Gay marriage Debate: Karl Rove vs. schoolgirl

[cubsfan6506]

Gentetic anomalies still fall in the case of natural.

 

[warpus]

I can't. If it isn't obvious to you from just imaging two penises colliding and being unable to bear offspring, then I don't know what to tell you.

That's not how they do it.

You need to watch more gay porn.

 

[.Shane.]

I know we wouldn't. What I at least hope people can see though, within their own life-spans even, is that morals and values in the West are changing rapidly, very rapidly. People seem to think that is not a problem, but I, and some others, do think it is. Can I prove that it is destructive? Unless I am given the world as my personal lab and can treat humans like guinea pigs, there is no way I can prove it.

I think you're laboring under a pretty big fallacy here. Morals and values are ALWAYS changing and have always changed. Do you REALLY want to live in America of the 1950s? How about the 1830s? And before you sputter on about technological advancement, I'll offer that its the changing, improving, and modifying of values that go hand-in-hand with technological innovation.

Culture is not static. It does not stay the same. Never. Culture is dynamic and you either progress with it or try to regress against it.

 

[skadistic]

Actually, Skad, I here I use the norm to make my case - the norm being that church pastors dont spend every Sunday preaching on the evils of homosexuality. Its your allegation that the extreme - i.e. people like the Westboro Baptist Church - are somehow the religious norm in the USA. But it isnt and you friggin know it. Its a simply stupid point for you to try and make.I didn't bring up WBC you did. Please quote me where I said it was the norm. Please4 I'm begging you.



Demonize? They call it sin. Apparently in your world difference of opinion is not allowed. Where did I say they couldn't have a difference of opinion? Please quote me.



Huh? Now you are completely going off-tangent as I never alleged any such thing. When you simply cant follow the convo rationally any longer I guess the convo is over.So are you saying that 40 states didn't vote to ban gay marriage? Or have they? I followed the convo just fine. You keep changing things. So I can see how you might be having trouble keeping up with your self.



/shrug. It has its own set of rules. Again, dont like it? Dont apply.Sorry you love your country and want to serve but you're gay and we discriminate against you. If you don't like it thats to bad you're so we don't care.



Wait a second....havent you spent the last several pages argueing that our whole society treats gays as unacceptable freaks to the extent that it causes emotionallly destructive behavior upon gays?On some gays. Yes. But I guess you can't understand sarcasm. Should i put little rolly eyes there for you next time so you can keep up?

So which is it? Only the military treats them as unacceptable or our society as a whole? Or did your foot just say "hello mouth, open wide'?No foot no mouth but you may want to pull your head out.

Gotcha. No you don't.



Actually its not an issue of being 'good enough', but you knew that (I hope). Plus there are other ways that you can serve your country that dont include the military. I hope you knew that as well.So if its not about being good enough what is it about exactly? If a gay can do everything equally as well but will not get admitted because hes gay obviously gays aren't good enough because they are gay. But they can serve in other ways if they don't want to hide who they are.



There being christian has nothing to do with it. I mean I know you have issues there, but it really doesnt. By all means show me the religious language in any single one of the statues involved.So the notion of marriage being between one man and one woman isn't based in christianity? That has nothing to do with it at all? Then what is it about? Your dishonesty is abundantly clear right there.



Prove its in the name of God anywhere. Its in the name of the people...not the name of God.The name of the people who are voting by their interpretation of what is the will of their god and religion. I know you want to pretend it has nothing to do with god and if thats the dishonest line of arguing you want to take be my quest. Every one else will see it for the BS it is and you for the dishonest person you are being.



Well the simple answer to that is sexual preference =/= race. So some discrimination is ok. I think a whole lot of black people would say they have been discrminated against and that to compare the two is actually pretty darn insulting to black people. Yes because not all discrimination is equal. Merely my opinion however.

In Massachusetts for awhile now. But in other places I cant marry a guy and neither can any other man. Pretty equal actually.Yup as long as the discrimination is equally discriminatory its ok.



Whats not to understand? Not only do you not understand but you don't even know what you don't understand. No wonder you don't understand it.



Are you a math specialist?No. But I have a better grasp then you do. But I don't want to hold your hand and explain it to you so I said maybe an expert would. I'll just let you stew in your ignorance.



Actually, I think I have a handle on this a bit better than you do youself. I know I have spent far more time looking into the actual data than you have in regards to it.Obviously you don't have a better handle. But by all means please tell me exactly how much time I've put into looking the data since you know.



By all means explain to me how "1 man + 1 woman = marriage' is solely a 'christian' definition?No no your right it has nothing to do with christians and christianity. Nope got nothing to do with that at all. I'm sure all those people have a totally different source of influence. Just more of your disingenuos dishonesty.



Let me ask you a question Skaddy. Who has been treated worse/discrminated against more? Blacks or homosexuals?

Black homosexuals but does it matter? Discrimination is discrimination. You've show you believe that some discrimination is ok. Like discrimination against gays is ok for you. If it wasn't you wouldn't be defending it.

Who do you think its ok to discriminate against Mobboss? Who else do you see as lower class citizens that don't deserve equality?

 

[Patroklos]

And thats you're counter argument?

Your arguement counters itself. Unless you wish to maintain that deer having antlers means it is totally natrual for humans as well?

Heres a video of about the gay dolphins.

Dolphins are a dominance thing, not a false mating pair. There are animals that make false mating pairs I hear, but dolphins are not the example you are looking for. At least I hope not, as that would suggest you think human homosexual behavior is about male dominance...

 

[Pannonius]

Gentetic anomalies still fall in the case of natural.

Yes, it is natural, but it is an abnormality, nothing to glorify.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Nothing to ban either. Should we ban wheel chair ramps. Those after all are just the result of genetic anomolies. Perhaps we should just go back to the way of ancient Sparta and leave inadaquete babies out to die.

 

[Homie]

I think you're laboring under a pretty big fallacy here. Morals and values are ALWAYS changing and have always changed. Do you REALLY want to live in America of the 1950s? How about the 1830s?

Yes and yes. I assume that my comfort level stays the same and that you are simply talking about social norms. Culture may always be changing, but I don't agree that values and norms are always changing, that is a more recent thing.

 

[.Shane.]

Culture may always be changing, but I don't agree that values and norms are always changing, that is a more recent thing.

Culture is intertwined w/ values and norms: they are inseparable. Speaking generally (not about you, specifically) the right-wing understands this clearly. They do call these "culture wars" do they not?

 

[MobBoss]

I didn't bring up WBC you did. Please quote me where I said it was the norm. Please4 I'm begging you.

Actually, your original comment alludes to a WBC-like church precisely being the norm of christian churches.

So the notion of marriage being between one man and one woman isn't based in christianity? That has nothing to do with it at all? Then what is it about? Your dishonesty is abundantly clear right there.

One. Since you failed to meet my challenge I will simply assume you can prove it. Two. Whoever alledged that marriage between one man and one woman was based in christianity?

The name of the people who are voting by their interpretation of what is the will of their god and religion.

Ah...so people should only vote with secularism in mind then correct? Or are you advocating that people shouldnt have the right to vote the way they wish?

I know you want to pretend it has nothing to do with god and if thats the dishonest line of arguing you want to take be my quest. Every one else will see it for the BS it is and you for the dishonest person you are being.

Still cant show me any religious language referring to God in any of those referendums? Apparently not.

Not only do you not understand but you don't even know what you don't understand. No wonder you don't understand it.

Excuse me...but really...that sounds like it is out of a Peter Sellers movie.

No. But I have a better grasp then you do.

Thats actually quite laughable.

I'll just let you stew in your ignorance.

Thank you Baghdad Bob. Because truly, you making such comments like this is like Baghdad Bob saying there are no live americans in Iraq while he is dodging shells on camera. Funny, funny stuff.

Black homosexuals but does it matter?

Sure. Prove it. Or are you simply talking out of your orifice of choice again? I am betting orifice.

Discrimination is discrimination. You've show you believe that some discrimination is ok. Like discrimination against gays is ok for you.

/shrug. I dont discriminate against gays. Also, try not to speak for me...its against the TOS.

Who do you think its ok to discriminate against Mobboss?

Lets see. I think its ok to discriminate against short people by having a height requirement for the state police. I dont want to see any fat airline stewardess' either. I got more, but you get the idea.

Who else do you see as lower class citizens that don't deserve equality?

Atheists?

Spoiler :

Sorry, but I couldnt resist in the face of such a stupid ass question.

 

[Homie]

I can't do this anymore. 4 page paper due tomorrow, I should really get cracking.

 

[warpus]

Heh heh.. you said crack.

 

[Berzerker]

Homie

Also, in response to Skad's comment about homosexual promiscuous behavior. It is a fact that homosexuals change sexual partners way more frequently than heterosexuals, and that is why deceases spread among them in a greater ratio. You might not be willing to accept it, but their lifestyle is generally less monogamous and more prone to casual sex.

Then marriage should be allowed to reduce the sin of fornication Thats was actually Paul's rationalization for marriage.

Ziggy

Would there be a possibility that their general lifestyle maybe become a little more settled when they were allowed to marry, raise kids and such? When people openly can declare their love to each other, be it in marriage or simply a relationship which is accepted by society, would that not be beneficial to that relationship?

Of course, whatever "pathologies" gays have biologically is a separate category from pathologies acquired from being gay in a hostile environment, often from the religious folk who cite the pathologies they helped create. Keep calling people an abomination to God and some will actually come to believe it.

Or does being gay in itself carry with it the characteristic of being more prone to casual sex? And could you explain what part of homosexuality makes them more prone to it?

Women are more monogamous than men... and better at enforcing it But that aint a consequence of being gay, just nature telling men to keep spreading their seed while the main Momma is pregnant.

 

[Homie]

Then marriage should be allowed to reduce the sin of fornication Thats was actually Paul's rationalization for marriage.

I know, except that it wouldn't reduce sin at all, since homosexual sex is a sin in itself, regardless if you are "married", a marriage not endorsed by the Bible anyway.

 

[zxcvbnm]

In increased rates of things that are worse for society than the alternative. Like teen pregnancy. More broken homes/families. Fatherless or motherless children who turn to gangs/drugs/crime because of their situation.

Removing the social stigma of such things results in harm to society via increased crime rates/inceased demand of money for social programs/increased burden on those who are productive. It slows the successful growth of society and increases unrest (in civ terms).

Does it increase? Is there proof of that?

About teen pregnancies, some will get them anyway, and if the alternative to current situation is that they'd be shunned and denied, I choose the current one definitely, as it's so much more humane for them.

 

[Berzerker]

I know, except that it wouldn't reduce sin at all, since homosexual sex is a sin in itself, regardless if you are "married", a marriage not endorsed by the Bible anyway.

Sure it would, its 2 sins without marriage - gay sex and fornication, 1 sin with marriage. And according to Paul, marriage is allowed because of fornication, ie better couples stay together in a union than everyone just banging each other.

 

[Pannonius]

Nothing to ban either. Should we ban wheel chair ramps. Those after all are just the result of genetic anomolies. Perhaps we should just go back to the way of ancient Sparta and leave inadaquete babies out to die.

No, sodomistic acts shouldn't be banned. But the "marriage" between two sodomites is just ridiculous.

 

[Patroklos]

Nothing to ban either. Should we ban wheel chair ramps. Those after all are just the result of genetic anomolies. Perhaps we should just go back to the way of ancient Sparta and leave inadaquete babies out to die.

I know this has been said already, but this thread contains some of the most blatant strawmen I have ever seen

 

[Stapel]

Stapel, and others:
I am of the belief that government shouldn't intervene in personal matters, they shouldn't even intervene beyond protecting their citizens. That being said, I was arguing my personal opinion on the matter of gay marriage and adoption, not saying it should be made law, but that I personally think it is immoral and destructive for the happiness of those involved.

Fair enough then. We wholeheartedly agree on the the government's role in this case. We simply have different believes on the effects of gay marrigae and adoption.

Fact remains I have seen gay marriage & adoption with my own eyes and have not whitnessed any rise in immorality or destruction. I doubt you have whitnessed it. I do realise, however, we might have different ideas on (im)morality. I find the use of the word destructive somewhat far-fetched, not?


On the issue of lifestyle. It's indeed a statistic fact gays shop around more in sexual relations. But when it comes to adoption, a couple has to prove some level of relational sustainabililty anyway. Whether stable couples are more likely to be found among heterosexuals isn't too relevant, I guess.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, sodomistic acts shouldn't be banned. But the "marriage" between two sodomites is just ridiculous.

So a heterosexual couple that engages in oral or anal sex should have their marriage annulled?