Conservatives and War

Dixie said:
....And I am a taxpayer, my tax money paid for the streets... why can't I pee and spit in them whenever and wherever I want to? Why must YOU tell ME how to live my life? How is my peeing in the street effecting your personal life?

Boy it sure sounds like a "double-standard" to me! You want to confine ME to all these rules governing how I live MY life, yet they don't really effect YOU!
Click to expand...
Your stupidity is fucking up my rights to read a post on this board. There should be a law against it.
 
Socrtease said:
States are not supposed to legislate or govern from religious beliefs. That was what our founders fled, a government that felt their concept of god was correct and others were wrong.
Click to expand...
States, like the Feds, are supposed to govern based on Christian principles which includes tolerance.
 
Southern Man said:
States, like the Feds, are supposed to govern based on Christian principles which includes tolerance.
Click to expand...
For someone that thinks the constitution should be followed to the letter, you are really talking out your ass. Where in the Constitution does it mention christianity even once?
 
Dixie said:
Marriage is currently the union of a man and woman! I didn't say a damn thing about it being about sex! You and your pinhead butt buddies want to CHANGE the fucking definition, to INCLUDE a sexual lifestyle! Homosexuality, to be specific………..

The ONLY thing I am opposed to, is codifying in law, the parameters which define traditional marriage, to include a sexual lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Are you standing on your head? It is you who wants to specify a sexual lifestyle. It is you who insists it be between a man and a woman.

Marriage already has sexual parameters. Do the words "forsaking all others" ring a bell? To what do you think "forsaking all others" refers? When you get married you can't play pool anymore with your buddies? Playing a round of golf with your friend is forbidden? You can't have Thanksgiving dinner with your family?

"Forsaking all others" refers to SEX! :eek: After the marriage ceremony the couple consummate the marriage. Consummate = SEX!

Yes, Virginia. Marriage is all about sex.......Well, as I noted earlier, it is in the beginning but we won't go there. :(

Do you even KNOW what the fuck you're talking about anymore, idiot?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should be asking yourself that exact question.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Dixie said:
Do you even KNOW what the fuck you're talking about anymore, idiot?

Marriage is currently the union of a man and woman! I didn't say a damn thing about it being about sex! You and your pinhead butt buddies want to CHANGE the fucking definition, to INCLUDE a sexual lifestyle! Homosexuality, to be specific... look it up on Google, you doofuss!

Now, I haven't advocated, and would not ever support, a ban or outlawing of homosexual activity. It is your business and "freedom" I suppose, to do whatever you want to do in the privacy of your bedroom, as long as it doesn't involve minor children or adults who didn't consent. If two homosexuals want to live with each other, I have not said a damn thing against that, and I wouldn't advocate banning such a thing, again... it's your freedom to do as you please. Even if two homosexuals want to dress up and have a ceremony with cake and rice, etc.... I don't care! They can even go buy a wedding album and rings... fine with me!

The ONLY thing I am opposed to, is codifying in law, the parameters which define traditional marriage, to include a sexual lifestyle. Is that clear to your stupid ass? Stop trying to turn this into something it's not! Stop trying to paint ME as some kind of intolerant bigot who hates gays! Nothing I have ever said or advocated, is even remotely close to that, and to continue to paint that picture, is factually dishonest.

All the way down the line in this debate, you've lied, distorted, mislead, and continue to infer things that aren't so. Whenever challenged or corrected, you slither away or run around in circles, trying to lie and distort something else! You're a fucking piece of liberal garbage who doesn't really give a shit about what other people think or want, you will lie and manipulate, and do whatever you have to, in order to get your way and have what YOU want forced on the rest of us against our will, and you have the unmitigated nerve to wave the banner of "Freedom" and pretend that's what you're about! You don't give two shits about freedom, you're a fascist totalitarian nitwit who supports judicial tyranny to get your way.
Click to expand...
 
Socrtease said:
For someone that thinks the constitution should be followed to the letter, you are really talking out your ass. Where in the Constitution does it mention christianity even once?
Click to expand...
I never said it did, just that it is based on Christian principles. *shrug*
 
apple0154 said:
Are you standing on your head? It is you who wants to specify a sexual lifestyle. It is you who insists it be between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

I don't "insist" marriage is bettween a man and woman any more than I "insist" that water is wet, marriage IS what it IS! I din't insist on it being what it is, that's what it has always been. It is in fact, YOU who inists on changing what it has traditionally meant.

Marriage already has sexual parameters. Do the words "forsaking all others" ring a bell? To what do you think "forsaking all others" refers? When you get married you can't play pool anymore with your buddies? Playing a round of golf with your friend is forbidden? You can't have Thanksgiving dinner with your family?
Click to expand...

Oh, I know marriage has sexual significance, after all, it was originally conceived by Martin Luther, as a means for males and females to procreate and raise families. (I'm sure some pinhead will parse that statement, but basically, that is what marriage is for.) It is, by definition and function, a union which can't be between anything other than a man and woman, lest it stop being 'marriage' and become something else. It is you who seeks to redefine marriage, and base it on sexual lifestyle preference, instead of being the union of a man and woman. It's currently not about sexual lifestyle preference, it is about union of man and woman for purpose of procreation and family. Does it involve sex? SURE!... never claimed it didn't! That's just not the basis or fundamental function and purpose of marriage, it is the UNION of MAN and WOMAN, in order for them to PROCREATE (which involves sex), in order to produce a FAMILY.

This is all irrelevant, because what marriage is NOT, is something involving same sex partners. As I pointed out earlier, you wouldn't advocate changing the definition of "mentoring" to include adults "teaching" young boys and girls how to have sex, would you? Well? Answer the damn question!
 
Dixie said:
I don't "insist" marriage is bettween a man and woman any more than I "insist" that water is wet, marriage IS what it IS! I din't insist on it being what it is, that's what it has always been. It is in fact, YOU who inists on changing what it has traditionally meant.



Oh, I know marriage has sexual significance, after all, it was originally conceived by Martin Luther, as a means for males and females to procreate and raise families. (I'm sure some pinhead will parse that statement, but basically, that is what marriage is for.) It is, by definition and function, a union which can't be between anything other than a man and woman, lest it stop being 'marriage' and become something else. It is you who seeks to redefine marriage, and base it on sexual lifestyle preference, instead of being the union of a man and woman. It's currently not about sexual lifestyle preference, it is about union of man and woman for purpose of procreation and family. Does it involve sex? SURE!... never claimed it didn't! That's just not the basis or fundamental function and purpose of marriage, it is the UNION of MAN and WOMAN, in order for them to PROCREATE (which involves sex), in order to produce a FAMILY.

This is all irrelevant, because what marriage is NOT, is something involving same sex partners. As I pointed out earlier, you wouldn't advocate changing the definition of "mentoring" to include adults "teaching" young boys and girls how to have sex, would you? Well? Answer the damn question!
Click to expand...

OK. Let's try and unscramble your thoughts.

Let's think about how the world operated at the time of M. Luther. Marriage was intended as a way to have a family. It was two people producing and taking care of children. Children often died in infancy so a support unit was necessary. Also, marriage was a way of limiting ones sexual partners and, thus, disease.

Fast forward a few centuries and now we have a considerable number of children in the world. In fact, hundreds are dying every day due to illness and malnutrition which means the problem is not procreation but a lack of a support system.

When gays marry they can provide a support system for children who, otherwise, would not have one. Also, married gays tend to be monogamous.

You wrote, "Does it involve sex? SURE!... never claimed it didn't! That's just not the basis or fundamental function and purpose of marriage..."

I agree completely! Sex isn't the basis or fundamental purpose so it begs the question, "What difference does it make if a man and a woman are married and having sex or if two men or two women are married and having sex?"

Well, the logical answer is it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? It doesn't matter because sex isn't the basis or fundamental purpose of marriage just as you correctly stated.
 
apple0154 said:
OK. Let's try and unscramble your thoughts.

Let's think about how the world operated at the time of M. Luther. Marriage was intended as a way to have a family. It was two people producing and taking care of children. Children often died in infancy so a support unit was necessary. Also, marriage was a way of limiting ones sexual partners and, thus, disease.

Fast forward a few centuries and now we have a considerable number of children in the world. In fact, hundreds are dying every day due to illness and malnutrition which means the problem is not procreation but a lack of a support system.

When gays marry they can provide a support system for children who, otherwise, would not have one. Also, married gays tend to be monogamous.

You wrote, "Does it involve sex? SURE!... never claimed it didn't! That's just not the basis or fundamental function and purpose of marriage..."

I agree completely! Sex isn't the basis or fundamental purpose so it begs the question, "What difference does it make if a man and a woman are married and having sex or if two men or two women are married and having sex?"

Well, the logical answer is it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? It doesn't matter because sex isn't the basis or fundamental purpose of marriage just as you correctly stated.
Click to expand...

Currently sex is not the fundamental basis, it's only when you redefine marriage to include homosexuals, that it becomes defined based on a sexual lifestyle choice, and not what it traditionally means.

You also failed to answer my question.
 
You know more and more evidence surfaces that dixie is one of those religious right conservatives.

You know? the Ted Haggard types.
 
Dixie said:
Currently sex is not the fundamental basis, it's only when you redefine marriage to include homosexuals, that it becomes defined based on a sexual lifestyle choice, and not what it traditionally means.
Click to expand...

Including homosexuals should not make any difference if we're not defining marriage based on sex. As you stated sex is not the fundamental basis for marriage so why are we discussing a person's sexual preference?

I'm afraid you're not making any sense, Dixie. You say sex isn't the fundamental basis for marriage yet you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on their sexual preference.

You also failed to answer my question.
Click to expand...

Your question doesn't make sense. Other posters have commented on the irrelevance or outright stupidity of comparing sex with underage children to marriage.

From your objection to homosexuals marrying to adults teaching children about sex it appears you have a sexual fixation. I may be wrong but your continued going on about it is not making a good impression.
 
apple0154 said:
Including homosexuals should not make any difference if we're not defining marriage based on sex. As you stated sex is not the fundamental basis for marriage so why are we discussing a person's sexual preference?

I'm afraid you're not making any sense, Dixie. You say sex isn't the fundamental basis for marriage yet you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on their sexual preference.





Your question doesn't make sense. Other posters have commented on the irrelevance or outright stupidity of comparing sex with underage children to marriage.

From your objection to homosexuals marrying to adults teaching children about sex it appears you have a sexual fixation. I may be wrong but your continued going on about it is not making a good impression.
Click to expand...

That's what he believes and he has the right to his own opinion. Logic tells me that nature built men for women and built women for men. That cannot be denied.
 
apple0154 said:
Including homosexuals should not make any difference if we're not defining marriage based on sex. As you stated sex is not the fundamental basis for marriage so why are we discussing a person's sexual preference?

I'm afraid you're not making any sense, Dixie. You say sex isn't the fundamental basis for marriage yet you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on their sexual preference.



Your question doesn't make sense. Other posters have commented on the irrelevance or outright stupidity of comparing sex with underage children to marriage.

From your objection to homosexuals marrying to adults teaching children about sex it appears you have a sexual fixation. I may be wrong but your continued going on about it is not making a good impression.
Click to expand...
You know they made the same exact arguments opposing interracial marriages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top