Reality: Homosexual Marriage

No one is suggesting it YET! Once we've codified law based on someone's sex life, we are bound by the equal protection clause of the Constitution, whether you like it or not. How can you give a 'right' to one group of sexual deviants, and not give the same 'right' to another?
Click to expand...

Another one of your ridiculous spin jobs where you turn reality on it's head. The sexual deviants you claim to be worried about unleashing (i.e., pedophiles) did have the right to marry children not long ago. It did not lead to people marrying their dog, mil box or even someone of the same sex.

The fact is, that you wish to codfiy sexuality into the law by denying homosexuals the right to marry. No other sexual "deviant" is disallowed from marriage on the basis of sexual deviancy or to discourage sexual deviancy.

Equal rights for homosexuals does not logically lead to eliminating protections for children or allowing people to marry some one or thing that cannot or will not consent. It's a non sequitur and a worthless argument.
 
RStringfield said:
I don't know what great answer you think you gave. It really does not matter since you continue to insist that gay marriage is all about how it affects you.
Click to expand...
how it affects me, you, every single person in the country....it's why they need a change in the law.....so that it will affect me, you and every one else.....if they didn't need to affect us, they wouldn't need the law change.....they would simply consider themselves married and be done with it....
 
RStringfield said:
Bullshit. You and PMP, throughout the thread, have implied that abnormal is immoral.

Where are kids being told that most people are homosexual, i.e., that it is normal? The only time anyone would claim it is normal is if they were assigning moral value to the word, just as you do.
Click to expand...

I have done no such thing....I have simply pointed out that it is abnormal and that the left wants everyone to treat the abnormal as normal......we have used parallels of everything from alcoholism to cancer cells......do you consider cancer to be immoral?......I don't care what moral choices you make......you can fuck someone of the same sex or you can fuck a picnic table.....your choices are your choices.....but quit trying to pass laws that make me do anything except ignore your choices, whether they be moral or immoral.....

how can you claim that kids aren't being given the message that a gay marriage is "normal" if the law provides it is the equal to heterosexual marriage?......that's like saying kids haven't been given the message that its normal to kill your unborn children if you want to, after Roe v Wade......
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Another one of your ridiculous spin jobs where you turn reality on it's head. The sexual deviants you claim to be worried about unleashing (i.e., pedophiles) did have the right to marry children not long ago. It did not lead to people marrying their dog, mil box or even someone of the same sex.

The fact is, that you wish to codfiy sexuality into the law by denying homosexuals the right to marry. No other sexual "deviant" is disallowed from marriage on the basis of sexual deviancy or to discourage sexual deviancy.

Equal rights for homosexuals does not logically lead to eliminating protections for children or allowing people to marry some one or thing that cannot or will not consent. It's a non sequitur and a worthless argument.
Click to expand...

No, it's a worthless argument to argue for Gay Marriage. The Constitution is pretty clear on equal protection, and if you established a redefinition of marriage based on sexual lifestyle, you would open the door to all kinds of other less desirable lifestyles, and there would be absolutely nothing you could do to stop it. I know you don't believe that, but go read the Constitution, it's very clearly stated in there. You legalize Gay Marriage, you also legalize Pet Marriage, Multiple Marriage, Kid Marriage, and everything else a bunch of sick perverts can think of, because you've established marriage based on a sexual behavior, and not the traditional man/woman thing.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how it affects me, you, every single person in the country....it's why they need a change in the law.....so that it will affect me, you and every one else.....if they didn't need to affect us, they wouldn't need the law change.....they would simply consider themselves married and be done with it....
Click to expand...

Which begs the question that you keep evading. How does it affect you, me or anyone else anymore than another marriage? Remember that other marriage may be one that you and I do not agree with.

They wish for society to quit ignoring their contractual agreements and denying their equal rights. And no that does not mean that they should then be willing to accept some separate but equal bullshit. There is no reason to assume they are as ignorant of history as the self proclaimed traditionalist are and it is obvious why they would reject such nonsense.
 
SM/PMP/Dixie gamplan says....
Click to expand...

I don't know why you lumped me in with SM and PMP, other than we are all opposed to Gay Marriage. I think I am the only one of us who has supported Civil Unions. My 'gameplan' would be a solution that solves the problem and gives everyone what they claim to want. But you are obviously more interested in bashing and denigrating people, than doing something to assist gay couples in getting the benefits they desire.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have done no such thing....I have simply pointed out that it is abnormal and that the left wants everyone to treat the abnormal as normal......we have used parallels of everything from alcoholism to cancer cells......do you consider cancer to be immoral?......I don't care what moral choices you make......you can fuck someone of the same sex or you can fuck a picnic table.....your choices are your choices.....but quit trying to pass laws that make me do anything except ignore your choices, whether they be moral or immoral.....

how can you claim that kids aren't being given the message that a gay marriage is "normal" if the law provides it is the equal to heterosexual marriage?......that's like saying kids haven't been given the message that its normal to kill your unborn children if you want to, after Roe v Wade......
Click to expand...

"that's like saying kids haven't been given the message that its normal to kill your unborn children if you want to, after Roe v Wade......"

No, that's giving the message one has a choice not to bring a child into the world when knowing it will unduly suffer.
 
Which begs the question that you keep evading. How does it affect you, me or anyone else anymore than another marriage? Remember that other marriage may be one that you and I do not agree with.
Click to expand...

WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING THIS????

Whether it effects you is not a consideration with pedophilia, is it???
 
Dixie said:
WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING THIS????

Whether it effects you is not a consideration with pedophilia, is it???
Click to expand...
It is. With pedophilia there is a victim who often, when they get older, perpetuates the crime, new victims, a chain. The abused often become abusers and there is effect on society. If government is doing its job, it will protect these victims. We've even extended this protection to other life forms who are unable to consent due to an incapacity to understand. Your dog, for instance.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have done no such thing....I have simply pointed out that it is abnormal and that the left wants everyone to treat the abnormal as normal......we have used parallels of everything from alcoholism to cancer cells......do you consider cancer to be immoral?......I don't care what moral choices you make......you can fuck someone of the same sex or you can fuck a picnic table.....your choices are your choices.....but quit trying to pass laws that make me do anything except ignore your choices, whether they be moral or immoral.....

how can you claim that kids aren't being given the message that a gay marriage is "normal" if the law provides it is the equal to heterosexual marriage?......that's like saying kids haven't been given the message that its normal to kill your unborn children if you want to, after Roe v Wade......
Click to expand...

You guys drop context so easily maybe you do not realize how many times you change your definition of abnormal. You do it above.

No, cancer is not immoral. I have maintained that normal has nothing to do with morality.

Though you protest, you have argued otherwise. You do so again above. You are claiming that the law should prohibit things that are abnormal. Why unless you assign value judgment to the word? Allowing homosexuals to marry does not send any message that homsexuality is typical to kids or anyone else. It may send the message that it is tolerable or acceptable, and THAT is to what you object. That has nothing to do with it being normal or abnormal.
 
Dixie said:
I don't know why you lumped me in with SM and PMP, other than we are all opposed to Gay Marriage. I think I am the only one of us who has supported Civil Unions. My 'gameplan' would be a solution that solves the problem and gives everyone what they claim to want. But you are obviously more interested in bashing and denigrating people, than doing something to assist gay couples in getting the benefits they desire.
Click to expand...

The case against CUs is because someone will come along and try to exploit the difference between marriage and CUs just as people did with the "equal but different/separate" idea.

Gays want the same benefits as marriage and the only way that's possible is to use the same term/language. As RStringfield notes gays are familiar with the "separate but equal bullshit." It didn't work then and it won't work now.
 
And no it is not a consideration with a pedophile. How child molestation affects people not a party to it is not the reason we prohibit it. It has to do with protecting the child, not fucking society or the feewings (notatypo) of homophobes and religious nuts, which is PMP's concern.
 
The normal/not normal argument is a waste of time. We do so many things that aren't "normal" it is absurd to use it as a measure of what is "right" or "wrong" or why something shouldn't be done.
 
Damocles said:
It is. With pedophilia there is a victim who often, when they get older, perpetuates the crime, new victims, a chain. The abused often become abusers and there is effect on society. If government is doing its job, it will protect these victims. We've even extended this protection to other life forms who are unable to consent due to an incapacity to understand. Your dog, for instance.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with YOU? With YOUR marriage? Who are YOU to judge what is and isn't "abuse" for someone else?
 
Dixie said:
What does that have to do with YOU? With YOUR marriage? Who are YOU to judge what is and isn't "abuse" for someone else?
Click to expand...
It is, again, the capacity for consent. Children are not capable of making these long-reaching decisions, they are unable to even form the necessary connections for consent. Until they are, the abuse of them will remain illegal, once they reach maturity and are deemed capable of making those decisions (nowadays we set that line at 18 in this particular society) then one can have their will with that young boy if such is the desire, and they give consent. And in the future you may even marry them. (This will be even if the government decides to provide only "union" licenses and to step out of the "marriage" business as there are churches that will "marry" homosexuals).

If the government does their job, they will protect victims.
 
Dixie said:
No ones civil rights are being violated, all people follow the same rules regarding marriage. Churches don't establish laws, people do.




Perhaps. Again, what difference does that make?



I don't need to change minds, a simple majority ratifies a Constitutional amendment, and in every state, there is a majority who oppose gay marriage. It is YOU who needs to change some minds, and you haven't.



I would say these forums are slanted considerably more to the left and libertarian than social conservative. If you're not changing minds here, you're really going to have problems with the social conservatives.



No one is suggesting it YET! Once we've codified law based on someone's sex life, we are bound by the equal protection clause of the Constitution, whether you like it or not. How can you give a 'right' to one group of sexual deviants, and not give the same 'right' to another?



You're full of shit as usual Dumo. You're the only one who half way agrees with my solution here, but you are bouncing between that and outright legalizing Gay Marriage, which I am opposed to. You're a fucking idiot, and you don't really give a shit about this issue, as long as you get a balanced budget amendment. I'm not a congressman or a lobbyist, I can't do anything to get anything passed. I stated truthfully what I would accept, and you don't have to believe me.



No one is being treated unequally! The rules apply to all parties the exact same! No one can marry same sex, just like no one can marry kids or animals. There is no discrimination, except in your empty thoughtless head.



And get used to a new Constitutional amendment! Because that will ultimately happen as well!



Well you really better start giving a shit, because they are the ones who will ratify a Constitutional amendment and kill Gay Marriage forever.



Yeah, I have to wonder why you do it?
Click to expand...

But I'm not stressing. :cof1:
I'm not the one that has found it necessary to include denigrating insutive names in most of my recent posts.
I'm not the one that hates a segment of society, so badly that I refer to them on the same level as animals.
I'm not the one that continually tries to use strawmen examples, as a way to try and justify a hatred of a group that I'm scared of.

All those things describe you and an apt description it is.

I guess it just sucks to be you. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top