APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

[USFREEDOM911]

So if a Constitutional Amendment protecting traditional marriage is ratified, you'd just the fuck up about this, and move on???

And when the Supreme Court decides that the anti-gay marriage people are wrong, you'll just shut the fuck up about this and move on??

Dixie, no one is going to force you to sleep with a same sex partner; unless you want to.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

And once again, you fail to answer regarding my solution. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind, USFREEDOM911 doesn't want to find a solution to the problem?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Only if animals were suddenly to gain the capacity for consent.

Maybe Dixie's been "talking" to his pets!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And once again, you fail to answer regarding my solution. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind, USFREEDOM911 doesn't want to find a solution to the problem?

But there is a solution that the intelligent people already understand; but it has the narrow minded people scared.
The solution is to face up to the fact that same sex marriages are going to happen and the narrow minded people will just have to accept it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But there is a solution that the intelligent people already understand; but it has the narrow minded people scared.
The solution is to face up to the fact that same sex marriages are going to happen and the narrow minded people will just have to accept it.

Nope, that is not likely to happen, since about 80% of the country do not want Gay Marriage, and will not accept it. If they are forced on us, we will adopt a constitutional amendment. You don't believe me, but that is because you are a closed-minded bigot who thinks he is right.

The solution you have, is to ram your immoral, disrespectful of religious tradition, untenable "right" down our throats against our will, by judicial fiat. It does not give all sides what they want, it gives 20% what they want and 80% what they don't want.

So go back, try to be less ignorant and intolerant, and work on your bigotry, and read my solution, then tell me what part you are opposed to. If you aren't willing to do that, we are through talking about this, because I can't talk to intolerant bigots.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Maybe Dixie's been "talking" to his pets!!

I talk to my pets all the time, most people do. Dumo is also incorrect when he claims pets can't consent, they do it all the time. Of course, don't anyone try and tell Dumo he is wrong, we will have to endure 2 more pages of inane banal blather, as he "explains" to all the rest of us simpletons, how things are.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Nope, that is not likely to happen, since about 80% of the country do not want Gay Marriage, and will not accept it. If they are forced on us, we will adopt a constitutional amendment. You don't believe me, but that is because you are a closed-minded bigot who thinks he is right.

The solution you have, is to ram your immoral, disrespectful of religious tradition, untenable "right" down our throats against our will, by judicial fiat. It does not give all sides what they want, it gives 20% what they want and 80% what they don't want.

So go back, try to be less ignorant and intolerant, and work on your bigotry, and read my solution, then tell me what part you are opposed to. If you aren't willing to do that, we are through talking about this, because I can't talk to intolerant bigots.

Gee, that sounds familiar!!
Where did I hear something familiar??

OH,YEAH; now I remember:

Nope, that is not likely to happen, since about 80% of the country do not want Interracial Marriage, and will not accept it. If they are forced on us, we will adopt a constitutional amendment. You don't believe me, but that is because you are a closed-minded bigot who thinks he is right.

The solution you have, is to ram your immoral, disrespectful of religious tradition, untenable "right" down our throats against our will, by judicial fiat. It does not give all sides what they want, it gives 20% what they want and 80% what they don't want.


The only one that is biggotted, are those like you; that want to decide what other adults can or can't do.
I just hope you don't get hurt, when you fall from that hypocritical high horse you've built for yourself.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I talk to my pets all the time, most people do. Dumo is also incorrect when he claims pets can't consent, they do it all the time. Of course, don't anyone try and tell Dumo he is wrong, we will have to endure 2 more pages of inane banal blather, as he "explains" to all the rest of us simpletons, how things are.

Now I understand why you're so against certain things.
Since you believe that animals can give consent, you are obviously afraid that your pet could sue you for palimony.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The only one that is biggotted, are those like you; that want to decide what other adults can or can't do.

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.

What part of that do you interpret as me wanting to decide what other adults can or can not do? Please explain???

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

What part of that do you interpret as me wanting to decide what other adults can or can not do? Please explain???

And any religious organization that chose to do so could have gay marriages?

 

[Damocles]

And any religious organization that chose to do so could have gay marriages?

That's how I interpret it, and what I agree with.

 

[Damocles]

I talk to my pets all the time, most people do. Dumo is also incorrect when he claims pets can't consent, they do it all the time. Of course, don't anyone try and tell Dumo he is wrong, we will have to endure 2 more pages of inane banal blather, as he "explains" to all the rest of us simpletons, how things are.

Again, when you relegate yourself to first grade name play, then I know I'm hitting home.

You and I agree, if what you say you want is actually what you want. Therefore if I am a "Dumo" what are you?

Other than caviling on the capacity of animals to consent to your tender mercies do you have an objection to allowing churches to define marriage as they would?

 

[Damocles]

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.

What part of that do you interpret as me wanting to decide what other adults can or can not do? Please explain???

This would do exactly what I have been saying throughout the thread. I agree with it.

Your "argument" against me was that suddenly animals would be consenting to marriages. Simply inane.

 

[WinterBorn]

This would do exactly what I have been saying throughout the thread. I agree with it.

Your "argument" against me was that suddenly animals would be consenting to marriages. Simply inane.

Most of the comparisons have been inane. The idea that letting gays marry would suddenly cause pedophilia to be accepted, bestiality to be accepted and the rest, are simply laughable.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

What part of that do you interpret as me wanting to decide what other adults can or can not do? Please explain???

You don't want gays to be able to marry someone they care about.
I thought you understood what you were typing; but it appears that you're just a bot putting words on the interent.

I tale it the rest of my post was to much for you to handle and that's why you had to cherry pick what you quoted.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, when the qualifications specifically meet the demands of the dogma of your religion, it is not their purview to set such qualifications.

You could say the same thing about murder and theft, since they too are prohibited by my religion. *shrug*

 

[WinterBorn]

You could say the same thing about murder and theft, since they too are prohibited by my religion. *shrug*

Not even close to the same thing. Murder and theft are not exclusively against religious laws. Also, people are harmed by those crimes, and the gov't should protect its people from criminals.

And before you say that people are harmed by homosexuals and gay marriage, please have some reasons for saying that.

 

[Damocles]

You could say the same thing about murder and theft, since they too are prohibited by my religion. *shrug*

Except they are not solely set by religious dogma and there is clear and direct victimization. And there is where the divide is foudn here.

You want the government to step in and protect your particular dogma over others (as I said, other churches marry homosexuals already) and ensure the majority religion's definitions is proscribed to all, regardless of different beliefs.

In order to do this you are willing to reject the basic precepts of our Constitution, step on other's right to their own beliefs, freedoms, and pursuit of happiness.

Keep your marriage sanctified, you and your wife are the only ones that can do that, but stop bastardizing our constitution to support your own dogma with the power and force of government.

It sickens me when somebody who would otherwise object to activism against the constitution would suddenly support it because it's flowing in their direction now. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Sometimes freedom is inconvenient when it allows others to do what you wouldn't, but it is worth it because you too are allowed to do what they wouldn't.

 

[DamnYankee]

Back centuries ago no sane person would suggest that two people of different races get married.

That's not true at all. In Europe it was common to take a bride from another tribe. You must be referring to the American Democrat tradition of thinking that another race is inferior to your own.

 

[WinterBorn]

That's not true at all. In Europe it was common to take a bride from another tribe. You must be referring to the American Democrat tradition of thinking that another race is inferior to your own.

Whether it was a democrat or not is irrelevant. The fact that, in this country, laws were created to prevent interracial marriages is the point. And those laws were removed.