APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

[/MSG/]

Yurt, you do realize you are advocating we pass a law to define marriage based on a sexually deviant behavior? You do realize, once such a law is set in stone, it will establish precedent for any other group of sexual deviants who want the same 'right' to marry, and we will have no choice but to grant their exceptions because of the constitutional guarantee of 'equal protection under the law'.

I have no problem with gay people, and I don't care if they want to live the gay lifestyle... I don't even care if they want to live as 'husband and wife' or have a 'wedding' ceremony. I will even go so far as to say, I don't have a problem with a stable gay couple who have maintained a stable home, adopting children. I think gay couples should be treated the same as married couples in matters of insurance, contracts, etc.

My point of contention is changing the definition of a traditional institution, and basing it on sexual behavior. You open a can of worms you can't ever close. Liberals will point to other countries where gays can marry, but those countries do not have our constitution, and wouldn't be obligated to extend that same consideration to others with an odd sexual preference.

Would you please list an example of such a slippery slope? What may come down the pipe?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yurt, you do realize you are advocating we pass a law to define marriage based on a sexually deviant behavior? You do realize, once such a law is set in stone, it will establish precedent for any other group of sexual deviants who want the same 'right' to marry, and we will have no choice but to grant their exceptions because of the constitutional guarantee of 'equal protection under the law'.

I have no problem with gay people, and I don't care if they want to live the gay lifestyle... I don't even care if they want to live as 'husband and wife' or have a 'wedding' ceremony. I will even go so far as to say, I don't have a problem with a stable gay couple who have maintained a stable home, adopting children. I think gay couples should be treated the same as married couples in matters of insurance, contracts, etc.

My point of contention is changing the definition of a traditional institution, and basing it on sexual behavior. You open a can of worms you can't ever close. Liberals will point to other countries where gays can marry, but those countries do not have our constitution, and wouldn't be obligated to extend that same consideration to others with an odd sexual preference.

no, the slippery slope doesnt work here....that same argument was most likely used by racists who said interracial marriage would harm marriage....

you are attempting to force your religious morals on marriage, which, in this country, marriage is not based on morals. marriage is a fundamental right, thus, any law prohibiting marriage must pass the strict scrutiny standard of review. this of course shoots a big hole in your slippery slope argument.

marriage has already been redefined in this country, a la loving v. virginia. women used to be chattel in this country when the married a man, such is no longer the case. you see dixie, the probablem with homosexual marriage is rather simple, once you take off your extreme moral blinders. incest is illegal for example. homosexuality is not. thus, there is absolutely no reason to deny homosexuals the same benefits as adulterers, abusers, murderers.....it is hypocritical to decry the immorality of homosexual marriage, which is based on the religious belief that homosexuality is immoral, and then turn around and say that other immoral acts do not disqualify one from marriage.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

no, the slippery slope doesnt work here....that same argument was most likely used by racists who said interracial marriage would harm marriage....

you are attempting to force your religious morals on marriage, which, in this country, marriage is not based on morals. marriage is a fundamental right, thus, any law prohibiting marriage must pass the strict scrutiny standard of review. this of course shoots a big hole in your slippery slope argument.

marriage has already been redefined in this country, a la loving v. virginia. women used to be chattel in this country when the married a man, such is no longer the case. you see dixie, the probablem with homosexual marriage is rather simple, once you take off your extreme moral blinders. incest is illegal for example. homosexuality is not. thus, there is absolutely no reason to deny homosexuals the same benefits as adulterers, abusers, murderers.....it is hypocritical to decry the immorality of homosexual marriage, which is based on the religious belief that homosexuality is immoral, and then turn around and say that other immoral acts do not disqualify one from marriage.

The Constitution is very clear, if we afford a "right" to one group, we MUST afford that right to all similar groups. At present, we afford the 'right' for any woman and man of legal age, to marry. You want to redefine marriage to include a sexual lifestyle, more distinctly, a sexually deviant behavior. This would establish that ALL sexual deviants are entitled to the same thing.

I don't have any extreme moral blinders, I just got through posting a list of things I am morally okay with and do accept. I am not the one trying to force my version of morality onto others, that would be YOU! I've made a legitimate argument for why we should NOT legalize Gay Marriage, and you've tried to tie that argument to the old segregationist argument against interracial marriage, but it's not the same thing. With interracial marriage, people were being dis-included from something based solely on their race.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

TE=Dixie;548105]The Constitution is very clear, if we afford a "right" to one group, we MUST afford that right to all similar groups. At present, we afford the 'right' for any woman and man of legal age, to marry. You want to redefine marriage to include a sexual lifestyle, more distinctly, a sexually deviant behavior. This would establish that ALL sexual deviants are entitled to the same thing.

as i said above, the problem with your argument is that homosexuality is legal....i have no doubt the other deviant behavior you speak of is illegal....

for example, a man who likes to have ass sex with a woman, is allowed to marry her....but amazingly, you would be against a man having ass sex with another man....but you support the man's right to have ass sex with his wife....

thus your argument falls on its face

I don't have any extreme moral blinders, I just got through posting a list of things I am morally okay with and do accept. I am not the one trying to force my version of morality onto others, that would be YOU! I've made a legitimate argument for why we should NOT legalize Gay Marriage, and you've tried to tie that argument to the old segregationist argument against interracial marriage, but it's not the same thing. With interracial marriage, people were being dis-included from something based solely on their race.

if you didn't think homosexuality was deviant, you wouldn't be opposed to gay marriage. it is similar to the interracial argument, IMO, because you are excluding people based solely on sexual preference, something you feel harms marriage. those that supported interracial bans felt that interracial marriage between blacks and white would harm marriage and society, the very same argument those opposed to gay marriage are using.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Would you please list an example of such a slippery slope? What may come down the pipe?

Oh, it's not a slippery slope, it's a superhighway. The US Constitution is very clear on this, if we legalize marriage for homosexuals, we have to legalize marriage for any number of other sexual deviants who demand equal protection under the law. If we have adopted gay marriage, and then deny their request, we have violated their constitutional rights.

My guess is, the next group of sexual deviants will be polygamists. If we can allow gay couples to marry, why not allow several spouses too? What would be the barrier to such a thing? We've already redefined marriage to include a sexually deviant lifestyle, so there is nothing there to stop polygamists from demanding the same 'right' ...it's in the constitution. And you know what? They would get it too! Because we wouldn't be able to deny it to them, and remain consistent with Constitutional law.

After that, the age barrier will go next. Who the fuck are we to decide that someone 17 years and 364 days old, is not 'mature enough' for marriage, and someone 18 is? Isn't the age barrier simply an arbitrary "MORAL" constraint man has put on marriage? Aren't we trying to enforce our MORALS on others? If we can remove one moral barrier, we can remove all of them. If we redefine marriage and base it on sexuality, these challenges will come at breakneck speed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

if you didn't think homosexuality was deviant, you wouldn't be opposed to gay marriage.

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what things are. Homosexuality is not a behavior associated with normalcy, it occurs in less than 10% of the population, and by clinical definition, is "deviant" behavior, because it deviates from the normal behavior of humans. You take that as an insult or slur, but it's just a clinical fact.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what things are. Homosexuality is not a behavior associated with normalcy, it occurs in less than 10% of the population, and by clinical definition, is "deviant" behavior, because it deviates from the normal behavior of humans. You take that as an insult or slur, but it's just a clinical fact.

i noticed you ""missed"" a bulk of my post...

do you support a man who wants to have ass sex with a woman the right to marry that woman? what about someone who engages in S&M? do you believe they should be able to marry or not marry?

those things are about as normal as homosexual marriage...now, what say you?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Oh, it's not a slippery slope, it's a superhighway. The US Constitution is very clear on this, if we legalize marriage for homosexuals, we have to legalize marriage for any number of other sexual deviants who demand equal protection under the law. If we have adopted gay marriage, and then deny their request, we have violated their constitutional rights.

My guess is, the next group of sexual deviants will be polygamists. If we can allow gay couples to marry, why not allow several spouses too? What would be the barrier to such a thing? We've already redefined marriage to include a sexually deviant lifestyle, so there is nothing there to stop polygamists from demanding the same 'right' ...it's in the constitution. And you know what? They would get it too! Because we wouldn't be able to deny it to them, and remain consistent with Constitutional law.

After that, the age barrier will go next. Who the fuck are we to decide that someone 17 years and 364 days old, is not 'mature enough' for marriage, and someone 18 is? Isn't the age barrier simply an arbitrary "MORAL" constraint man has put on marriage? Aren't we trying to enforce our MORALS on others? If we can remove one moral barrier, we can remove all of them. If we redefine marriage and base it on sexuality, these challenges will come at breakneck speed.

i said repeatedly, you are flat out wrong on your EP argument....see above

 

[PostmodernProphet]

meadowmuffins....it was and is in CA....thus you are wrong....

/shrugs....sure, for five months due to the SC decision.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

now you're just flat out lying, you even directly quoted me, here is the direct quote that you actually cut out from the rest of the post



i specifically said it was immoral....

and then you gave your obtuse and purposefully combative answer, and then i asked if you consider those things moral and said is this correct? and then you gave a flippant cut post to play with. you whine about others insulting, yet your posts display an insulting attitude.

now:

why do you allow these immoral peole to marry, and not gays?

notice I didn't cut anything out of your post....even though it isn't the post we are talking about?....

this is the post we are talking about...

i see....so you believe adultery, lying, abusing your spouse, and murdering someone is moral....

is this correct?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

why do allow these "immoral" people to marry?

the only 'immoral' people around here are the ones opposed to gay marriage....not sure what you mean.....

i see....so you believe adultery, lying, abusing your spouse, and murdering someone is moral....

is this correct?

see....I'm immoral....because I don't agree with gay marriage I am a lying adulterer who abuses his spouse.....

a direct respone....you accused me of considering lying, adultery, and spouse abuse as moral......do you consider that obtuse?....

because you refused to actually address the question, i was forced to ask whether you thought such things immoral, thne you lied and claimed i accused of considering them moral and you're still lying....this is the full post train and maybe when you review it you can honestly say to yourself, oh, yurt was just asking me a question about why, since i (i presumed, then i had to ask, then you accused me of saying you thought it was moral despite i asked) think those things are immoral, why do i support them marrying and not homosexuals.

do you need me to make it more clear for you?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

/shrugs....sure, for five months due to the SC decision.....

holy crap, homsexuals are married in CA....our marriage is eroding out here, please save us prophet

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

i noticed you ""missed"" a bulk of my post...

do you support a man who wants to have ass sex with a woman the right to marry that woman? what about someone who engages in S&M? do you believe they should be able to marry or not marry?

those things are about as normal as homosexual marriage...now, what say you?

I don't care what kind of sex people have, and I don't want our traditional institutions redefined based on what kind of sex YOU think people should have. Marriage is not about what kind of sex you engage in, you want to make it that!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I don't care what kind of sex people have, and I don't want our traditional institutions redefined based on what kind of sex YOU think people should have. Marriage is not about what kind of sex you engage in, you want to make it that!

fine...then you have no grounds to deny to men or women who want to marry their same sex...

your entire argument thus far is about deviant sexual behavior, that gets shot out of the water....so what grounds do you have now dixie?

and thanks for conceding the point. admirable.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

holy crap, homsexuals are married in CA....our marriage is eroding out here, please save us prophet

Let's get something clear here... Homosexuals have been getting married for years, and there is no law which prohibits them from doing so. I have told this before, but I actually ATTENDED a Gay Marriage in 1985... IN ALABAMA! The couple is still married, they went on a honeymoon, they have a wedding album, they have the souvenir bags of rice, they even had wedding cake! The ceremony was conducted by a Rastafarian minister on a hillside in north Alabama, with family and friends present. They had a "best man" and a "maid of honor" and in every possible aspect, they are a married gay couple in Alabama.

What they lack, is a piece of paper issued by the state, a certificate of marriage. From their perspective, this doesn't matter, and has nothing to do with love. Indeed, they would like to enjoy some of the benefits married couples have, but for the most part, they have managed to obtain everything of major importance through some diligent efforts. The thing that is the real kicker... neither of them actively support the "gay marriage" initiative. They have told me, they would rather have a comprehensive civil unions law, which would enable them to obtain the few things they can't get otherwise. Maybe they are just conservative republican gays or something, huh?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

fine...then you have no grounds to deny to men or women who want to marry their same sex...

your entire argument thus far is about deviant sexual behavior, that gets shot out of the water....so what grounds do you have now dixie?

and thanks for conceding the point. admirable.

I already gave you the answer, you are now resorting to a circular argument.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I already gave you the answer, you are now resorting to a circular argument.

no you haven't....you first said we shouldn't change traditions because the behavior of homosexual sex was deviant....i then of course showed you deviant (to your definition) hetrosexual sex and asked you why you allow them to marry....

then you said it was ME that was concerned with what kind of sex people had, that is false and you then went on to concede that, yeah, the sex doesn't matter, its now just about tradition....

so, all you have is simply tradition? is this correct?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Let's get something clear here... Homosexuals have been getting married for years, and there is no law which prohibits them from doing so. I have told this before, but I actually ATTENDED a Gay Marriage in 1985... IN ALABAMA! The couple is still married, they went on a honeymoon, they have a wedding album, they have the souvenir bags of rice, they even had wedding cake! The ceremony was conducted by a Rastafarian minister on a hillside in north Alabama, with family and friends present. They had a "best man" and a "maid of honor" and in every possible aspect, they are a married gay couple in Alabama.

What they lack, is a piece of paper issued by the state, a certificate of marriage. From their perspective, this doesn't matter, and has nothing to do with love. Indeed, they would like to enjoy some of the benefits married couples have, but for the most part, they have managed to obtain everything of major importance through some diligent efforts. The thing that is the real kicker... neither of them actively support the "gay marriage" initiative. They have told me, they would rather have a comprehensive civil unions law, which would enable them to obtain the few things they can't get otherwise. Maybe they are just conservative republican gays or something, huh?

they are not legally married as you pointed out. they are denied benefits. and your example is a perfect example of my point, that government should get out of marriage and have all legal "unions" be solely unions and not marriage.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

no you haven't....you first said we shouldn't change traditions because the behavior of homosexual sex was deviant....i then of course showed you deviant (to your definition) hetrosexual sex and asked you why you allow them to marry....

then you said it was ME that was concerned with what kind of sex people had, that is false and you then went on to concede that, yeah, the sex doesn't matter, its now just about tradition....

so, all you have is simply tradition? is this correct?

No, I said we shouldn't change traditions and base them on sexual lifestyle. Once you remove marriage from the harmless confines of being the domestic union of a man and woman, and redefine it to include sexual behavior, you set precedent for other sexual behaviors to demand equal protection. While I don't personally think it harms society for gay people to be married, it would harm society to allow pedophiles to marry, or polygamists to marry multiple wives, or people to marry their doberman. This would ultimately erode our societal morality to a point of no repair, and our society would collapse just like Rome.

Nothing I have said is based on my personal feelings on what kind of sex people have. I have never advocated we regulate or restrict people from practicing whatever kind of sex they want, as long as it adheres to laws regarding age, abuse, etc. I have always advocated for civil unions legislation, and I passionately believe this is a tenable solution to all the problems facing gay couples in America. I have no problem supporting a law that guarantees gay couples the same benefits as traditional married couples, I just do not support a redefining of traditional marriage, or state sponsorship of an institution based purely on sexuality. I have given the reason, it is Constitutional law, and the precedent it would set to do so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, I said we shouldn't change traditions and base them on sexual lifestyle. Once you remove marriage from the harmless confines of being the domestic union of a man and woman, and redefine it to include sexual behavior, you set precedent for other sexual behaviors to demand equal protection. While I don't personally think it harms society for gay people to be married, it would harm society to allow pedophiles to marry, or polygamists to marry multiple wives, or people to marry their doberman. This would ultimately erode our societal morality to a point of no repair, and our society would collapse just like Rome.

Wow, a series of completely and totally logical consequences due to gay marriage.

You hear that? If gays are allowed to marry, we won't have America in 20 years.