Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 267

Thread: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure[W:208]

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    It serves the exact same social and economic purpose that heterosexual marriage does -- namely, settles property rights and power of attorney questions. How does that not apply to homosexuals?
    Don't play stupid

    Biology is what it is. You believe in science right?

    That's too simplistic a view. Genetics isn't that straight. The most widely accepted research right now shows a very strong correlation between women with certain genetic traits that have both more children and more gay sons. The obvious evolutionary cost of a gay son is offset by the evolutionary benefit of having more children -- enough to offset the difference.
    There is no gay gene. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

    Even if it weren't, it still wouldn't be the state's business. If you want to call it a birth defect (only for the sake of argument), are you also going to say that people with other birth defects should also be prevented from marrying? Should the be sterilized to prevent evolutionary damage or something? Should we do full-scale eugenics? I'd say no, that's not the govenrment's function.
    So people born gay are born with birth defects? Is that your argument?

    Obama and the Democrats are already running a full scale eugenics program. It's called Planned Parenthood and Hip Hop Culture.

    People born with an extra toe, for example. The extra toe serves no function. Should it be cut off? How far are you going to take biological imperative in setting government policy?
    How did you get from marriage to killing people. Hyperbole much? I'm not interested in debating you if you're going to act hysterical like this.

    Almost the entire psychological profession says you're wrong. But you know more about psychology than the entire psychological profession, right?
    Homosexuality was never removed from the DSM Criteria for scientific reasons. Purely political ones. Money buys morality in US Politics.

    You are still just as free to despise them after they're married as you were before they were married. The government can't mandate that you must accept gay sex as normal. But the government has to apply the law equally to all parties in all classes. If you want to end gay marriage, then you have to end straight marriage, as well.
    Not accepting homosexuality as normal doesn't mean I hate gay people. This is why people like you are really the bigots. You paint people as villains when they don't go along with the politically correct narrative. It's not against the law yet to have an opinion in this country. It's still my right to determine my own morality. This the real problem with homosexuality being normalized and gay marriage. The State is now becoming a religion. You must accept sodomy as normal and support homosexual marriage or you will be a moral outcast.

    No one I know is asking for an atheist government, just a secular one. One that has no say in any religious matter (except, of course, where it's also a civil matter -- for example you can't sacrifice virgins at the altar).
    Tell that to the photographers being targeted for not wanting to take pictures of gay weddings

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    It's just another victory for fascism. I don't think the public sector should be able to discriminate on any factor (orientation included). However, I virulently detest governments determining what the private sector can do.

    It's like all those people who cry "First Amendment!" to only defend freedoms they agree with. Voltaire would be disappointed.

    We've become a nation of pussies, afraid that someone's feelings will get hurt. That trumps your right to commerce, preference, or morality. When someone sheds a tear, we lose a little more liberty.
    What liberty has been lost? They can say they hate fags or whatever.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    What liberty has been lost? They can say they hate fags or whatever.
    They can no longer "reserve the right".

  4. #24
    Educator Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    704

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Don't play stupid

    Biology is what it is. You believe in science right?
    You said it served no social or economic purpose. It serves the same social and economic purpose as hetero marriage does. It's all about property rights. Whether or not it serves a biological purpose isn't the states business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    There is no gay gene. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
    Based on what? Honestly, where is your evidence of this? You realize that what I posed is about well researched findings, right? On what do you argue that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    So people born gay are born with birth defects? Is that your argument?
    No, of course not. Maybe I misunderstood, but that seemed to be your argument. Are you saying instead that they aren't born gay? If so, how do they become gay?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    How did you get from marriage to killing people. Hyperbole much? I'm not interested in debating you if you're going to act hysterical like this.
    I'm trying to understand to what extent you want the government to go in governing based on perceived biological imperative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Homosexuality was never removed from the DSM Criteria for scientific reasons. Purely political ones. Money buys morality in US Politics.
    Based on what? Why do you say this? Where do you get this information?


    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Not accepting homosexuality as normal doesn't mean I hate gay people. This is why people like you are really the bigots. You paint people as villains when they don't go along with the politically correct narrative. It's not against the law yet to have an opinion in this country. It's still my right to determine my own morality. This the real problem with homosexuality being normalized and gay marriage. The State is now becoming a religion. You must accept sodomy as normal and support homosexual marriage or you will be a moral outcast.
    I just finished saying you don't have to accept anything as normal and you don't have to support anything and you're free to have your bitter, angry and judgemental opinions about other people. No one cares, at all. Not a single person. But you don't have the right to circumvent the Constitution to create discriminatory law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Tell that to the photographers being targeted for not wanting to take pictures of gay weddings
    That's not an "atheist government". I'd love to hear how you think that's an "atheist government".


    You keep making assertions, that you seem to be very sure of, with no backing, at all. There is no gay gene, homosexuality was removed from the DSM for political reasons, People aren't born gay. But what research are you basing this on? Or is it just how you feel about it, and you haven't bothered to question it? How do you know there are no genes that influence homosexuality? how do you know that the DSM was changed for political reasons and that someone "bought" it? How do you know they aren't born gay? What evidence do you have?
    "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    They can no longer "reserve the right".
    I don't think to discriminate because of race religion sex sexual orientation is a right. Ater all we are all equal under the law.

  6. #26
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,671

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure


    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  7. #27
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Theocrat?

    I'm just talking basic biology here. Gay Marriage serves no social or economic purpose. You can toss out every (you're a religious nut) strawmen out there all you want. If homosexuality was biological than evolution over time would have found a way to adapt. If homosexuality is a mental issue however, (as it was known before they changed the DSM criteria because of political reasons) then society shouldn't be made to conform to such obviously irrational behavior (sodomy/homosexual sex being normalized/put on a pedestal).

    Besides, an atheist government is still a Theocracy, in the sense that The State determines it's own morality. What could possibly go wrong?
    Marriage, gay or straight, serves no biological function. It's a social construction created by man, there is no "marriage gene". Whether you like Homosexuals or think they're "normal" (whatever normal means), the government isn't there to give or take rights, it's there to protect them. You had the right to be gay, get married, and do just about anything you want, from the day you were born. That we're still debating laws around this issue is only proof that the government already overstepped it's boundaries.

    When it comes to your use of the word "sodomy", you are just showing your ignorance on this issue. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was about selfishness and in-hospitality, homosexuality was not and is not "sodomy". That a bunch of backward puritan nutjobs twisted the word to mean what they wanted it to mean, doesn't make it true. You should really read the story again, and maybe some of the original account as recorded in the Torah; Homosexual sex is absolutely a sin in the bible, but not the sin of Sodom.

    Religion aside, Bronson, as a Libertarian, how can you possibly support the government taking away rights? Reversing those laws and blocking new ones is the entire point of Libertarianism, so I seriously question your posts. Whether you like Homosexuals or not should have absolutely no bearing on how the law is applied to them; if straights can get married, gays should be able to get married. How does it protect our rights to take theirs away?

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I don't think to discriminate because of race religion sex sexual orientation is a right. Ater all we are all equal under the law.
    You're right. We are equal under the law. We are not equal under commerce though.

    Anyone who wants to deprive themselves of profit based on ignorant beliefs should have that right. They're only hurting themselves.

  9. #29
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,814

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I don't think to discriminate because of race religion sex sexual orientation is a right. Ater all we are all equal under the law.
    correct and the laws are their to protect us from discrimination and protect our rights

    ill say the same thing i have been saying in similar threads

    there are laws, rights and rules that we ALL must play by not just some of us

    if Im to bigoted or to uncivil to run a public access business and not break the law why do i open one? i shouldnt and if i do and break the law that MY fault

    if i have such an uncivil discourse for whites, blacks, asians, latinos, women, men, gays, bi-sexuals, chrsitians, jews, muslims, and or the handicap why do i open a public access business? if i do im an idiot and that my fault if i break the law.

    people like that are short sighted and stupid, they know there are rules and laws that we ALL must follow. Not SOME of us, ALL of us.

    if you cant play by the rules above
    1.) dont go into public access business
    2.) do a business that doesnt relate to things that offend you
    3.)do a private practice.

    Very simple solution. Blows my mind some people dont get and just think they are allowed to break the law and violate rights.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    You're right. We are equal under the law. We are not equal under commerce though.

    Anyone who wants to deprive themselves of profit based on ignorant beliefs should have that right. They're only hurting themselves.
    They can voice their opinions publicly, freedom of speech and the public can decide.

Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •