A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - Promoting American Values

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Southern Man said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

1. Using the bible to shape laws designed to force christian morality on nonchristians is exactly what the US Constitution forbids.

2. Again, read the link I posted and be proven wrong. You are claiming that homosexuality does not exist in nature, and then claim you never said anything about queer acts. WTF? Since the species listed in the article I linked are not specifically monogamous, you have been proven wrong on both counts. You define homosexuality by sexual acts, and then wantto claim its not just about the sexual acts?

3. You have not addressed the issue. You have made ridiculous claims about homosexuality and ignored the truth that married straights and singles of both sexual orientations engage in sodomy. Your claim that the insult means anything is just your way of dodging the debate.
 
vulgar
4 a : lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : coarse b : morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : gross c : ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : pretentious
5 a : offensive in language : earthy b : lewdly or profanely indecent
Click to expand...

m-w.com
 
Yurt said:
so freedom of speech has no place in democracies or republics like ours....why do you hate the constitution? why do you hate freedom? is it because you know your ideas won't stand chance in the market place of free ideas.
Click to expand...

You are not reading what I'm saying. I said and meant there are some issues that are not democratic issues; IE they should not be put up for a vote. They are too sacred for a mere majority to tear down.

Yurt said:
no, you said that CA needs to have its statute overturned, prop 8 amended the CA constitution, so its not a statute that needs overturning....do keep up

i have no doubt if this issue is presented before scotus that scotus will rule in favor of gay marriage, unless the government gets out of marriage first
Click to expand...

You really think so? I think it'll be 5-4 one way or the other. Depends on Kennedy.
 
Socrtease said:
Don't be obtuse, that is not what he is saying at all. He saying what some of our founders said in The Federalist Papers, individual liberties should not be left to the whims of majoritarianism. We don't let majorities decide what speech will be protected, or what Religious beliefs will enjoy freedom. Those things are created to protect the minority and should never be subject to a vote. If we did, then Satanists and Nazi's would not enjoy the same freedoms in this country that they do now because the majority would vote to remove them from the protections. That is all Water was saying.
Click to expand...

"Democracy" has become so conflated with individual rights that when you use the word simply to mean "rule by the people", and critiscize the concept, they think you're attacking individual rights. Actually the protections for individual rights in the constitution could be considered un-democratic, if you're just using "democracy" in the simple sense.
 
Yurt said:
i think the argument re: it occurs in nature is weak

i've seen countless dogs start humping people's legs, stuff toys, the cat....does that mean its natural for us to start humping people's legs, stuffed animals and the cat?
Click to expand...

Well actually the humping that dogs do isn't of a sexual nature. It's to show dominance. Sort of like prison rape.

If an animal does something, in my opinion, it's "natural". Natural means something that happens in the natural world, not what necessarily normally happens. And, honestly, it really doesn't even matter if it is natural or not.
 
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...

You are talking to a Christian. His interpretation that the bible is innerrant is not based on experience or evidence. It's pointless to argue him based on mere facts.
 
Atheistmark said:
"“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”"

Women who wear pants are an abomination to the Lord.
Reply With Quote.
Click to expand...

Fanatical fundimentalist jesus freak.
 
Atheistmark said:
Well actually the humping that dogs do isn't of a sexual nature. It's to show dominance. Sort of like prison rape.

If an animal does something, in my opinion, it's "natural". Natural means something that happens in the natural world, not what necessarily normally happens. And, honestly, it really doesn't even matter if it is natural or not.
Click to expand...

uh....actually

humping and mounting are BOTH sexual and dominance behavior...sexual when hormones and dominant when not...

just because animals do something means its natural for humans? that was the argument SF made...which i think is weak. people point to homosexual behavior in animals, "nature" and proclaim it is normal/natural....then maybe we should eat our young as well....
 
Atheistmark said:
You are not reading what I'm saying. I said and meant there are some issues that are not democratic issues; IE they should not be put up for a vote. They are too sacred for a mere majority to tear down.



You really think so? I think it'll be 5-4 one way or the other. Depends on Kennedy.
Click to expand...

i do. if you read the CA case that spurred the prop 8 amendment, i think you would see that, legally, there is not much, if any, ground on which to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/43/757.html

i would be curious to get your opinion if you get the chance to read it...you're probably not home sick like me (boring as hell btw), so i don't expect you to wade through it anytime soon
 
Yurt said:
uh....actually

humping and mounting are BOTH sexual and dominance behavior...sexual when hormones and dominant when not...

just because animals do something means its natural for humans? that was the argument SF made...which i think is weak. people point to homosexual behavior in animals, "nature" and proclaim it is normal/natural....then maybe we should eat our young as well....
Click to expand...

I don't think homosexual behavior is normal for humans, but I would really say that any behavior is "natural", unless it has been directly engineered by human rationality. Rape is natural. Murder is natural. But that's not a problem. Natural /= good.
 
Atheistmark said:
I don't think homosexual behavior is normal for humans, but I would really say that any behavior is "natural", unless it has been directly engineered by human rationality. Rape is natural. Murder is natural. But that's not a problem. Natural /= good.
Click to expand...

i understand....my point is simply that it is a weak argument to justify homosexual behavior by pointing out that animals engage in the same behavior....
 
Yurt said:
i understand....my point is simply that it is a weak argument to justify homosexual behavior by pointing out that animals engage in the same behavior....
Click to expand...

Yes, well it's a response to claims that homosexuality is unnatural. My preferred response is... I don't care if it is or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top