APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

PostmodernProphet said:
so explain to me again why they can't simply have the relationship of their choice without requiring everyone else in America to accept it as 'marriage'........
Click to expand...

They can. Pass legislation allowing Civil Unions or whatever you want to call it, but give them the same benefits that married couples have.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well aren't we generous today....what will you let me be tomorrow?.....can we redefine 'religion' to only mean Christianity?....I don't want you merely to tolerate me, I want you to consider my beliefs normative......
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you are being so combative today. We have had civil discussions prior to this, and now you want to make it hostile.

I am not being generous about anything. I was explaining what I had said, that you tried to say was wrong.

And who here has said anything about forcing you to say that gay marriage is normative? No one that I am aware of, so try and stick with what has actually been suggested.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously you were comparing yourself to someone, either SM or myself.....at least YOU judge each issue on it's merits....fucking shame we don't......but what can you expect....we don't have your superior outlook on life.....
Click to expand...

I was not comparing myself to anyone. I was answering your accusation about "blind liberalism".
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no business has to grant spousal benefits?.....no taxpayer money will be involved?......sweet....let's pass a law saying gays can use the word "marriage" but none of the rest of us have to pay any attention to it......
Click to expand...

Ok, so gay owned businesses no longer have to grant spousal benefits?
 
Back to the original topic:

Does anyone here believe that allowing gay marriage will lead to pedophilia becoming legal?
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

but dixie....you are basing it on sexual lifestyle. if you weren't, it wouldn't matter someone's sexual preference, eg., man/man to marry.

hetrosexual marriage is hardly a "harmless confine". tell that to the 10's of thousands of abused wives, sexually abused children....that is absolute nonsense to pretence that hetro marriage means harmless.

if homosexual is already legal, and you have no problem with it and as you say, gays "already marry", what exactly is the harm by giving them LEGAL status of marriage? the tradition? well, you blew that tradition out of the water by saying they already get married. if they are already engaging in homosexual behavior, how in the world is allowing them the LEGAL benefits of marriage going to spell our doom? seriously, think about what you're saying.

of course this is based on your morals and personal feelings, hence your slippery slope argument and sexual deviant behavior comments. letting them LEGALLY marry isn't going to harm you. what do you think its going to do? make the divorce rate worse than the 50% it is now? have more people abused?

get real, hetros have already destroyed the institution of marriage, all you're doing is denying them the LEGAL rights of marriage. that is discriminatory.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yet what I see in this thread is the insistence that everyone accept homosexual relationships and activism as normal and moral.....how is THAT not demanding that everyone conform to a moral code?
Click to expand...

And yet, others seem to be insistent that homosexuals accept hetrosexual relationships as the only ones that are normal and moral - how is that not DEMANDING that everyone conform to a moral code?
 
Last edited:
CaptBillyTheKid said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can hate gay people all you want. In fact you can treat them however you personally want to (with respect towards the law), but our GOVERNMENT, our body of law, cannot see it that way. All people must be given a fair share until they have proven to be a detriment to society. And thus far no one has been able to show one iota of how people being gay is harmful to society.
Click to expand...

There are those that seem to think that just because the GOVERNMENT said that inter-racial marriages were not against the law, that everyone now accepts them.
A closed mind is a terrible think to have.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously you were comparing yourself to someone, either SM or myself.....at least YOU judge each issue on it's merits....fucking shame we don't......but what can you expect....we don't have your superior outlook on life.....
Click to expand...

The fact that you've resort to nothing more then smart ass comments, means you have failed and have nothing to support your stance.

You need to slap yourself. :palm:
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

BS!!
This reeks of the same reasons that people used to rail against allowing inter-racial and allowing "coloreds" to be treated equally.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Show me wherre the US Constitution affords the right for "men and women" to be the only ones to marry.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

And there's the entire basis for your angst, regarding this.

You consider homosexuality as deviant. :palm:

And it wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriages were "deviant". :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet, others seem to be insistence that homosexuals accept hetrosexual relationships as the only ones that are normal and moral - how is that not DEMANDING that everyone conform to a moral code?
Click to expand...

Your recent posts really dismay me, I have always had a view that I could predict your opinion on any subject in advance.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

What percentage would it have to become, to be considered as not being deviant??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top