Conservatives and War

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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?

Don't know, you brought sexual preference into it, not me.

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.

I deny that marriage can be between homosexuals, unless it's a homo male and homo female, because THAT is what marriage is.

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

I agree, absurd comparisons shouldn't have to be made. It should be obvious without them.

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.

Again, you introduced sexual lifestyles and deviant sexual behaviors, not me. I am in favor of leaving marriage the way it's been for 5,000 years.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nature also creates hermorphidites and homosexuals.

...and pedophiles and necrophiliacs, etc. Your point???

 

[uscitizen]

I am in favor of leaving marriage the way it's been for 5,000 years.

You buy a wife? Or your parents arrange your marriage when you are children?
Or you have several wives?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am in favor of leaving marriage the way it's been for 5,000 years.

You buy a wife? Or your parents arrange your marriage when you are children?
Or you have several wives?

No, because those systems of marriage abridge the rights of others and are discriminatory. Yet, in every absurd example you gave, marriage remains between a man and woman, not between people of the same sex. That was what I meant, you fucking retard.


I'll throw it out there again, since no one has answered it...

If a group of Americans lobbied to have the meaning of "mentor" changed, to include old men who wanted to have sex with young boys, would you be okay with that? Or would you "deny them the right to live as they please?" Could they not convince you with their pragmatic arguments that young boys need the guidance and wisdom of older men in learning about sex, and how it fulfils these men to show emotional love and 'teach' the boys, or would you deny these men the "right to mentor and teach young boys?" Would you allow NAMBLA and these sexual deviants to have a redefining of traditional mentoring, or would you put up a fight? What if people called you names and ridiculed you for it?

My guess is, some of you would indeed go along with it, justifying such a thing by claiming it's not your business, and who are you to deny people happiness... the same idiotic arguments you are making now for 'gay marriage' because you are too cowardly to fight for anything. But most of us would object to such a 'redefining' of traditional mentoring. In fact, most of us would contend, it's not 'mentoring' at all... and it wouldn't matter how many times the point was raised, that this was precisely the view of Greeks a few centuries ago. It wouldn't matter how acceptable this had been in other cultures of the past, or how much distortion was being placed on it now. Those who favored it, could call it 'mentoring' in every breath and claim... You just oppose the robust mentoring of young boys, you must be a cretin!

 

[Onceler]

Dixie - gay marriage would be between 2 consenting adults.

It doesn't seem like you're aware of that.

 

[uscitizen]

Dixie if a group of Alabamans wanted to mentor a group advocating sex between men and sheep.....

Sheeh dude you straw men already burned up.

 

[apple0154]

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.

I, like you, always believed women were built for men and men built for women. Unfortunately, over the years, a number of women have found my construction not to their liking.

 

[apple0154]

No, because those systems of marriage abridge the rights of others and are discriminatory. Yet, in every absurd example you gave, marriage remains between a man and woman, not between people of the same sex. That was what I meant, you fucking retard.


I'll throw it out there again, since no one has answered it...

If a group of Americans lobbied to have the meaning of "mentor" changed, to include old men who wanted to have sex with young boys, would you be okay with that? Or would you "deny them the right to live as they please?" Could they not convince you with their pragmatic arguments that young boys need the guidance and wisdom of older men in learning about sex, and how it fulfils these men to show emotional love and 'teach' the boys, or would you deny these men the "right to mentor and teach young boys?" Would you allow NAMBLA and these sexual deviants to have a redefining of traditional mentoring, or would you put up a fight? What if people called you names and ridiculed you for it?

My guess is, some of you would indeed go along with it, justifying such a thing by claiming it's not your business, and who are you to deny people happiness... the same idiotic arguments you are making now for 'gay marriage' because you are too cowardly to fight for anything. But most of us would object to such a 'redefining' of traditional mentoring. In fact, most of us would contend, it's not 'mentoring' at all... and it wouldn't matter how many times the point was raised, that this was precisely the view of Greeks a few centuries ago. It wouldn't matter how acceptable this had been in other cultures of the past, or how much distortion was being placed on it now. Those who favored it, could call it 'mentoring' in every breath and claim... You just oppose the robust mentoring of young boys, you must be a cretin!

Your premise is wrong due to the fact underage people can not make informed decisions. There is plenty of evidence showing sex with minors is harmful to the minor from a psychological point of view.

When couples were getting divorced in the 60s the woman frequently was left with nothing. The laws changed so assets were split. The government stepped in to right a wrong.

With homosexual marriage there is no "wrong" to address so there is no need for the government to get involved.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your premise is wrong due to the fact underage people can not make informed decisions. There is plenty of evidence showing sex with minors is harmful to the minor from a psychological point of view.

When couples were getting divorced in the 60s the woman frequently was left with nothing. The laws changed so assets were split. The government stepped in to right a wrong.

With homosexual marriage there is no "wrong" to address so there is no need for the government to get involved.

What gives you the right to determine what is "detrimental" to children, and at what age? It seems you want to apply YOUR standard here, but it's not any of your business what other people do, is it? That was what you based your support of gay marriage on.

Back in the 1700s and 1800s, heck even into the 1900s, girls routinely married at 12...13...14 years of age... by the time they were 18, they were considered "old maids" and an argument could be made, that was also psychologically detrimental. In ancient Greece, this was how EVERY young boy learned about sex, it was obviously not dangerous and damaging to them, it was a widely accepted part of society. So your argument doesn't hold water, you are making the same judgmental determinations based on personal perception, as others make about gay marriage. What gives YOU the right to determine how other people live their lives, or what is or isn't "psychologically detrimental" to them, you're not a doctor, you're not a psychiatrist.

Let me help you with an answer here, because you are floundering.... The answer is, because WE AS A SOCIETY, often establish rules, boundaries, and limitations for ALL of society to follow.... it is why we all wear clothes in public... it is why we don't see people masturbating in the streets... it is why we don't have "gay marriage" or "robust mentoring!"

Now, let's talk a moment about my personal solution to this issue. I advocate a Civil Union replacement for government sanctioned marriage. Any two people, regardless of ANY factors, could enter into a contractual agreement of partnership. This would allow them access to the same rights as we currently afford married couples, but it could be applied to a mother and daughter, two sisters, or any two legal age adults who wanted such a contract. Marriage would no longer be recognized or sanctioned by the state or government. Taxes could be filed as single, or joint CU partners, no more "married" category. This solution removes any religious connotation, any issue of 'sanctity' of traditional marriage, and any barrier related to sexuality or lifestyle. No redefining of what traditional marriage is, or how the church views traditional marriage. The only parameter would be, two legal age adults.

Why is my solution not acceptable to you?

 

[Damocles]

Now, let's talk a moment about my personal solution to this issue. I advocate a Civil Union replacement for government sanctioned marriage. Any two people, regardless of ANY factors, could enter into a contractual agreement of partnership. This would allow them access to the same rights as we currently afford married couples, but it could be applied to a mother and daughter, two sisters, or any two legal age adults who wanted such a contract. Marriage would no longer be recognized or sanctioned by the state or government. Taxes could be filed as single, or joint CU partners, no more "married" category. This solution removes any religious connotation, any issue of 'sanctity' of traditional marriage, and any barrier related to sexuality or lifestyle. No redefining of what traditional marriage is, or how the church views traditional marriage. The only parameter would be, two legal age adults.

Why is my solution not acceptable to you?

I like it, you pay the lobbyists, let's get'r'done.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I like it, you pay the lobbyists, let's get'r'done.

No need to pay the lobbyists, we the people have the right to establish our own societal laws, not the lobbyists. The reason it can't be done, is because both sides gain too much political 'traction' with the issue... solving it, would mean no more issue! Therefore, extremists on both sides, continue to lob the same tired arguments at each other, and refuse to budge on principle.

 

[christiefan915]

No, actually it's NOT. Most of your senators and representatives voted (for you) to authorize the use of force in Iraq. And we all know, the vast majority of Democrats don't pay their taxes. So... stfu!

Getting a little testy there, Dix.

Setting aside your silly fallacy about the vast majority of Democrats not paying taxes, most of my senators and representatives did NOT vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In fact, the resolution would have passed on repub votes alone.

61% of dem and 3% of repub congressmen voted against the resolution.
2% of repub and 42% of dem senators voted against the resolution.

Do your homework.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Getting a little testy there, Dix.

Setting aside your silly fallacy about the vast majority of Democrats not paying taxes, most of my senators and representatives did NOT vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In fact, the resolution would have passed on repub votes alone.

61% of dem and 3% of repub congressmen voted against the resolution.
2% of repub and 42% of dem senators voted against the resolution.

Do your homework.

Well I'll be damned.... every once in a while, Dixie interjects so much indisputable reason and perspective that it actually jolts the pinheads back onto the topic of the thread! This is indeed a rare moment!

Christie, would you agree, we live in a representative democracy? If so, you understand the concept doesn't allow a small minority to make the decisions for the whole of the country. A considerable majority of our representatives, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I'm sorry your side didn't win that particular debate, but that is how our system works... sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Now, you certainly don't seem to have a problem when you win, other than, you believe it means you can rule over everyone without them being given the right to even speak, but you do seem to understand the consequence of prevailing in elections. What you seem to have the most trouble with, is losing. You really should work on that one.

 

[Onceler]

It's a very common tactic for bigots to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality or even murder, to try to create moral equivalency. When confronted with their strawman, they'll try to protest on the grounds that all moral lines are gray & arbitrary.

However, in 21st century America, we have a pretty clear idea of what "two consenting adults" means, and all that their decisions entail. It is intellecutally dishonest - and somewhat repugnant - to suggest otherwise.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's a very common tactic for bigots to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality or even murder, to try to create moral equivalency. When confronted with their strawman, they'll try to protest on the grounds that all moral lines are gray & arbitrary.

However, in 21st century America, we have a pretty clear idea of what "two consenting adults" means, and all that their decisions entail. It is intellecutally dishonest - and somewhat repugnant - to suggest otherwise.

Reposted for the sake of the mentally challenged...

Now, let's talk a moment about my personal solution to this issue. I advocate a Civil Union replacement for government sanctioned marriage. Any two people, regardless of ANY factors, could enter into a contractual agreement of partnership. This would allow them access to the same rights as we currently afford married couples, but it could be applied to a mother and daughter, two sisters, or any two legal age adults who wanted such a contract. Marriage would no longer be recognized or sanctioned by the state or government. Taxes could be filed as single, or joint CU partners, no more "married" category. This solution removes any religious connotation, any issue of 'sanctity' of traditional marriage, and any barrier related to sexuality or lifestyle. No redefining of what traditional marriage is, or how the church views traditional marriage. The only parameter would be, two legal age adults.

Why is my solution not acceptable to you?

 

[Onceler]

Reposted for the sake of the mentally challenged...

Now, let's talk a moment about my personal solution to this issue. I advocate a Civil Union replacement for government sanctioned marriage. Any two people, regardless of ANY factors, could enter into a contractual agreement of partnership. This would allow them access to the same rights as we currently afford married couples, but it could be applied to a mother and daughter, two sisters, or any two legal age adults who wanted such a contract. Marriage would no longer be recognized or sanctioned by the state or government. Taxes could be filed as single, or joint CU partners, no more "married" category. This solution removes any religious connotation, any issue of 'sanctity' of traditional marriage, and any barrier related to sexuality or lifestyle. No redefining of what traditional marriage is, or how the church views traditional marriage. The only parameter would be, two legal age adults.

Why is my solution not acceptable to you?

I support civil unions.

I was referring to the strawman arguments you were making (and have made) about homosexuality in general.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I support civil unions.

I was referring to the strawman arguments you were making (and have made) about homosexuality in general.

No different than strawman arguments regarding civil rights and interracial marriage. The arguments I posed, had nothing to do with homosexuality. As I said, I have never advocated we ban homosexual activity, or put gays in jail for being homosexual. Nothing in my argumentative points has anything to do with the lifestyle decision to practice homosexuality, or the rights of those who do choose that lifestyle.

I did make valid and legitimate arguments for why gay marriage should not be allowed, and none of those points have been refuted. I'm glad you support civil unions, and I am glad you don't have objection to my solution, but I don't understand why you want to continue the argument. If we both agree on a solution which would accommodate all parties, why is there still a problem?

 

[apple0154]

What gives you the right to determine what is "detrimental" to children, and at what age? It seems you want to apply YOUR standard here, but it's not any of your business what other people do, is it? That was what you based your support of gay marriage on.

Back in the 1700s and 1800s, heck even into the 1900s, girls routinely married at 12...13...14 years of age... by the time they were 18, they were considered "old maids" and an argument could be made, that was also psychologically detrimental. In ancient Greece, this was how EVERY young boy learned about sex, it was obviously not dangerous and damaging to them, it was a widely accepted part of society. So your argument doesn't hold water, you are making the same judgmental determinations based on personal perception, as others make about gay marriage. What gives YOU the right to determine how other people live their lives, or what is or isn't "psychologically detrimental" to them, you're not a doctor, you're not a psychiatrist.

Let me help you with an answer here, because you are floundering.... The answer is, because WE AS A SOCIETY, often establish rules, boundaries, and limitations for ALL of society to follow.... it is why we all wear clothes in public... it is why we don't see people masturbating in the streets... it is why we don't have "gay marriage" or "robust mentoring!"

Now, let's talk a moment about my personal solution to this issue. I advocate a Civil Union replacement for government sanctioned marriage. Any two people, regardless of ANY factors, could enter into a contractual agreement of partnership. This would allow them access to the same rights as we currently afford married couples, but it could be applied to a mother and daughter, two sisters, or any two legal age adults who wanted such a contract. Marriage would no longer be recognized or sanctioned by the state or government. Taxes could be filed as single, or joint CU partners, no more "married" category. This solution removes any religious connotation, any issue of 'sanctity' of traditional marriage, and any barrier related to sexuality or lifestyle. No redefining of what traditional marriage is, or how the church views traditional marriage. The only parameter would be, two legal age adults.

Why is my solution not acceptable to you?

Your solution is not acceptable for the same reason the "equal but different" solution wasn't any solution for the black people.

Maybe you're a stand-up guy but a lot of people are not. There will always be someone who will try to put a wedge between marriage and civil unions or whatever term is used to replace the definition of marriage in which others are involved.

Gays know this. We all know this because we saw it happen before. People will exploit the difference.

As for what society wants we evolve and learn and change accordingly. We know if girls bear children when they're too young it harms their body. That's why we now have a minimum age for marriage.

As a society we make rules to prevent harming others. We don't, or at least shouldn't, make rules just because we want things our way. That is what freedom is all about.

You keep mentioning masturbation. If you ever lived in the suburbs or country and had a female cat or dog you'd understand why masturbation in public is forbidden. Just like dogs and cats people leave a scent. That's why we don't piss on the street, as well.

What harm does gay marriage do to society, as a whole? If you can give me something to work with here I might find you have a point but, as it is, you haven't specified anything.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your solution is not acceptable for the same reason the "equal but different" solution wasn't any solution for the black people.

Please explain how my solution is "equal but different" in any way? Also, please articulate how Homosexuality is now a RACE of people? For that matter, please explain to me, how Gay people having the same right to marry opposite sex as straight people, is denying something to anyone? Seems to me, you just made a straw man knee-jerk reactionary statement, that you can't back up.

Maybe you're a stand-up guy but a lot of people are not. There will always be someone who will try to put a wedge between marriage and civil unions or whatever term is used to replace the definition of marriage in which others are involved.

Well there should be a wedge between the two, they are not the same thing. If I were saying that "civil unions" would only be available to gay people, and marriage would still be available to straight people, you would indeed have your "equal but different" argument, and I wouldn't support that. I don't want CU to be defined by sexual lifestyle choice either. Read my solution again, I want to REMOVE any aspect to sexuality, or sexual relationship, and make it a generic contract between two adults of legal age and consent. I don't understand why you aren't in favor of this solution, and you've not explained it here. You want to revert back to your strawmen, and keep the issue alive, because you gain political traction with it. In my opinion, YOU are the problem! YOU are the reason gay people can't obtain the benefits and perks currently afforded to traditional married couples. I have presented a solution which satisfies ALL parties involved, or at least considers all aspects and finds the best common ground. That's the best we can do as a society.

Gays know this. We all know this because we saw it happen before. People will exploit the difference.

Again, everyone would have the same right to obtain a CU contract, no one would be denied this, and it would apply regardless of gender, relationship, or religious belief. Where is this "difference" you speak of?

As for what society wants we evolve and learn and change accordingly. We know if girls bear children when they're too young it harms their body. That's why we now have a minimum age for marriage.

Well, we also know that homosexual activity is the leading cause of AIDS. But your contention was, it's not any of our business. We know as well, children are better off when raised in a traditional family, but again, this is not supposed to be any of our business. Suddenly, it becomes our business when YOU want it to be? That makes no sense, except as a complete hypocritical double standard.

As a society we make rules to prevent harming others. We don't, or at least shouldn't, make rules just because we want things our way. That is what freedom is all about.

Then what the fuck are YOU doing here? I presented a completely rational and reasonable solution which would accommodate all sides, give everyone what they want, and not deny anyone anything! Yet, here you are, continuing the argument.... why? So you can have things YOUR way!

You keep mentioning masturbation. If you ever lived in the suburbs or country and had a female cat or dog you'd understand why masturbation in public is forbidden. Just like dogs and cats people leave a scent. That's why we don't piss on the street, as well.

Again, you are not entitled to live in a society without offensive smells. Sorry, that is not a right you or I have. I gave an absurd example to demonstrate why WE THE PEOPLE establish rules and laws, even though it doesn't "involve" us, even though it's not "harming" us in any way. I used your same parameters for your argument for gay marriage, and applied it to something YOU don't agree with, and YOU don't want to apply the same principles. This proves my point, and pwns you in the debate, whether your realized it or not.

What harm does gay marriage do to society, as a whole? If you can give me something to work with here I might find you have a point but, as it is, you haven't specified anything.

And after being shown your complete idiocy, and being completely and thoroughly pwned in the debate, you revert right back to the point that was just refuted soundly.... absolutely amazing! What "HARM" does it do to society if people masturbate in the street? Offensive smell doesn't HARM you, dimwit! What HARM does it do to society to let adults fuck kids? The Greeks survived it for centuries! What HARM does it do to society for girls to get married at 12, our own nation practiced this for hundreds of years.

As I said, I posted a viable and reasonable solution to the problem, and you've not really indicated why my solution can't or won't work, you just want to stubbornly insist on having your way, and continuing the argument. Do you just not comprehend, the problem will never get solved as long as we are arguing about it? Maybe YOU don't want the problem solved? Maybe YOU don't give two rats asses about gay people? Could THAT be the case here?

 

[apple0154]

Please explain how my solution is "equal but different" in any way? Also, please articulate how Homosexuality is now a RACE of people? For that matter, please explain to me, how Gay people having the same right to marry opposite sex as straight people, is denying something to anyone? Seems to me, you just made a straw man knee-jerk reactionary statement, that you can't back up.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention gays and race.

What it all boils down to is two people living together as a romantic couple should not be denied any rights and privileges that any other two people enjoy who live together as a romantic couple. Unless it's specified both situations are the same someone will exploit the difference.

Well there should be a wedge between the two, they are not the same thing. If I were saying that "civil unions" would only be available to gay people, and marriage would still be available to straight people, you would indeed have your "equal but different" argument, and I wouldn't support that. I don't want CU to be defined by sexual lifestyle choice either. Read my solution again, I want to REMOVE any aspect to sexuality, or sexual relationship, and make it a generic contract between two adults of legal age and consent. I don't understand why you aren't in favor of this solution, and you've not explained it here. You want to revert back to your strawmen, and keep the issue alive, because you gain political traction with it. In my opinion, YOU are the problem! YOU are the reason gay people can't obtain the benefits and perks currently afforded to traditional married couples. I have presented a solution which satisfies ALL parties involved, or at least considers all aspects and finds the best common ground. That's the best we can do as a society.

It's not the best we can do. There are always people who will try and exploit the difference. Besides, there is already a contract in place. It's called marriage. If civil unions are going to be the same as marriage why refer to them by different names?

Again, it has nothing to do with sexual lifestyle. Maybe two people will live together and never have sex. Maybe one can't have sex. After all, gay marriages will have a 100% increase in the chance of erectile dysfunction.

It is you who keeps insisting marriage be based on sex.

Again, everyone would have the same right to obtain a CU contract, no one would be denied this, and it would apply regardless of gender, relationship, or religious belief. Where is this "difference" you speak of?

The difference is someone can come along and change laws dealing with marriages and civil unions. They are referred to by different names meaning they are different and that difference can and will be exploited at a later date.

Well, we also know that homosexual activity is the leading cause of AIDS. But your contention was, it's not any of our business. We know as well, children are better off when raised in a traditional family, but again, this is not supposed to be any of our business. Suddenly, it becomes our business when YOU want it to be? That makes no sense, except as a complete hypocritical double standard.

Married gays tend to be monogamous thus cutting down on the transmission of AIDS. As for what's our business we do not force couples to stay married for the sake of the children. Our business is to not interfere in other people's business.

Then what the fuck are YOU doing here? I presented a completely rational and reasonable solution which would accommodate all sides, give everyone what they want, and not deny anyone anything! Yet, here you are, continuing the argument.... why? So you can have things YOUR way!

Your solution is neither rational nor reasonable. As I explained before there will always be someone who will try and exploit the difference in ways we can not imagine today.

Again, you are not entitled to live in a society without offensive smells. Sorry, that is not a right you or I have. I gave an absurd example to demonstrate why WE THE PEOPLE establish rules and laws, even though it doesn't "involve" us, even though it's not "harming" us in any way. I used your same parameters for your argument for gay marriage, and applied it to something YOU don't agree with, and YOU don't want to apply the same principles. This proves my point, and pwns you in the debate, whether your realized it or not.

Once again, tell me how gay marriage affects you. The examples you gave lead to odors (masturbation) and possible diseases (pissing in the street). What is your objection to gay marriage? It's a simple question.

Give me something to work with here. How do two gay people living together as a married couple cause you harm or discomfort? Perhaps if you would be specific I could understand your position.

And after being shown your complete idiocy, and being completely and thoroughly pwned in the debate, you revert right back to the point that was just refuted soundly.... absolutely amazing! What "HARM" does it do to society if people masturbate in the street? Offensive smell doesn't HARM you, dimwit! What HARM does it do to society to let adults fuck kids? The Greeks survived it for centuries! What HARM does it do to society for girls to get married at 12, our own nation practiced this for hundreds of years.

I already explained to you about girls marrying too young. Childbearing is too hard on their young bodies.

As for you pwning the debate it's only in your imagination. Again, give me a reason why you are against gay marriage. Did your best friend run off and get married? Did an EX turn gay after she left you?

As I mentioned previously maybe we can help you face whatever you are in denial about. Your preoccupation with sex and masturbation and urination are definite signs you have some sort of sexual/genital hang up.

As I said, I posted a viable and reasonable solution to the problem, and you've not really indicated why my solution can't or won't work, you just want to stubbornly insist on having your way, and continuing the argument. Do you just not comprehend, the problem will never get solved as long as we are arguing about it? Maybe YOU don't want the problem solved? Maybe YOU don't give two rats asses about gay people? Could THAT be the case here?

The case is gay marriage will be legalized across the country. It will just take time. During that time perhaps we should stop arguing about it and deal with your problem.

Where would you like to start? Early childhood? Puberty? We're listening.....