Does anyone find this sick?

Originally posted by The Yankee
Roundman, you are willing to deny basic rights to an entire community of people based on some radical wackos?

I don't really believe in the ideas of natural rights.

As for reproduction, I don't think we're in any danger of catching a "gay disease" that will turn us all gay and wipe out the human race. Get real. Another cover for bigotry. You sound like Taliban nuts, who oddly enough, did plenty of homosexual acts of their own.

It's not that I think that humanity will stop breeding, I think that, if radicals get their way, the institution of marriage will be made to seem obsolete, in favor of other intitutions,including polygamy, polyandry, and love communes with multiple partners of both sexes. I think that a stable, loving, two parent, one male,one female family provides the best environment for raising children. If this instituion is devalued in the ways that I detailed, then I fear for entire generations of children will grow up without formative role models in the way that we conceive of formative role models. Name one successful society that sanctions Polygamy/Polyandry.

Don't any of you realize that it doesn't even have to be called marriage. [/B]

If it doesn't have to be called marriage, then why do you oppose the amendment? It doesn't forbid civil unions, it simply defines "marriage" as man and woman.
 
Your troll HAS been reported. If I wrote something like that about the Jews, for example, I'd be off this site in three minutes flat.

My reference to Mein Kampf was meant satirically; I doubt Adolph could keep up with you.

It's a pity, you seemed such a rational contributor to discussion on other issues. I suppose only so much can be expected from your area of the world in the way of tolerant, civilized discourse.

Really, you've only shot yourself in the foot by showing all your cards.
 
Originally posted by Roundman
I don't really believe in the ideas of natural rights.
Then you'll have no qualms with my hunting you down and...well, you obviously have an overly vivid imagination.
Originally posted by Roundman
If it doesn't have to be called marriage, then why do you oppose the amendment? It doesn't forbid civil unions, it simply defines "marriage" as man and woman.
The purpose of the Constitution is to define a framework for a government to serve and protect us. The Constitution is there to preserve rights, not deny them.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Don't feed the trolls, wait for the mods to shut this sicko down.
That, sir, is the most sensical argument I've read for pages. Goodnight.
 
Originally posted by superslug

Then you'll have no qualms with my hunting you down and...well, you obviously have an overly vivid imagination.

There is no absolute "moral" reason why doing this would be wrong. I believe that society developed as various strongmen conivinced people to follow them and formed tribes. Those strongmen competed with other strongmen, and eventually some pretty large societies developed, complete with basic ethics that justified the rule of the victorious strongman (... a very Hobbesian viewpoint). However, that means that society doesn't draw upon anything for its basic rights/morals other than on itself and its leaders. There exists no basis on which to "prove" those morals.

If there are sufficient stresses to a system, then the leadership is discredited, the basic morality undergirding the systems is warped or destroyed, as they are really just imaginary constructs to begin with, and the society is altered. The end conclusion is that there is no such thing as true right or wrong, merely situations. Those who have the power to shape opinion and morality are therefore the most powerful members of society, because they decide what goes and what doesn't. No supernatural force will force a society to do anything.

My basic "philosophy" is a blend of Hobbes, Social Darwinism, and Nihilism

The purpose of the Constitution is to define a framework for a government to serve and protect us. The Constitution is there to preserve rights, not deny them. [/B]

It can preserve what ever rights that the opinion shapers want it to. It once protected slavery; its not inconceivable that it could do so again. It abridged the right for people to produce or sell alcohol through Prohibition; it could do so again. The Constitution, in the end, is a piece of paper, and can be molded by those who gain enough influence.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Your troll HAS been reported. If I wrote something like that about the Jews, for example, I'd be off this site in three minutes flat.

My reference to Mein Kampf was meant satirically; I doubt Adolph could keep up with you.

It's a pity, you seemed such a rational contributor to discussion on other issues. I suppose only so much can be expected from your area of the world in the way of tolerant, civilized discourse.

Really, you've only shot yourself in the foot by showing all your cards.

Its good to see that you enjoy discourse. Why bother to type anything? I simply answered your questions, which read as follows:

Why? Why should YOU care about other people's behavior that neither harms you nor affects you?

How does homosexuality affect society negatively?

If you're talking about "defending our traditions", you should keep in mind that when you talk about "tradition", you're talking about a tradition of REPRESSING homosexuality. A tradition based on intolerance is not worth fighting for.

You don't like my answers? Don't ask the questions.

Also, I appreciate the broad generalization about "my part of the world," as it shows your true sensitivity and openmindedness. What do you mean by "my part of the world?" The US? The East? Maryland? Virginia? The Chesapeake region? Virginia really isn't the "South" anymore, so I assume that you don't mean that. besides, I live half of my year four miles south of the Mason-Dixon line. I am hardly a Southerner. How much do you know about "my area"?

Typical. It doesn't bother me; it simply shows that you are a hypocrite. Resort to censorship, or, "god forbid", get me kicked off of the site :cry: I never advocated violence or anything like it. I stated my opinions. You stated yours. So, of course, you tattle on something thing that you don't like. I don't hold that decision against you, just don't expect others to tolerate your specific point of view when it is offered.

BTW, you never answered my question on whether or not you've read Mein Kampf. Have you, or are you just guessing?

... Besides, If I could out write Adolf, I'd be a millionare. Afterall, Mein Kampf is the second bestselling book of all time...

edited to aggravate P.P. a bit more.
 
Originally posted by Comraddict
There is no freedom, or democracy. It is just (TV) illusion. I hope we agree on that. I'm not as free as Bill Gates, nor I have same influence. I don't have much infulence at all.

technically that will never happen. even if someone were even to make a pure communist society done right, there will always be rich and poor.
 
Originally posted by Roundman


I have seen such people. They didn't use those exact words, but how about a group of Lesbian abortion activists screaming "DESTROY THE ENEMY WITHIN!" I personally liked the gay contingent in one of my business classes arguing that marriage benefits and maternal leave should be eliminated, as they encourage unproductive activites and absenteeism. Its little things like this, day in and day out, that pile up.

Ya, and I have also heard Pat Robertson say "NUKE THE STATE DEPARTMENT".
 
@Roundman - what kind of man is a roundman? The curvy, feminine connotations of round coupled with the homophobic ejaculations you pass off as your views suggests a latently deep closet.

Gay individuals can procreate - I am proof as my father is gay, but he had a fews years of heterosexual weakness in which he was involved in a Baptist-approved union of man and woman. As much as he tried to properly guide me, I failed and turned out straight. I recently attended the civil union between he and his partner. After a decade of a monogamous relationship, it is about time they tied the knot. Unfortunately, many of the rights granted to the 50% divorce rate crowd will not be granted to my father and his partner. Why? Because the Baptists tell us so.

You complain about gay extremists, but how extreme is it to demand that a great document (the Constitution) be used to specifically promote a religious crusade to deny others rights? You would think that a better approach to strengthening the institution of marriage would be to find ways to improve the straight divorce rate. Maybe add criminal sanctions to divorce or something if you are really so eager to see the state involved in the defense of marriage game.

My father is no extremist - my guess is that you would have no clue that either he or his partner were gay if you met either one of them - he just wants the right to legally committ to the consenting adult partner of his choice - to have the rights and obligations associated with such a union. Wouldn't you rather encourage him to maintain a monogamous relationship rather than prey on the next round man he suspects is trying to find his way out of the closet? Or maybe you prefer a world with a steady supply of promiscuous gay men.
 
Jolly Roger-

I don't care about the religious crusade, nor do I care about your father. I also don't think that he is an extremist; he is probably one of the pointless, powerless people that I was referring to that do no greater harm than that of propping up their favored structure, which I happen to oppose. It seems that I hit on some underlying, deep-seated tension here. You seem to be quick to diagnose latent psychological disorders, how about practicing some introspection? You must have anger issues to get so worked up over something you read on the internet, posted by someone you don't know and will most likely never meet. As I said, the people that I truly hate are the extremists who are pushing their radical agenda. They have particular agendas that go againt my particular agenda. I will not tolerate someone who actively, forcefully advocates the opposite of what I believe in. It would be shameful to do so. I realize that my views are extreme. As an extremist myself, I view opposing radicals as enemies, as much as they view me as an enemy. Neither of us is "right", as there is no such thing as "right." Right is simply determined by what group of extremists controls the discourse of the time. Unfortunately for me, the other side controls the discourse at this time.

About using the Constitution: it is simply a document. It can be used in anyway by the people who have the power to do so.
It, in and of itself, is powerless and inert, and can therefore be modified in any way. By casting it in the light of a sacred text you are doning what you despise: using the Constituion as a political weapon. If there is the will to pass the amendment, then no arguments on your part will stop it. If the will is not there, then the amendment will not be passed. I support the amendment because it goes along with my agenda, in which the idea that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality is a "platform" of a greater belief system. I don't care about this particular amendment's religious overtones; I'm not religious, nor do I support the religious workings of Falwell. I simply enjoy the fact that this Amendment limits an important (I'd say fundamental) social construct to a definition of my liking. However, I also don't think that it has a chance in hell of passing. I personally don't give a damn what you think.

By the way, I enjoyed your oh so clever, original closet homosexual barbs. I always find it amusing that defenders of gay people always call "homophobes" gay. To me it seems to be a tacit acceptance that your position is inferior. Why put the people that you are defending in a derrogatory light? I take no offense; its like calling me a Chinese racial slur; its unapplicable, and therefore, not harmful. Besides, I didn't originally intend to describe my views to anyone until I was so rudely asked to do so by P.P. I know that they will offend people.
 
Well, just to remind to some...

Marriage : legitimate union of two persons under the conditions of the law.

No references to kids or to different sexes. Sorry to disappoint some that just reduced marriage to their own children-manufacturing point of view, and who were the ones redefining marriage.

By the way, I suppose that if marriage is about having kid, a woman that is 55 can't be married, as she's too old to have kids ? And a man who is sterile can't be married either ?

:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Your troll HAS been reported. If I wrote something like that about the Jews, for example, I'd be off this site in three minutes flat.

My reference to Mein Kampf was meant satirically; I doubt Adolph could keep up with you.

It's a pity, you seemed such a rational contributor to discussion on other issues. I suppose only so much can be expected from your area of the world in the way of tolerant, civilized discourse.

Really, you've only shot yourself in the foot by showing all your cards.

Moderator Action: Maybe you ought to stop trolling a region of the world one of your moderators is from.

At any rate, Roundman and Pontiuth Pilot, stop attacking each other.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Originally posted by archer_007
http://www.onemanonewoman.com/

I wanted to vomit when I read this. Do you think this sort of tripe will get passed?

I do believe there are more important issues, in America, that need to be addressed, at this point in time.
 
Some people have too much time on their hands... then again, I'm the one reading about them at four in the morning. :lol: and all of you are reading about me reading about them... :rofl: the spiral of entropy continues downward.
 
Originally posted by Narz
Some people have too much time on their hands... then again, I'm the one reading about them at four in the morning. :lol: and all of you are reading about me reading about them... :rofl: the spiral of entropy continues downward.
Well, you know, it's 10:13 here, so it's not particulary weird for me to read a forum at this hour :p
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

I think homosexuality [and sexuality in general] is probably the result of the complex interaction of a large number of genes. Is there a "the gene" which determines if you prefer redheads or brunettes? ;)

We, no body said that it wasnt a multigenic trait, which it would have to be or it wouldnt not be passed.
 
Originally posted by superslug

Why shouldn't two members of the same sex be allowed to marry? How is such a concept immoral? How is marriage an institution that cannot be redefined?

Because th bible says the first couple was Adam and Eve...Not Adam and Joe...:p:lol: I don't know why, though...It just is plain socially non-permitted...I do believe we should concern ourselves more with Iraq and the Economy moreso, however.
 
Top Bottom