APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

Yurt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not basing ANYTHING on a sexual lifestyle or sex at all, and neither does current law. Marriage is a union of a man and woman.. has nothing to do with what kind of sex they practice or if they even practice sex.


When I used the word "harmless" understand that I meant it doesn't introduce sexual behavior into the issue. I already gave you the harm in giving them LEGAL marriage, I described it very articulately, and it is based on the Constitution and our guarantee of equal protection under the law. Once we have a law based on sexual behavior, it must be applied to anyone on the exact same basis. If gays can legally marry, then so can pedophiles, necrophiliacs, people who fuck sheep... it never ends! You've established in LAW that marriage can be defined by sexuality, not simply MAN/WOMAN as it traditionally has been.

As for "rights" of marriage I have already addressed this as well, I favor giving gay couples every right afforded to traditional married couples. The repeated assertions that I want to deny them these rights is a flat out bald faced lie, because I have repeatedly said I would support comprehensive civil union legislation to ensure gay couples have every right of a traditional married couple. Is any of that getting through your thick skull, or do you still believe I am a homophobe who doesn't want people to have butt sex?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
oh please....you were dripping superiority all over my monitor every time you posted....."oh, at least I"M openminded"...../winterborn flutters handkerchief in front of his face......it was pretty sickening.....
Click to expand...

Did I say anything like that? Or did I simply respond to your accusations of "blind liberalism" with comments that I try and weigh each issue.

I have not called myself "open-minded". You are taking offense at shit that I either didn't say or that you misinterpreted.

Its funny, SM asks people if they would live in a specific place, and when they don't answer as he thinks they should, he calls us "liars". He does this several times.

And you sit there and go on a multipost chase concerning my hostility?

Thats bullshit, PMP. I think I am right, but I have not talked down to anyone except SM. And he damn sure earned that.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it's perfectly clear....you said I believed lying, adultery and spouse abuse were moral.....
Click to expand...

you are a fucking liar....

it was clear that i was asking you 1. why since you believe them immoral, why ok their marriage and not gay marriage; 2. your smart ass comment forced me to expressly ask you if you thought they were immoral or not.....

i don't understand you PMP....at the old board, you were pretty straight forward and never, at best, twisted someone's words like this or at worst, lied about what people actually said. it is not like there is no written record here.....

what is your game?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
oh please....you were dripping superiority all over my monitor every time you posted....."oh, at least I"M openminded"...../winterborn flutters handkerchief in front of his face......it was pretty sickening.....
Click to expand...

You have some really delusional hallucinations. :good4u:
Do the voices, in your mind, also direct your typing? :palm:
 
Yurt said:
you are a fucking liar....

it was clear that i was asking you 1. why since you believe them immoral, why ok their marriage and not gay marriage; 2. your smart ass comment forced me to expressly ask you if you thought they were immoral or not.....

i don't understand you PMP....at the old board, you were pretty straight forward and never, at best, twisted someone's words like this or at worst, lied about what people actually said. it is not like there is no written record here.....

what is your game?
Click to expand...
lol, even ibbie and WM have noticed the new Yurt....they like you now......go play in the street with your new friends....:pke:
 
TE=Dixie;548382]I am not basing ANYTHING on a sexual lifestyle or sex at all,
Click to expand...

then why did you bring up the homosexual deviant sexual behavior?


and neither does current law. Marriage is a union of a man and woman.. has nothing to do with what kind of sex they practice or if they even practice sex.
Click to expand...

exactly....the current law is....ass sex is legal, whether it be a man to man or man to a woman......marriage is simply a contract in the US, neither moral or deviant....simply a LEGAL contract. that is the law. you want to deny others that benefit solely because they want to marry the same sex, which as you know, involves deviant sex. don't bullshit this dixie.....

When I used the word "harmless" understand that I meant it doesn't introduce sexual behavior into the issue. I already gave you the harm in giving them LEGAL marriage, I described it very articulately, and it is based on the Constitution and our guarantee of equal protection under the law. Once we have a law based on sexual behavior, it must be applied to anyone on the exact same basis. If gays can legally marry, then so can pedophiles, necrophiliacs, people who fuck sheep... it never ends! You've established in LAW that marriage can be defined by sexuality, not simply MAN/WOMAN as it traditionally has been.
Click to expand...

you don't listen to a word i've typed....

again.....those kinds of deviant behavior you speak of.....the slippery slope argument............are ILLEGAL

your argument falls flat.....

if gays can marry, so can pedophiles....

1. pedophilia is ILLEGAL
2. necrophilia is ILLEGAL
3. fucking sheep is ILLEGAL

homosexuality is NOT illegal

do you see the difference?


As for "rights" of marriage I have already addressed this as well, I favor giving gay couples every right afforded to traditional married couples.
Click to expand...

the only way to do that, is to allow them to marry dixie.....look up DOMA on google....look up state laws etc....they may "marry" but if not LEGALLY recognized, it is no marriage under our laws and thus not the "every right afforded"....


The repeated assertions that I want to deny them these rights is a flat out bald faced lie, because I have repeatedly said I would support comprehensive civil union legislation to ensure gay couples have every right of a traditional married couple. Is any of that getting through your thick skull, or do you still believe I am a homophobe who doesn't want people to have butt sex?
Click to expand...

i don't believe you are homophobe, at all. you've already come around in this discussion regarding sexual practices. you just have this distaste of gay marriage and you and i both know it is based on your distaste of gay sex.

can you admit that?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol, even ibbie and WM have noticed the new Yurt....they like you now......go play in the street with your new friends....:pke:
Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about?

another cop out

i made my points salient, with no insults and you pull this childish shit that you think is an insult.

i like ib1 and WM....they're morons at times, but at least they debate, you, you run like a coward, cut posts, and then point to other children on the playground who like the "new" yurt....as if.......see...the other children like him so he must be wrong....

i've been the same.....look up my arguments on gay marriage on DP....they are the same then as they are now

you just made yourself look like a fool who can't debate....you think i care if you call me a liberal, or if you say ib1 and watermark have noticed the "new" yurt....you are wrong.

at least ib1 and WM have honesty. i have never changed my stance on this issue, despite your lies to the contrary.....
 
Southern Man said:
No, just man's perception of them. The Bible hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

The translations from it's original Aramyic(sp) to the King James to the New international to the New international 2, etc. Not to mention exclusion and inclusion of certain books, I'd say the Bible sure has changed a lot.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
The translations from it's original Aramyic(sp) to the King James to the New international to the New international 2, etc. Not to mention exclusion and inclusion of certain books, I'd say the Bible sure has changed a lot.
Click to expand...

the Bible was never written in Aramaic....it was written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT)....and the New International wasn't translated from the King James, it was translated from original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.....I knew one of the men who worked on the book of Isaiah.....
 
Yurt said:
then why did you bring up the homosexual deviant sexual behavior?
Click to expand...

I didn't bring it up, you did when you began advocating we give rights based on sexual deviant behaviors, and not the traditional methods.

exactly....the current law is....ass sex is legal, whether it be a man to man or man to a woman......marriage is simply a contract in the US, neither moral or deviant....simply a LEGAL contract. that is the law. you want to deny others that benefit solely because they want to marry the same sex, which as you know, involves deviant sex. don't bullshit this dixie.....
Click to expand...

I don't care what kind of sex people have, this isn't about what kind of sex people have. This is about the definition of marriage. If it were about contracts and legality, we could resolve it with Civil Unions legislation to give gay couples the same benefits as traditional married couples, but that isn't what you seek. What you want to do, is change the meaning of marriage, redefining it on the basis of sexuality, and I am opposed to doing that.

you don't listen to a word i've typed....
Click to expand...

I have heard everything you've said.

again.....those kinds of deviant behavior you speak of.....the slippery slope argument............are ILLEGAL
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter once you redefine marriage and base it on sexual behavior. What is illegal today, could be made legal tomorrow, all it takes is a sympathetic court. Arm these other sexual deviants with legal precedent, where you gave people something based on the kind of sex they like, and watch them come out of the woodwork and DEMAND you give them the same consideration.

the only way to do that, is to allow them to marry dixie.....look up DOMA on google....look up state laws etc....they may "marry" but if not LEGALLY recognized, it is no marriage under our laws and thus not the "every right afforded"....
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. The only way it is going to get done, is Civil Unions, because mainstream America has rejected the idea of Gay Marriage.... 31 times and counting! DOMA is what you get when extremist start forcing their agenda on us through judicial activism. Stop trying to make something legal that people don't want and have rejected, and maybe the extreme elements from the other side will not feel compelled to fight back.

i don't believe you are homophobe, at all. you've already come around in this discussion regarding sexual practices. you just have this distaste of gay marriage and you and i both know it is based on your distaste of gay sex.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't care about what kind of sex people have! This is about redefining the institution of marriage and basing it on sexual lifestyle, which I am completely opposed to doing, for the reasons I articulated, which do NOT include my personal taste regarding sex.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the Bible was never written in Aramaic....it was written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT)....and the New International wasn't translated from the King James, it was translated from original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.....I knew one of the men who worked on the book of Isaiah.....
Click to expand...

However it still demonstrates change has occurred, especially since you completely left out my point of the inclusion and exclusion of certain books.
 
=Dixie;548439]I didn't bring it up, you did when you began advocating we give rights based on sexual deviant behaviors, and not the traditional methods.
Click to expand...

absolute lie. you brought it up, i then showed that denying marriage simply because of sexual deviancy makes you a hypocrite and then you dropped your point about homosexuality and deviance. you don't need to lie to debate this dixie.


I don't care what kind of sex people have, this isn't about what kind of sex people have. This is about the definition of marriage. If it were about contracts and legality, we could resolve it with Civil Unions legislation to give gay couples the same benefits as traditional married couples, but that isn't what you seek. What you want to do, is change the meaning of marriage, redefining it on the basis of sexuality, and I am opposed to doing that.
Click to expand...

so then are you opposed to ANY change? any change in the definition of something? do you then oppose all the amendments to the constitution? you use the word "gay" to describe homosexuals, yet that is not what the word used to mean.

it is hypocritical to accept some change and not other changes.


It doesn't matter once you redefine marriage and base it on sexual behavior. What is illegal today, could be made legal tomorrow, all it takes is a sympathetic court. Arm these other sexual deviants with legal precedent, where you gave people something based on the kind of sex they like, and watch them come out of the woodwork and DEMAND you give them the same consideration.
Click to expand...

you are the one that keeps bringing up sexual behavior, not me. if it is legal today, then they should be allowed to marry. that is the bottom line, not your slippery slope of what may be. because let's face it, if it is in fact legal, then obviously society has accepted it as somewhat normative and you have no right to deny them full privileges of the law because you don't approve of their lifestyle.


No, it's really not. The only way it is going to get done, is Civil Unions, because mainstream America has rejected the idea of Gay Marriage.... 31 times and counting! DOMA is what you get when extremist start forcing their agenda on us through judicial activism. Stop trying to make something legal that people don't want and have rejected, and maybe the extreme elements from the other side will not feel compelled to fight back.
Click to expand...

civil unions is NOT equal. the courts stopped the ban on interracial, they went against the will of the people. do you then support the ban on interracial marriage? you should, because using your logic, the people wanted the ban on interracial marriage, it was only the court that overturned it. thats what the court is for dixie.

Again, I don't care about what kind of sex people have! This is about redefining the institution of marriage and basing it on sexual lifestyle, which I am completely opposed to doing, for the reasons I articulated, which do NOT include my personal taste regarding sex.
Click to expand...

you do care. if it is not about sex what the fuck do you care if a man enters into a contractual marriage with another man?
 
Yurt said:
wtf are you talking about?

another cop out

i made my points salient, with no insults and you pull this childish shit that you think is an insult.

i like ib1 and WM....they're morons at times, but at least they debate, you, you run like a coward, cut posts, and then point to other children on the playground who like the "new" yurt....as if.......see...the other children like him so he must be wrong....

i've been the same.....look up my arguments on gay marriage on DP....they are the same then as they are now

you just made yourself look like a fool who can't debate....you think i care if you call me a liberal, or if you say ib1 and watermark have noticed the "new" yurt....you are wrong.

at least ib1 and WM have honesty. i have never changed my stance on this issue, despite your lies to the contrary.....
Click to expand...

that sure shut up pampers quick...:)
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
However it still demonstrates change has occurred, especially since you completely left out my point of the inclusion and exclusion of certain books.
Click to expand...

as I said.....what we have today is closer to the original than what we had in the 1500s.....the only 'change' that's occurred is the elimination of changes.....and as far as exclusion of books is concerned, the canon of what is considered the bible is what determined what the bible is.....it hasn't changed since the canon was established.....those certain books you refer to have never been in the bible......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, a handful of verses doesn't warrant ignoring the Hebrew and Greek.....besides, the presence of thousands more ancient manuscripts and improved translations means the scriptures are less changed from the original now than they were six hundred years ago.......
Click to expand...

Why can't you just say that your original comment was partially wrong and you stand corrected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top