APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

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...
No, that just means that it has been translated and expanded to include other works. Its definitions of morality are simply explained in greater detail and available to a larger audience.
 
Yurt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't drop ANY point! I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I didn't EVER argue that I wanted to redefine marriage and base it on a sexual lifestyle preference, that is YOU who wants to do that... NOT ME! YOU are the one introducing a sexual deviant lifestyle into the equation, NOT ME! YOU are the one wanting to change the law and base it on SEX, NOT ME! All I did, was told you why I am opposed to doing that!

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.
Click to expand...

No, I am okay with some change... Like saying Pluto is no longer a planet, I am cool with that. Marriage is an 8,000 year-old tradition, and it is (and always has been) the union of a MAN and a WOMAN, not anything else! THAT is what it IS!

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.
Click to expand...


As I pointed out before, they ARE allowed to "marry" or do whatever the fuck they want to do! No one is denying ANY gay person the right to marry, they are perfectly entitled to find themselves a partner of the opposite sex and get married if they are of legal age! Even if they want to pretend they are getting married, and hook up with someone of their own sex, there is no law on the books to prevent them from having a ceremony and pretending they are married. No stereotypical fat southern sheriff is going to throw you in jail for having a gay wedding ceremony, they are perfectly free to do this all over the country. The ONLY thing they don't get, is an official sanctioning by the state, because marriage is the union of a MAN and a WOMAN, nothing else!

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.
Click to expand...

Interracial marriage bans were based on COLOR OF SKIN, you moron! It's NOT the same thing! We have a Civil Rights Act which guarantees your rights regardless of the color of your skin, we don't have anything to guarantee your rights based on your sexually perverted preferences.

And yes, if Civil Unions legislation grants gay couples every benefit of traditional married couples, it is indeed equal, and you can't establish why it isn't. The ONLY thing you don't get, is to spit in the face of religious traditions, but that won't make it any more equal.

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?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with contracts, a Civil Union contract is fine with me, I have advocated for that in this thread and others. I do not support changing the definition of traditional marriage or legalizing marriage based on sexual preference. Sorry!
 
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...

the above post shows dixie is a liar....he in fact brought up the sexual behavior first....this is his first post on this topic in this thread....he later dropped it and started claiming he doesn't care about sexual behavior after i asked him if he supports a man having ass sex with wife....then all of a sudden dixie doesn't care...

man up and admit you lied dixie...
 
Yurt said:
the above post shows dixie is a liar....he in fact brought up the sexual behavior first....this is his first post on this topic in this thread....he later dropped it and started claiming he doesn't care about sexual behavior after i asked him if he supports a man having ass sex with wife....then all of a sudden dixie doesn't care...

man up and admit you lied dixie...
Click to expand...

No, I don't want to change the definition of marriage and base it on anything sexual, that is what YOU want to do. I am not the one lying now, that would also be YOU!
 
Dixie said:
No, I don't want to change the definition of marriage and base it on anything sexual, that is what YOU want to do. I am not the one lying now, that would also be YOU!
Click to expand...

dixie....what is your problem? i never, ever said it has to do with sexual behavior, you said it did. not me. you claimed i was basing it on sexual behavior, when in fact i never mentioned that nor have i ever suggested that. hence why i showed your first post in this thread brought up sexual behavior....

you are not fooling anyone with this nonsense.....for all i know, two men could marry and never have ass sex....maybe they just like oral but want to be together and have the same LEGAL benefits as others.....and did you ever think about two women.....how is what they do sexual deviant behavior dixie? huh.....explain that one big guy

i proved your lie, you have no evidence to substantiate your claim.
 
Yurt said:
dixie....what is your problem? i never, ever said it has to do with sexual behavior, you said it did. not me. you claimed i was basing it on sexual behavior, when in fact i never mentioned that nor have i ever suggested that. hence why i showed your first post in this thread brought up sexual behavior....

you are not fooling anyone with this nonsense.....for all i know, two men could marry and never have ass sex....maybe they just like oral but want to be together and have the same LEGAL benefits as others.....and did you ever think about two women.....how is what they do sexual deviant behavior dixie? huh.....explain that one big guy

i proved your lie, you have no evidence to substantiate your claim.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't prove any lie on my part, and I have no claim to substantiate. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, period. Two men can't marry because that is not what marriage is. That is what you want to make marriage be, but not what it is. I'm sorry, but we can't just go around redefining things to be something they aren't, just because we think it would be neat to do.

If sexuality doesn't matter here, then Civil Union contracts solve all problems. I have already stated I would support them, so it is YOU who has no evidence to substantiate a claim, and it is YOU who continues to lie and distort my position on this.
 
Dixie said:
No, you didn't prove any lie on my part, and I have no claim to substantiate. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, period. Two men can't marry because that is not what marriage is. That is what you want to make marriage be, but not what it is. I'm sorry, but we can't just go around redefining things to be something they aren't, just because we think it would be neat to do.

If sexuality doesn't matter here, then Civil Union contracts solve all problems. I have already stated I would support them, so it is YOU who has no evidence to substantiate a claim, and it is YOU who continues to lie and distort my position on this.
Click to expand...

Get over it Dixie.
The definition of marriage is going to change and there's little you can do about it. :good4u:

But, don't worry; no one's going to force you into a marriage you don't want to be in. :cof1:
 
Dixie said:
No, you didn't prove any lie on my part, and I have no claim to substantiate. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, period. Two men can't marry because that is not what marriage is. That is what you want to make marriage be, but not what it is. I'm sorry, but we can't just go around redefining things to be something they aren't, just because we think it would be neat to do.

If sexuality doesn't matter here, then Civil Union contracts solve all problems. I have already stated I would support them, so it is YOU who has no evidence to substantiate a claim, and it is YOU who continues to lie and distort my position on this.
Click to expand...

lol....ran away from the fact that you were the first person to bring up sexual behavior....and you ran away about the two women's sexual behavior....nice! unfortunately, it proves you lied. had you said, i forgot i said that, i would have dropped it, but you continued it and called me a liar for telling you what you said. you brought this on yourself.

marriage has just been redefined in CA and approx 26 others state's constitutions....they had to pass AMENDMENTS to change their constitutions.....so it is you who are changing the definition of marriage....

if marriage is not about sex, then why do you care if two women or two men marry? i

i've shown you, repeatedly, that civil unions are not the same as marriage....see DOMA for one example.
 
Yurt said:
lol....ran away from the fact that you were the first person to bring up sexual behavior....and you ran away about the two women's sexual behavior....nice! unfortunately, it proves you lied. had you said, i forgot i said that, i would have dropped it, but you continued it and called me a liar for telling you what you said. you brought this on yourself.

marriage has just been redefined in CA and approx 26 others state's constitutions....they had to pass AMENDMENTS to change their constitutions.....so it is you who are changing the definition of marriage....

if marriage is not about sex, then why do you care if two women or two men marry? i

i've shown you, repeatedly, that civil unions are not the same as marriage....see DOMA for one example.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't the one who made this an issue, YOU WERE PINHEAD! If sexuality isn't YOUR issue, then we can settle this with comprehensive civil unions legislation. END OF DISCUSSION...MATCH...SET...POINT!
 
Dixie said:
No, I wasn't the one who made this an issue, YOU WERE PINHEAD! If sexuality isn't YOUR issue, then we can settle this with comprehensive civil unions legislation. END OF DISCUSSION...MATCH...SET...POINT!
Click to expand...

Then why did you refer to deviant sexual behavior?? :palm:
 
Back up for a second, and think... I know it's a challenge for ya... but try...

I support a government sanctioned contract between any two adult people, which would give them what is now allowed to "married couples" across the board. IS that clear???? Having any trouble understanding that so far??? Dixie favors contracts between ANY TWO people, sanctioned by the government, giving the benefits currently enjoyed by married couples in America.

What I do not, and can not support, is "GAY MARRIAGE" or anything that seeks to redefine traditional marriage and base it on a SEXUAL LIFESTYLE! As long as it doesn't base marriage on a sexual lifestyle, and allows traditional marriage to remain the union of a MAN and WOMAN, I can support it..... GOT IT??? Any questions so far???
 
Dixie said:
Back up for a second, and think... I know it's a challenge for ya... but try...

I support a government sanctioned contract between any two adult people, which would give them what is now allowed to "married couples" across the board. IS that clear???? Having any trouble understanding that so far??? Dixie favors contracts between ANY TWO people, sanctioned by the government, giving the benefits currently enjoyed by married couples in America.

What I do not, and can not support, is "GAY MARRIAGE" or anything that seeks to redefine traditional marriage and base it on a SEXUAL LIFESTYLE! As long as it doesn't base marriage on a sexual lifestyle, and allows traditional marriage to remain the union of a MAN and WOMAN, I can support it..... GOT IT??? Any questions so far???
Click to expand...

Just one question, if I may.

Have you always been this much of an idiot, or have you just worked real hard at it.

You anti-gay marriage supporters keep throwing out the word "traditional" and seem to be turning a blind eye to the FACT that "traditional" has had many changes through our history.

Are you able to wrap your tiny little one cell brain stem around that; or are you just going to continue to poke yourself in the eye, with that stick??

Don't worry Dixie.
No one's going to force you to enter into a gay marriage; but you will have to eventually accept the fact that that's the way it's going to be. :cof1:
 
Dixie said:
Says the study of human sexual behavior, nitwit!

Homosexuality is an anomaly in every species, it is not the normal condition. Therefore, it is said to "DEVIATE" from the norm... erg, it is "deviant" sexual behavior, not "normal" human sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

And at one time is was NORMAL for a girl to be married and have children by the age of 14 or 15.
At one time it was considered to be DEVIANT for people of two different races to marry.
At one time it was excepted that Blacks weren't fully human.
At one time it was considered NORMAL for a husband to slap his wife around.

Is rape sexual deviant behavior; because at one time is was considered NORMAL for a man to force his wife to have sex with him.

Go ahead and try to tell everyone what's normal. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Just one question, if I may.

Have you always been this much of an idiot, or have you just worked real hard at it.

You anti-gay marriage supporters keep throwing out the word "traditional" and seem to be turning a blind eye to the FACT that "traditional" has had many changes through our history.

Are you able to wrap your tiny little one cell brain stem around that; or are you just going to continue to poke yourself in the eye, with that stick??

Don't worry Dixie.
No one's going to force you to enter into a gay marriage; but you will have to eventually accept the fact that that's the way it's going to be. :cof1:
Click to expand...

No, me and 80% of the fucking country are going to eventually pass a damn constitutional amendment so that the issue can never be raised again.... that is what is eventually going to have to be accepted by you!
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And at one time is was NORMAL for a girl to be married and have children by the age of 14 or 15.
At one time it was considered to be DEVIANT for people of two different races to marry.
At one time it was excepted that Blacks weren't fully human.
At one time it was considered NORMAL for a husband to slap his wife around.

Is rape sexual deviant behavior; because at one time is was considered NORMAL for a man to force his wife to have sex with him.

Go ahead and try to tell everyone what's normal. :good4u:
Click to expand...

This is not about what is "normal" in societal culture! This is about what is clinically and scientifically the "norm" for the species. You misinterpret my usage of the word, and try to imply I am a bigot or homphobe, or that I want to dictate what is "normal" for you.
 
Dixie said:
No, me and 80% of the fucking country are going to eventually pass a damn constitutional amendment so that the issue can never be raised again.... that is what is eventually going to have to be accepted by you!
Click to expand...

What do you intend to do, when the Supreme Court talls you that you're all wrong and that you're attempt is unconstitutional. :cof1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top