jarod said:
IN public or in private?
Click to expand...

Jarod... quit being a fucking moron... most people do not want to see others performing blow jobs in public. Plus it is against the law.

I know you are a proven liar at this point, so I really do not expect any further honest debate from you.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Tell me how my position changed... just saying it changed doesn't make it so. As I said, the founders created this country with the fundamental right of freedom of religion. There is NO national religion. Therefore the religious text of one religion is NOT EVER going to be the moral be all end all guideline for this country. No matter how much you personally believe in said text.

2) Given that you have stated within this very thread your opposition to hetero couples having oral or anal sex, it is very much one of the issues. Your pretending that the only reason other species display homosexual acts is for dominance is irrelevant and wrong. It is not always for dominance, but at least you admitted it is a homosexual act. Which means you acknowledge homosexual acts do naturally occur in other species. I applaud your growth.

3) I ridicule you because you continue to act like a coward and refuse to address the point. You said homosexual acts are unhealthy, yet when challenged to show how it is any more unhealthy than heterosexual acts... you run and hide, refusing to answer. That is a clear sign that you LOSE the argument.
Click to expand...

1. First you said: “our founders created this country where no religion would dictate morality.”

Then you said: “It is the founders position to not have a national religion, which is why we have the separation [sic] of church and state.”

Aside from the latter being in error, it is not the same.

2. I have never held the position that queer things don’t happen in nature. You’ve misrepresented my position: classic straw man.

3. You’ve got it backwards: I refuse to further the debate since you’ve insulted me and therefore lost the debate. Yes it was an easy win for me but most are.
 
Southern Man said:
1. First you said: “our founders created this country where no religion would dictate morality.”

Then you said: “It is the founders position to not have a national religion, which is why we have the separation [sic] of church and state.”

Aside from the latter being in error, it is not the same.

2. I have never held the position that queer things don’t happen in nature. You’ve misrepresented my position: classic straw man.

3. You’ve got it backwards: I refuse to further the debate since you’ve insulted me and therefore lost the debate. Yes it was an easy win for me but most are.
Click to expand...

1) Those two do not contradict each other.

2) Yes, you did. You said it was 'unnatural'

3) wrong... you were insulted because you continue to act like a coward and answer the question. You can cling to your desperate 'I won' idiocy all you want. I understand it is your way of running away from the topic because you have nothing to back up your position.
 
Superfreak said:
Again... just because many species show naturally occurring instances of homosexual behavior does not mean we are going to share every characteristic of the other species.

That said.... there are humans that try having sex with other species as well. So your point is moot.
Click to expand...

no...my point is: just because it happens in nature doesn't make it natural or normal
 
WinterBorn said:
Gay people are being denied the +/- 1,400 benefits bestowed on straights when they get married.

You want to define marriage by who they fuck. Is that how you define your marriage? I didn't get married for sex, but because I love my wife. Your claim that gay marriage is defined by sex is bogus. It is about the monogamous relationship. No one is stopping them from being in love, but they are being denied benefits that the gov't gives to married straights.

There is no reason for gays to be denied the ability to marry. It has no effect on you or your marriage.

It has the same positive effects on society that straight marriages do.
Click to expand...

Gay people have not been denied ANY benefit! If you mean the benefits married couples get, then pass domestic partnership legislation to give them the same benefits!

I define marriage as the union of a man and woman, it doesn't matter what kind of sexual relations they have or what kind of sexual lifestyle they choose. It is YOU who is trying to redefine it, and make marriage mean something it simply doesn't mean. You must do this to make a coherent argument for your viewpoint, I get that... but what you don't get is, we can't alter and change what something is, to fit what we need it to be, so we can make our arguments work... that is intellectually dishonest.

I can't say that "Marriage" is a holy religious ceremony and only administerable by ordained ministers in churches! IF I could get away with defining that to be what marriage is, I could make a "legitimate argument" for why the state shouldn't be allowed to determine who to license for marriage! It should be solely a matter for the church and religious institutions, and the government should not have any involvement because of the 1st Amendment! So you see, when we can alter and change the definition of marriage to fit our arguments, it can go both ways. It's far better for us to acknowledge that marriage is the union of a man and woman, and it can't be anything else and still remain "marriage".

You know my position, you know what I proposed regarding comprehensive CU legislation, and removing the government from state sponsorship of ANY "marriage" license. I am not a radical right-wing intolerant who hates gay people and just wants to see them suffer! I understand there are many gay couples who would like to enjoy the benefits of traditional married couples, and I proposed a solution to that problem! It's not good enough for you! You are not willing to be reasonable or make a reasonable compromise in any way! You want to continue arguing from a false perspective, insisting marriage is something it is not, and literally supporting fascist judicial tyranny to enforce your view on the rest of society against their will!
 
Southern Man said:
2. I have never held the position that queer things don’t happen in nature. You’ve misrepresented my position: classic straw man.
Click to expand...

"It doesn't occur natural in other species. There's no peer reviewed evidence to suggest otherwise."
 
Superfreak said:
1) Those two do not contradict each other.

2) Yes, you did. You said it was 'unnatural'

3) wrong... you were insulted because you continue to act like a coward and answer the question. You can cling to your desperate 'I won' idiocy all you want. I understand it is your way of running away from the topic because you have nothing to back up your position.
Click to expand...

1. Yet they are still wrong...
2. Again, my argument is that homosexuality doe not existing in nature. I said nothing of queer acts.
3. Actually, I continued to address the issues until I was insulted. Again, you have it backwards. Thanks for playing. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top