APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

Southern Man said:
Except, of course, that the 14th Amendment doesn't require the States to issue licenses to unqualified individuals.
Click to expand...
Again, when the qualifications specifically meet the demands of the dogma of your religion, it is not their purview to set such qualifications.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I repeat it; because it appears that what you're truly afraid of. :eek:

I bet at one time you also said "Some of my best friends are Black". :good4u:

It took a while before the bigots could be convinced that inter-racial marriages weren't going to destroy society and once you get over your fear, you'll have to accept gays getting married also.

You might as well avoid the rush and get used to it, now. :cof1:
Click to expand...

No, it appears that way to no one but you, an admitted intolerant bigot who sees things from only one perspective. I am not afraid of anything here, I am the only person to have offered a compromise solution which gives all sides what they want. Which, incidentally, you have YET to respond to! You just continue to slur me, and insinuate I am an ignorant homophobic racist, and whatever other insults you can heap on. You've not demonstrated ANY of that, it's just your way of "arguing" your point.
 
Damocles said:
I'll repeat because you are slow to catch up on this one. Consent is the word of the day. Only adults can give it, and only humans have the capacity for it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this issue has proven the definition of words mean absolutely NOTHING!

Ergo; If you can redefine Marriage, you can redefine Consent!
 
Dixie said:
No, it appears that way to no one but you, an admitted intolerant bigot who sees things from only one perspective. I am not afraid of anything here, I am the only person to have offered a compromise solution which gives all sides what they want. Which, incidentally, you have YET to respond to! You just continue to slur me, and insinuate I am an ignorant homophobic racist, and whatever other insults you can heap on. You've not demonstrated ANY of that, it's just your way of "arguing" your point.
Click to expand...

I believe I did respond to your "compromise"'; but it looks like you ran right over it, in an attempt to defend your weak arguments.

How were you "slurred" and I never insinutated that you were an ignorent homophobic racist.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I believe I did respond to your "compromise"'; but it looks like you ran right over it, in an attempt to defend your weak arguments.

How were you "slurred" and I never insinutated that you were an ignorent homophobic racist.
Click to expand...

Could you repost your response? It became lost amongst Damo's two pages of insulate inane commentary on religion. Last I looked, you hadn't responded.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I believe I did respond to your "compromise"'; but it looks like you ran right over it, in an attempt to defend your weak arguments.

How were you "slurred" and I never insinutated that you were an ignorent homophobic racist.
Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY what you have insinuated, and if you don't know how you did that, I suggest you read your comments again.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I believe I did respond to your "compromise"'; but it looks like you ran right over it, in an attempt to defend your weak arguments.

How were you "slurred" and I never insinutated that you were an ignorent homophobic racist.
Click to expand...

Look back to around post #381... You did respond to my post, you just didn't address my solution. I have searched through the entire thread, and I don't see a response from you regarding my solution. I am very interested in what you have to say about it.
 
Dixie said:
Could you repost your response? It became lost amongst Damo's two pages of insulate inane commentary on religion. Last I looked, you hadn't responded.
Click to expand...

There is no way in hell that I'm digging through all the posts on this thread and the other one, that went over 1000 posts.

You should look more often.

You didn't reply to my request of how I "slurred" you or insinuated that you were an ignorent homophobic racist.
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
Ther is no way in hell that I'm digging through all the posts on this thread and the other one, that went over 1000 posts.

You should look more often.
Click to expand...

Okay then, we can establish that you are not interested in dialogue or a solution to this issue. Thanks, that is precisely what I assumed to be the case with you. In your view, things should be YOUR way and there is no room for any other opinion, because YOU are right and everyone else is just flat wrong. Textbook intolerant bigotry.
 
Dixie said:
I will post this again, since you pro-gay-marriage people seem to be ignoring it...

I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line.

So tell me, what part of my idea are you opposed to?
Click to expand...

Here, I will make it easy for ya... this is the third time I've posted it in this thread.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, and this issue has proven the definition of words mean absolutely NOTHING!

Ergo; If you can redefine Marriage, you can redefine Consent!
Click to expand...
Not particularly evident in this argument. My argument is that the government has no means to define marriage at all, that is for the religions to define.

The only compelling need for the government to do anything at all is to protect against victims, those who have not consented.

Again, only adults can give it, and only humans have the capacity for it. The government's role is to define the parameters of the contract, we limit all contracts to consenting adults. Compelling another to enter a contract by force is a crime, and it makes the contract null. The same applies here, attempting to define different contracts differently based on your religious dogma is against the 1st Amendment. "Separate but equal" decisions apply. The government is not created to define religious ceremonies based on the dogma of the majority, in fact it is specifically banned from doing so.

I find it particularly hypocritical for somebody to argue against the increasing role of government in our personal lives on the one hand, then to argue that the government should take a role here, defining all religious ceremonies to meet the requirements of a specific religion in order to deny any ceremony for a specific group of people.
 
Damocles said:
Not particularly evident in this argument. My argument is that the government has no means to define marriage at all, that is for the religions to define.
Click to expand...

As it should be, I agree... however, the government has defined marriage, and they license it. Trying to formulate an argument based on something that isn't the case, is kind of pointless, isn't it?
 
Dixie said:
Look back to around post #381... You did respond to my post, you just didn't address my solution. I have searched through the entire thread, and I don't see a response from you regarding my solution. I am very interested in what you have to say about it.
Click to expand...

Dixie:
I will say that you are amusing in your angst.
You ignore other's posts, answer only what you want to, refuse to acknowledge what olthers suggest; but you seem to feel that you have the absolute right to continue to ask the same questions, until you get an answer you want.
You were answered; but you just couldn't deal with the fact that you're wrong.

Don't worry, man. No one is going to make you marry and sleep with anyone who is gay. :good4u:
 
Dixie said:
As it should be, I agree... however, the government has defined marriage, and they license it. Trying to formulate an argument based on something that isn't the case, is kind of pointless, isn't it?
Click to expand...

And at one time the Government defined what constituted a human and Blacks just didn't fit that description.
 
Dixie said:
As it should be, I agree... however, the government has defined marriage, and they license it. Trying to formulate an argument based on something that isn't the case, is kind of pointless, isn't it?
Click to expand...
I formulate the argument based on the action I believe we should take, just like I base all arguments. I believe that the government is overstepping their powers, giving in and "just accepting" it is wrong. Even if weak minds consider it "pointless" because the government is restricting rights in their favor.

Again. I swore to uphold a certain document, and I meant it.
 
Damocles said:
I formulate the argument based on the action I believe we should take, just like I base all arguments. I believe that the government is overstepping their powers, giving in and "just accepting" it is wrong.

Again. I swore to uphold a certain document, and I meant it.
Click to expand...

So if a Constitutional Amendment protecting traditional marriage is ratified, you'd just the fuck up about this, and move on???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top