APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

PostmodernProphet said:
which is more predominant....incidents of our species being pricks or incidents of them not being pricks.....
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing which is the most common with which is reported and talked about the most.

I agree with Capt Billy on this one.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You just keep believing that it's going to happen; but have your family prepared for the meltdown your going to have, when you finally realize that you jumped on a bandwagon that failed. :good4u:
Click to expand...

I don't 'believe' it's going to happen, I am telling you this will happen. If the SCOTUS ever rules that Gay Marriage is legal, America will be forced to adopt a Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage, they certainly will. Roughly 80% of the country does not favor gay marriage, and supports traditional marriage between a man and woman, YOU are the one on a fucking bandwagon... one with no wheels!

I notice you didn't respond to my compromise solution, which means you are a closed-minded intolerant bigot who doesn't care to find a solution. You think the world must be forced to live by your standards, because you know what is best for society, and you aren't willing to listen to any other point of view, or what the overwhelming majority of America wants. You just don't care, you want to force homosexuality down the throat of religion, and that is ALL this is really about. Admit it!

Your argument about deviant sex, especially since you so accurately define deviant as ANYTHING that deviates from the norm, is dishonest because many many married heterosexuals engage in deviant sex. Anal, BDSM, swinging, are all deviant and we would NEVER attempt to define marriage between a man and a woman as excluding any deviant sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

You miss the point, my argument is not a condemnation of deviant sex. You are still attempting to view this as my personal distaste for homosexuality, and I've already told you that is not the reason I oppose gay marriage. Yes, many traditional married couples practice deviant sex, but we are not BASING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ON THEIR DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR!
 
Dixie said:
I don't 'believe' it's going to happen, I am telling you this will happen. If the SCOTUS ever rules that Gay Marriage is legal, America will be forced to adopt a Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage, they certainly will. Roughly 80% of the country does not favor gay marriage, and supports traditional marriage between a man and woman, YOU are the one on a fucking bandwagon... one with no wheels!

I notice you didn't respond to my compromise solution, which means you are a closed-minded intolerant bigot who doesn't care to find a solution. You think the world must be forced to live by your standards, because you know what is best for society, and you aren't willing to listen to any other point of view, or what the overwhelming majority of America wants. You just don't care, you want to force homosexuality down the throat of religion, and that is ALL this is really about. Admit it!



You miss the point, my argument is not a condemnation of deviant sex. You are still attempting to view this as my personal distaste for homosexuality, and I've already told you that is not the reason I oppose gay marriage. Yes, many traditional married couples practice deviant sex, but we are not BASING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ON THEIR DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR!
Click to expand...

Calm down Dixie, you're gonna have a stroke or something.
You're right on the Constitutional Amedment; but unfortunetly for you, it's going to be one that's going to give gays all of the same priviliges that everyone else has.

So now you want to change the definition of marriages, for everyone; but yet, you continue to say the "institution" must be protected!!
C'mon Dixie, which is it??
And you also have now brought religion into the mix.
Would you care to show me where the New Covenant (New Testament) decries homosexuality??

And yet, you continue to refer to "Deviant sex", after you said that this wasn't about deviant sex. :good4u:

Dixie, you're really losing yourself on this one. :palm:
 
WinterBorn said:
I think you are confusing which is the most common with which is reported and talked about the most.

I agree with Capt Billy on this one.
Click to expand...

I don't.....I doubt there is a single human being on this planet that doesn't do something contrary to his claimed moral position on a daily basis.....it's part of being human.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't.....I doubt there is a single human being on this planet that doesn't do something contrary to his claimed moral position on a daily basis.....it's part of being human.....
Click to expand...

I think that is a very pessimistic way of seeing humanity. I am far from perfect, but most days I think I do not do anything that is contrary to my moral position.

And I think most people do not do anything against their moral position on a daily basis.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think that is a very pessimistic way of seeing humanity. I am far from perfect, but most days I think I do not do anything that is contrary to my moral position.

And I think most people do not do anything against their moral position on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

would self-delusion be contrary to your moral code?......

my wife used to have this card on the refrigerator....wen't something like....

"God, so far today I have not failed to treat my neighbor as myself....I have not lied, cheated or caused harm.....I have not insulted, chastised, or caused anger....but I'm about to get out of bed and all that is going to change, so I need your help"............
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
would self-delusion be contrary to your moral code?......

my wife used to have this card on the refrigerator....wen't something like....

"God, so far today I have not failed to treat my neighbor as myself....I have not lied, cheated or caused harm.....I have not insulted, chastised, or caused anger....but I'm about to get out of bed and all that is going to change, so I need your help"............
Click to expand...

Self-delusion would be contrary to any decent moral code.

I guess its easier if you think everyone else is immoral or going against their moral code. But since you don't know even a tiny percentage of the people, its hard to take your blanket statements too seriously. Its a matter of pessimism or optimism. You chose poorly, imho.
 
Southern Man said:
The US government doesn't have standards for marriage; States do.
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that the States should not. Throughout Western History marriage licenses from government were never required until recently. Shoot, until the 16th Century even the church (catholics at that time) simply accepted the word of couples who said they exchanged vows and considered them validly married, even if there were no witnesses.

It wasn't until the mid 1800s (notice that time folks) that licenses from government sources were available and/or required at all in the US.

Now, I told you to notice that time frame... This is because blacks obtained their freedom and in order to ensure there were no "undesirable" marriages (interracial) they enacted new licensing laws. The very reason for licensing in the US was to seek to prohibit certain types of marriage, to "protect" a religious institution, something that was prohibited in the constitution.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Calm down Dixie, you're gonna have a stroke or something.
You're right on the Constitutional Amedment; but unfortunetly for you, it's going to be one that's going to give gays all of the same priviliges that everyone else has.
Click to expand...

Gay already have all the same privileges that everyone else has! I can't marry someone of my same gender, just the same as gays! Gays can marry someone of the opposite gender, just the same as me! No one is being denied something that others get, the same standard applies across the board. What we don't have, is marriage based on sexually deviant behavior.

So now you want to change the definition of marriages, for everyone; but yet, you continue to say the "institution" must be protected!!
C'mon Dixie, which is it??
Click to expand...

I don't want to change the definition of marriage for everyone. I explained very carefully what I wanted to do, can't you read?

And you also have now brought religion into the mix.
Would you care to show me where the New Covenant (New Testament) decries homosexuality??
Click to expand...

I didn't bring religion into the mix, that happened in the mid 1500's. And this has nothing to do with the New Testament decrying homosexuality. Why do you have to keep jumping around, claiming I am making this about other things, when I have been very clear about what my position is? I offered a viable solution, one that I think addresses all the problems, and gives all sides what they want in the end. You reject it, because it doesn't hurl feces in the face of religion, and THAT is what you seek to do! THAT is what this is all about, you don't really give two shits about gay people.

And yet, you continue to refer to "Deviant sex", after you said that this wasn't about deviant sex. :good4u:

Dixie, you're really losing yourself on this one. :palm:
Click to expand...

No, I don't keep referring to deviant sex, you are the one trying to redefine marriage based on deviant sex, and I am the one opposed to it. Instead of calling it Gay Marriage, we should refer to it as Sexually Deviant Marriage! I am not okay with sexually deviant marriage. I think marriage should NOT be defined by sexual behavior, you think marriage should be.

I am not losing myself on anything, moron. So far, I am the only one who has proposed a compromise SOLUTION to this problem, and you are the one who continues to IGNORE the will of the people, IGNORE everything I have pointed out, and continue to insist on ramming something down our throats, because you are too intolerant and bigoted to see things any other way. You are relegated to insulting me, and trying to twist my argument into things I never stated, or compare it to things that can't be compared. Like I said before, if your "side" continues to force feed this shit to society, America WILL pass a constitutional amendment, and the issue will be dead forever... no civil unions, no gay marriage, no nothing, except an amendment which forever protects the sanctity of traditional marriage in America. IS that what you ultimately want? Because that is precisely what happens when courts and activists try to force something on the people they are vehemently opposed to.
 
WinterBorn said:
Self-delusion would be contrary to any decent moral code.

I guess its easier if you think everyone else is immoral or going against their moral code. But since you don't know even a tiny percentage of the people, its hard to take your blanket statements too seriously. Its a matter of pessimism or optimism. You chose poorly, imho.
Click to expand...

I expect you are right.....a person who's moral code is "I will do what I want, when I want" would find it harder to violate his moral code....but then, I think that since you agree there are such thins as "decent" moral codes, perhaps one would be a prick simply for having such a code.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I expect you are right.....a person who's moral code is "I will do what I want, when I want" would find it harder to violate his moral code....but then, I think that since you agree there are such thins as "decent" moral codes, perhaps one would be a prick simply for having such a code.....
Click to expand...

I think there are plenty of people who are responsible in their lives and have a moral code much like yours or mine, and they still don't violate that code on a daily basis.
 
Damocles said:
It is my opinion that the States should not. Throughout Western History marriage licenses from government were never required until recently. Shoot, until the 16th Century even the church (catholics at that time) simply accepted the word of couples who said they exchanged vows and considered them validly married, even if there were no witnesses.

It wasn't until the mid 1800s (notice that time folks) that licenses from government sources were available and/or required at all in the US.

Now, I told you to notice that time frame... This is because blacks obtained their freedom and in order to ensure there were no "undesirable" marriages (interracial) they enacted new licensing laws. The very reason for licensing in the US was to seek to prohibit certain types of marriage, to "protect" a religious institution, something that was prohibited in the constitution.
Click to expand...

So marriage is now a racial issue? LOL
 
Southern Man said:
So marriage is now a racial issue? LOL
Click to expand...
No, licensing was. It is now used as both a source of income for the government and to restrict marriages according to the religious code of the majority. Are you only this deliberately obtuse when you don't want to hear what was said, or is it a regular practice?
 
Damocles said:
No, licensing was. It is now used as both a source of income for the government and to restrict marriages according to the religious code of the majority. Are you only this deliberately obtuse when you don't want to hear what was said, or is it a regular practice?
Click to expand...
So now marriage licensing is a racial issue? :palm:
 
Damo, you are wasting your time. He will either continue to be obstuse, selectively dissect your posts and answer only which parts he thinks are safe, or he will ignore you altogether.

The days of SM actually debating are, sadly, a thing of the past. Someone else must have taken over the troll ID.
 
Dixie said:
Gay already have all the same privileges that everyone else has! I can't marry someone of my same gender, just the same as gays! Gays can marry someone of the opposite gender, just the same as me! No one is being denied something that others get, the same standard applies across the board. What we don't have, is marriage based on sexually deviant behavior.



I don't want to change the definition of marriage for everyone. I explained very carefully what I wanted to do, can't you read?



I didn't bring religion into the mix, that happened in the mid 1500's. And this has nothing to do with the New Testament decrying homosexuality. Why do you have to keep jumping around, claiming I am making this about other things, when I have been very clear about what my position is? I offered a viable solution, one that I think addresses all the problems, and gives all sides what they want in the end. You reject it, because it doesn't hurl feces in the face of religion, and THAT is what you seek to do! THAT is what this is all about, you don't really give two shits about gay people.



No, I don't keep referring to deviant sex, you are the one trying to redefine marriage based on deviant sex, and I am the one opposed to it. Instead of calling it Gay Marriage, we should refer to it as Sexually Deviant Marriage! I am not okay with sexually deviant marriage. I think marriage should NOT be defined by sexual behavior, you think marriage should be.

I am not losing myself on anything, moron. So far, I am the only one who has proposed a compromise SOLUTION to this problem, and you are the one who continues to IGNORE the will of the people, IGNORE everything I have pointed out, and continue to insist on ramming something down our throats, because you are too intolerant and bigoted to see things any other way. You are relegated to insulting me, and trying to twist my argument into things I never stated, or compare it to things that can't be compared. Like I said before, if your "side" continues to force feed this shit to society, America WILL pass a constitutional amendment, and the issue will be dead forever... no civil unions, no gay marriage, no nothing, except an amendment which forever protects the sanctity of traditional marriage in America. IS that what you ultimately want? Because that is precisely what happens when courts and activists try to force something on the people they are vehemently opposed to.
Click to expand...

Gays do not have the same privileges as anyone else. They have no legal rights of inheritance and in some instances can be banned from visiting a hospitalized partner who's in intensive care. Gays can't always be on a partner's employee health plan, nor can they claim against a pension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top