• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

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?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

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.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

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.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

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.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

They can voice their opinions publicly, freedom of speech and the public can decide.

I consider it criminal to deny people their right to "vote" through their money. Do you support boycotts? From your viewpoint, you clearly don't.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

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.

What about one eyed purple people eaters?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I consider it criminal to deny people their right to "vote" through their money. Do you support boycotts? From your viewpoint, you clearly don't.

I have no problem with individuals boycotting.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I have no problem with individuals boycotting.

So you support people boycotting through principle, but you also support compulsory service-providing against principle.

You have a third side of your mouth you want to talk out of as well?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

~snip~
Obama and the Democrats are already running a full scale eugenics program. It's called Planned Parenthood and Hip Hop Culture.
Neither Obama nor Democrats are in any way, shape, or form responsible for either of those groups. You're seriously paranoid, sir.
Homosexuality was never removed from the DSM Criteria for scientific reasons. Purely political ones. Money buys morality in US Politics.
When you make accusations like that, you should really back it up. In either case, DSM has never had anything to do with morality, so I don't know what your point is.
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.
Accepting people isn't a PC stunt. It's basic human compassion. But, there is no law saying you have to accept anyone or anything. Anti-gay supporters are being vilified by social forces, not legal ones; Society is throwing you out as a moral outcast, not the law.

Tell that to the photographers being targeted for not wanting to take pictures of gay weddings

Again, there is no law saying you have to accept anything as a private citizen. Even in business, they specifically said that you could print any message you wanted on products, no matter how offensive they are to the gay community, and communicate your dislike for them at every turn. I assure you, if you put up a giant "I hate gays" sign on your business, you're going to have no problems. You'll have no business either, but that's the cost of being a schmuck.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

What about one eyed purple people eaters?

awww shucks i left them out, yes they need love too!
Flying_Purple_People_Eater_by_Sklavenbrause.jpg
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I have no problem with individuals boycotting.

boycotts are what helped put the bakery in the OP out of business i totally support that
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

So you support people boycotting through principle, but you also support compulsory service-providing against principle.

You have a third side of your mouth you want to talk out of as well?

A business of public accommodation is different than an individual.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

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.

It doesn't

Homosexual Sex doesn't create new taxpayers

Biology isn't in the state's interest? Yet all of our personal information is fair game right?

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?

There is no gay gene. Studies of identical twins have proven this. There are multiple threads about it here where I freely gave my opinion on the subject. You can start there.

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?

You're the one who made the comparison :lol:

I'm trying to understand to what extent you want the government to go in governing based on perceived biological imperative.

I don't want Government involved in marriage. If it isn't going to support the science and purpose behind a man and woman's union, on this planet and instead make it about people's feelings and taxes, then Government should just get out.

Based on what? Why do you say this? Where do you get this information?

Go back and read about the 1974 vote when it was removed. There was no scientific breakthrough that suddenly homosexuality was normal. The campaign, like every other leftist campaign, started with gays protesting in San Francisco. It was political pressure that led to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM criteria.

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.

Who are you to judge whether my opinions are "bitter, angry and judgmental"?

That's not an "atheist government". I'd love to hear how you think that's an "atheist government".

What God does Obama believe in? Don't tell me what he pretends to in front of the cameras. Democrats removed God from their platform. What God(s) does Obama worship and what is the moral foundation of his beliefs?

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?

We've been over this many times. Feel free to provide the story that a gay gene was found if you don't believe me.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

A business of public accommodation is different than an individual.

And when it's the public sector, I agree.

When it's the private sector, I see it as a gross abuse of power. It's just the state enforcing its will. It's no different than all the bullcrap cases of "Eminent Domain" where the little guy gets stepped on because we keep giving over our rights and free will.

We let ourselves become a government big enough to give us all we want. Unfortunately, not enough of us suffer the outrage when it's big enough to take it all away.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

What issue would that be?

What exactly are you trying to dispute?


The captain doesn't know what he is talking about, he thinks he can redefine words to suit his needs. You had it right in your posting.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Neither Obama nor Democrats are in any way, shape, or form responsible for either of those groups. You're seriously paranoid, sir.

Where was the first Planned Parenthood built? What were Sanger's views on blacks.

Jay Z, MTV and Beyonce control Hip Hop Culture. Obama is their homey.

When you make accusations like that, you should really back it up. In either case, DSM has never had anything to do with morality, so I don't know what your point is.

I never said it had to do anything with morality. Please try and follow along.

Freud himself viewed homosexuality and paranoia as being inseparable.

Accepting people isn't a PC stunt. It's basic human compassion. But, there is no law saying you have to accept anyone or anything. Anti-gay supporters are being vilified by social forces, not legal ones; Society is throwing you out as a moral outcast, not the law.

I accept everyone. I do not accept homosexual sex.

Love the sinner. Hate the sin.


Again, there is no law saying you have to accept anything as a private citizen. Even in business, they specifically said that you could print any message you wanted on products, no matter how offensive they are to the gay community, and communicate your dislike for them at every turn. I assure you, if you put up a giant "I hate gays" sign on your business, you're going to have no problems. You'll have no business either, but that's the cost of being a schmuck.

Tell that to the photographers being attacked for not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding. Will children be taken away from their parents if they don't accept homosexuality as normal?

Radical Authoritarians on the Left abandoned the restraints of The Constitution long ago
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

FFDFight.jpg

good sign sir, some didnt get it so i see this sign and i raise you this one
dont_feed_the_trolls.jpg
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

good sign sir, some didnt get it so i see this sign and i raise you this one
View attachment 67153219
Whether these guys are trolls or not, this thread has become another "yell at the monitor" event. Good day sirs, I'm out.

Love thy neighbor.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Whether these guys are trolls or not, this thread has become another "yell at the monitor" event. Good day sirs, I'm out.

Love thy neighbor.

who said we meant anyone here?

anyway thats the worst thing you can do is get mad at who ever you are yelling at, thats what they want, i personally cant get emotional on a message board but thats just me i guess. The best way is not to get made and just use facts to defeat them.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

They can no longer "reserve the right".

Whether you like it or not it now falls under the same category as if someone said "I'm not going to serve those ni**ers". Do you feel a shop owner has a right to not serve blacks?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

who said we meant anyone here?

anyway thats the worst thing you can do is get mad at who ever you are yelling at, thats what they want, i personally cant get emotional on a message board but thats just me i guess. The best way is not to get made and just use facts to defeat them.

That may be the best way, but it's not the way I do it; I'm only a man, with my flaws even when I notice them. I swear they're going to find my body next to my computer one day, after having a stroke from debating on this site. That's how much I yell in the real world. It's a pressure valve so I don't type-yell on the site.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

That may be the best way, but it's not the way I do it; I'm only a man, with my flaws even when I notice them. I swear they're going to find my body next to my computer one day, after having a stroke from debating on this site. That's how much I yell in the real world. It's a pressure valve so I don't type-yell on the site.

LOL
well to each his own, im just not wired that way. At least not sitting at a computer, just doesn't work for me like that. I mean i understand the stupidity and mental retardation that is present on these forums but it just never effects me emotionally besides laugh how stupid some people are.

Hopefully you can work on it because like i said thats all some people want, they get off on it.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Where was the first Planned Parenthood built? What were Sanger's views on blacks.
This is a cop out. Challenge the views people currently have.
Jay Z, MTV and Beyonce control Hip Hop Culture. Obama is their homey.
Yes, and Clint Eastwood, Fox news, and Christianity control rural culture.

I never said it had to do anything with morality. Please try and follow along.
Actually you mentioned morality four times.
Besides, an atheist government is still a Theocracy, in the sense that The State determines it's own morality.
Homosexuality was never removed from the DSM Criteria for scientific reasons. Purely political ones. Money buys morality in US Politics.
It's still my right to determine my own morality.
You must accept sodomy as normal and support homosexual marriage or you will be a moral outcast.
Freud himself viewed homosexuality and paranoia as being inseparable.
Yeah, he said a lot of funny things like that jokes do not exist.

I accept everyone. I do not accept homosexual sex.

Love the sinner. Hate the sin.
Gay Marriage is sham pretend marriage It shouldn't be legal anywhere. Sodomites whined however, so they get to play dress up and pretend they are normal.
^^This doesn't sound accepting to me.
Tell that to the photographers being attacked for not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding.
There's no room for discrimination in modern business. People don't like it.
Will children be taken away from their parents if they don't accept homosexuality as normal?
I would love to see children taken away from parents who would kick them to the curb for being gay, but the government is taking children from people of that view who don't abuse their children.
Radical Authoritarians on the Left abandoned the restraints of The Constitution long ago
Discriminatory laws aren't constitutional until the supreme court decides they're not. They're unconstitutional the moment they're written down.
 
Last edited:
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

This is a cop out. Challenge the views people currently have.

Not a cop out. Historical fact. Facts are facts.

Yes, and Clint Eastwood, Fox news, and Christianity control rural culture.

Where was the first Planned Parenthood built? What were Margaret Sanger's views on race?

You keep dodging those questions and bringing up Fox News like that's somehow going to help you.

Actually you mentioned morality four times.

My argument is strictly biological. You're the one bringing morality into the discussion. If homosexuality was biological than how come humans haven't adapted to the behavior through evolution?

Yeah, he said a lot of funny things like that jokes do not exist.

Freud didn't know what he was talking about?

^^This doesn't sound accepting to me.

I don't approve of homosexual sex and gay marriage is pointless pretend marriage.

There's no room for discrimination in modern business. People don't like it.

Tell that to the photographers being targeted for their beliefs.

I would love to see children taken away from parents who would kick them to the curb for being gay, but the government is taking children from people of that view who don't abuse their children.

Kick to the curb? Nice hyperbole. As was stated previously, there is no biological reason why a child should be gay. You can stomp and throw a temper tantrum all you want. The studies have been done on Identical twins which = identical DNA. No gay gene.

Discriminatory laws aren't constitutional until the supreme court decides they're not. They're unconstitutional the moment they're written down.

You're all for discrimination if the people being targeted are those that have a different view than you. You've admitted it in this very thread. You can step down from your phony moral high ground. There is nothing noble about defending sodomy and irrational behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom