On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:

Segregates them by whom the love...whatever are you talking about.

So, an Adult American man should be able to marry his adult American daughter? That is what you are advocating, whether you know it or not...once the lines are erased...

Click to expand...

Who is trying to erase the lines here? Me? No, my friend--it is you... I would say that any father/daughter wanting to marry each other should be committed for psychiatric care.. Maybe those stories about inbred southern folks is true?

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:

Not even a nice try, so I give you back what you give...basically nothing.

Click to expand...

transaltion" you have no facts to support your posted lies, we knew that already but i figured i asked for them to see if you would at least try

anyway let us know when you have ANY facts to support your false claims, ANY . . . . hell ONE fact

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:

It doesn't matter if the consequences were reported through valid studies, through personal experiences, through statistics collected by the government You sure as hell ain't about to accept them cause your intolerant one minded self won't allow you to and instead of responding to such things it is easier to keep eluding that you have the "facts" and everyone else is full of ****. What a cop out. What a bogus façade you hide behind.

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

also heres some more questions your posts will fail at

explain to me how im the intolerant one since i want equal rights for gays and straights?
explain to me how im the ONE minded one since i want equal rights for BOTH gays and straights?

do you have any facts to support those two lies or is that just another failed post?
id love to read them too, i actually cant wait to see what fantasy you post next

Click to expand...

we're waiting?

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

TheNextEra said:

Wasn't it people like you who thought the moral compass was flushed down the toilet when races started intermingling?

Click to expand...

Nope ! My skin is much darker than my spouses.. In the winter time I make him look anemic. In the summertime and my tan could be viewed by some as an interracial marriage. NEXT!

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:

Nope ! My skin is much darker than my spouses.. In the winter time I make him look anemic. In the summertime and my tan could be viewed by some as an interracial marriage. NEXT!

Click to expand...

Well it was the same argument as then, many thought interracial marriage would send the U.S. moral compass plummeting and here you are repeating the same ****. Interesting.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:

Nope ! My skin is much darker than my spouses.. In the winter time I make him look anemic. In the summertime and my tan could be viewed by some as an interracial marriage. NEXT!

Click to expand...

uhm just pointing put the obvious your story has nothing to do with race?
not saying you have a problem with races just pointing out the obvious fact that you being tan and your husband not being tan is meaningless to the topic

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:

Hurts society long term, confuses children about what is natural and what is unnatural, causes misery, angst, a mess that has no right being heaped upon the rest of us just because 2%, a minimal minority, wants to impose this silliness upon the rest of us, most of whom, if push came to shove, would really rather not have this bull on a stick stuck in our faces all the time...

Sorry to offend, but that is just the truth of the matter...

Click to expand...

It certainly is not the truth of the matter at all--not even close...It does not hurt society in any way.. It does not confuse children who truly understand Love.. Who are you to judge what is natural and what is not natural.. Can a man do to another man what he cannot do to a woman? Think about that for a moment... Your religious viewpoint will not and should not overrule the religious or nonreligious viewpoints of others..

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:

No it doesn't breakdown. when you stop looking at changing the definition of marriage with tunnel vision and start focusing on the "what if''s" with a little more peripheral vision you can see with greater vision what the results could be in redefining marriage.

Click to expand...

This is where your logic fails miserably. What if we were all allowed to shoot each other in the head? Just because we make marriage legal means we might actually consider shooting each other as something that might be acceptable. At least according to your warped slippery slope. Despite marriage being legal, and despite things like sodomy becoming legal for straight people the problems associated with incest are still there. Your problem is you associate unrelated ideas and pretend that because we make one legal we have to make them all legal and that just is not so. Look at drugs. Tobacco, alcohol, OTCs, and prescription medicine are all legal. We are also finding some places are making pot smoking legal. However, we have a number of illegal substances that are still quite illegal because they are different that those that are legal. People see legalized crack as being a bad thing despite seeing legalizing pot as something that should happen.

You are making an incoherent argument that has nothing to do with the real argument. Gay relations are not incest. They are between two consenting unrelated adults. Most proponents of gay marriage have nop interest in discussing incestual relationships and oppose them. Your fears are unfounded and make a really piss poor excuse for keeping gay marriage from being recognized by the state. Since we are perfectly capable of discussing two separate issues separately and deciding laws that deal with them separately.

vesper said:

Critical Thought, if you are a male, then it is common knowledge that males tend to see things using tunnel vision. That is of course until they are with their wives and this sweet thing walks pasts them that they desire a second look. Then they rely heavily on their peripheral vision because their head is locked in the straight forward position so not to give away to their wife that they are indeed enjoying the view. A little more peripheral vision Critical Thought in the results of redefining marriage. Incest for gays would be a slam dunk! After all at this point the moral compass has been flushed down the toilet!

Click to expand...

Wow, that was a pretty amazing leap of faith. because men look at other women we have to have incest if gay marriage becomes legal. Did you get that from sarah palin? We are capable of dealing with both differently, and just because gay marriage becomes legal does not mean incest will. That is absurdity and you really need to come up with a real argument.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:

Nope ! My skin is much darker than my spouses.. In the winter time I make him look anemic. In the summertime and my tan could be viewed by some as an interracial marriage. NEXT!

Click to expand...

But people like you argued that the mixing of races was immoral, against god, and unnatural. They argued that mixing the races would lead to the end of the human races because we would all go crazy and everything would become legal. It is the same stupid argument all over again, and it is as sad today when you make it as it would be when someone told you your marriage was an abomination and immoral because your skin color is different.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:

No it doesn't breakdown. when you stop looking at changing the definition of marriage with tunnel vision and start focusing on the "what if''s" with a little more peripheral vision you can see with greater vision what the results could be in redefining marriage.

Critical Thought, if you are a male, then it is common knowledge that males tend to see things using tunnel vision. That is of course until they are with their wives and this sweet thing walks pasts them that they desire a second look. Then they rely heavily on their peripheral vision because their head is locked in the straight forward position so not to give away to their wife that they are indeed enjoying the view. A little more peripheral vision Critical Thought in the results of redefining marriage. Incest for gays would be a slam dunk! After all at this point the moral compass has been flushed down the toilet!

Click to expand...

Why do you believe that "your" moral compass has anything to do with ANYTHING? Incest? Is this a common phenomena in your neck of the woods?

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

AGENT J said:

transaltion" you have no facts to support your posted lies, we knew that already but i figured i asked for them to see if you would at least try

anyway let us know when you have ANY facts to support your false claims, ANY . . . . hell ONE fact

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, but but that's not it, not even close. So, your powers of interpretation fail you as usual I am afraid. But good luck with all that. Its just too much trouble pulling the old electron microscope out to try to find even a hint of substance...too much work for nada.

Translation: You want me to let you know when I'll be willing to continuously bang my head against the wall :2brickwal

:yt

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:

Nope ! My skin is much darker than my spouses.. In the winter time I make him look anemic. In the summertime and my tan could be viewed by some as an interracial marriage. NEXT!

Click to expand...

Could be, but it's not, so what is your point?

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Juanita said:

Where in the constitution does it say that you have a "right" of conscience? That phrase just tickles the hell out me...

Click to expand...

Good evening Juanita, the right of conscience is protected under the First Amendment under freedom of religion.
James Madison the author of the Constitution spoke of matters of conscience and religion not merely as toleration but as fundamental, natural rights. You will often find the State Constitutions throughout this country echoing those thoughts and will find the words "religious conscience" or "right of conscience" included in their constitution. A good example of this is in The Virginia Declaration of Rights that was initially drafted to guarantee "fullest toleration" of religion; but Madison amended it and when it passed, it provided that "all men are entitled to the full and free exercise of [religion] according to the dictates of conscience." Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance expressed the language of rights, not toleration: "The equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. He explained:

The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. . . . It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him.

Once upon a time in this country through civics education a person didn't have to ask what right of conscience meant for they were taught the meaning of religious freedoms which includes the right of conscience in grade school. Not anymore.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:

Yeah, sorry, but but that's not it, not even close. So, your powers of interpretation fail you as usual I am afraid. But good luck with all that. Its just too much trouble pulling the old electron microscope out to try to find even a hint of substance...too much work for nada.

Translation: You want me to let you know when I'll be willing to continuously bang my head against the wall :2brickwal

:yt

Click to expand...

I understand it is hard to come up with so many incoherent arguments, fallacies, and slippery slopes that do not exist when you cannot come up with a real argument about why 2 consenting adults enter a legal partnership with each other cannot be of the same gender when it applies to this particular case. Perhaps maybe you should consider that difficulty is present because the argument against gay marriage is really terrible and illogical and that makes it extremely hard to defend. In this case it is like beating your head against the wall because someone doesn't recognize your argument that 2+2=5 to be correct. When you are presented with rational explanations which you have to put your fingers in your ears and ignore them like some child who doesn't want to admit being wrong you might find that to be a sign that it might be time to recognize the truth instead of wishing it didn't exist because even god doesn't buy this crap anymore. We know that because the pope told us and he has a direct line to god if you believe in that sort of thing.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Juanita said:

I suppose that banning SSM was not imposed on the people of those states...

Click to expand...

Ummm....

30 states have constitutional amendments banning SSM, if I remember correctly, and another have gone through the legislative process identifying marriage to be only between one man one woman...so not imposed at all....may want to look up how in the democratic process we make laws through our elected representatives... and also how we amend a constitution...not imposed at all, agreed to by the majority.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Juanita said:

Who is trying to erase the lines here? Me? No, my friend--it is you... I would say that any father/daughter wanting to marry each other should be committed for psychiatric care.. Maybe those stories about inbred southern folks is true?

Click to expand...

I would say the same thing about same sex marriage, need some real mental health care there, not the avoidance of the problem. Surely not giving into the problem, that is not a solution.

And hardly there juanita, erasing the lines is just what will happen if you folks on the left get your way... you see, those kinda folks, father daughter, more run in the liberal circles...see, they have a better chance of getting what they want that way, they know we won't go for it on this side.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:

Good evening Juanita, the right of conscience is protected under the First Amendment under freedom of religion.

Click to expand...

Another really terrible argument. BTW the Bible condones slavery, but you cannot own a slave in the US because christianity claims it is perfectly fine, and even endorsed since god gives instructions on how to do it. The bible speaks of moral situations where you are obliged to stone people to death, but we do not allow that even though christianity says it must be so. Also, that freedom of religion also means you do not have to abide by the morals of any religion as law. You only have to abide by the laws set forth in the US when in the US. Because your religion says so does not mean it has to be so. The banning of recognition of gay marriage is actually imposing religious law on all people whether or not they believe in it or not. That is expressly forbidden by the same amendment you quoted. It is a good idea not to torpedo your own argument. If you want to pull religion and the first amendment into the argument about gay marriage you immediately invalidate any religious argument you have. You need to make another non-religious argument against gay marriage if you want to use the first amendment.

vesper said:

James Madison the author of the Constitution spoke of matters of conscience and religion not merely as toleration but as fundamental, natural rights. You will often find the State Constitutions throughout this country echoing those thoughts and will find the words "religious conscience" or "right of conscience" included in their constitution. A good example of this is in The Virginia Declaration of Rights that was initially drafted to guarantee "fullest toleration" of religion; but Madison amended it and when it passed, it provided that "all men are entitled to the full and free exercise of [religion] according to the dictates of conscience." Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance expressed the language of rights, not toleration: "The equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. He explained:

The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. . . . It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him.

Once upon a time in this country through civics education a person didn't have to ask what right of conscience meant for they were taught the meaning of religious freedoms which includes the right of conscience in grade school. Not anymore.

Click to expand...

Toleration of religion is not enforcement of religion. What toleration would mean is allowing any religion, or non religious person, to be married as per their doctrines. Now that toleration is not universal as I showed before. many religions endorse and mandate spousal and child abuse as discipline, but we do not tolerate those dictates. Assault and domestic abuse are illegal despite the reality christianity says you must do it. So even the idea that your religions rules must be tolerated in every way is crazy talk as you certainly would not tolerate illegal actions like assault simply because say a religion like Islam spoke of things like a jihad. Now we note your own lack of being able to follow your own words when we can all realize you certainly would never give the same toleration to others you expect in regards to the gay rights issue. Finally, your beliefs are tolerated. No one is requiring any religion to marry a gay couple if it is opposed to such things. So you will never be forced to be gay married or perform a gay marriage as an official of a church. That is the extent of tolerance. You do not get to dictate others lives under the warped view that it is tolerance of your religion. They can act as they would based on their religious and moral beliefs. Tolerance is you acting as you would for yourself while allowing others to act as they would. In a legal sense as long as they are not harming you, which you can in no reasonable way show gay marriage harms you, they have every right to act as they would within those boundaries which is why the supreme court found the people had no position to fight for the gay marriage ban as they could show no way it could effect them and no legitimate concern they had with keeping gays from being married. In other words the doctrines of christianity were not a reason for the state not to recognize gay unions.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Juanita said:

It certainly is not the truth of the matter at all--not even close...It does not hurt society in any way.. It does not confuse children who truly understand Love.. Who are you to judge what is natural and what is not natural.. Can a man do to another man what he cannot do to a woman? Think about that for a moment... Your religious viewpoint will not and should not overrule the religious or nonreligious viewpoints of others..

Click to expand...

Wow, hard to argue with such "logic", logically illogical maybe. Yes it does hurt society, it does confuse children. I am an intelligent human being and I know its unnatural. Man and woman are naturally made to mate. Male and female parts naturally fit... how do we know that? Through the creation of beings just like us, other human beings, that is THE NATURAL WAY of continuing the species. Homosexuality, and I should not have to explain this, does not lead to a continuation of the species. And it is the other way around, man can do anything to a woman that he can do to a man, he cannot do anything to a man that he could to a woman... he can impregnate her, he cannot do that to a him...think about it...

The viewpoint of the majority, whether religious or not, will be what rules, no matter what or how you think.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:

Ummm....

30 states have constitutional amendments banning SSM, if I remember correctly, and another have gone through the legislative process identifying marriage to be only between one man one woman...so not imposed at all....may want to look up how in the democratic process we make laws through our elected representatives... and also how we amend a constitution...not imposed at all, agreed to by the majority.

Click to expand...

Like this topic started off as, those amendments are unconstitutional and are in the process of being destroyed through the courts. Precedent has already been set for declaring them unconstitutional, and if the supreme court demands standing to defend those amendments they won't be overturning those precedents. Just because a law is passed does not mean it is right. We had slavery, prohibition, bans on interracial marriage, and many other horrible laws we have risen above. If it being set down as law is your defense of those laws then it is fundamentally flawed.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:

Yeah, sorry, but but that's not it, not even close. So, your powers of interpretation fail you as usual I am afraid. But good luck with all that. Its just too much trouble pulling the old electron microscope out to try to find even a hint of substance...too much work for nada.

Translation: You want me to let you know when I'll be willing to continuously bang my head against the wall :2brickwal

:yt

Click to expand...

translation: you have no facts to support your posted lies, we knew that already but i figured i asked for them to see if you would at least try
anyway let us know when you have ANY facts to support your false claims, ANY . . . . hell ONE fact

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

tererun said:

I understand it is hard to come up with so many incoherent arguments, fallacies, and slippery slopes that do not exist when you cannot come up with a real argument about why 2 consenting adults enter a legal partnership with each other cannot be of the same gender when it applies to this particular case. Perhaps maybe you should consider that difficulty is present because the argument against gay marriage is really terrible and illogical and that makes it extremely hard to defend. In this case it is like beating your head against the wall because someone doesn't recognize your argument that 2+2=5 to be correct. When you are presented with rational explanations which you have to put your fingers in your ears and ignore them like some child who doesn't want to admit being wrong you might find that to be a sign that it might be time to recognize the truth instead of wishing it didn't exist because even god doesn't buy this crap anymore. We know that because the pope told us and he has a direct line to god if you believe in that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

:ranton:


Nice factually put together...oh wait, sorry, I initially mistook all that, a lot of words strung together calling my positions all sorts of names...well, I mistook that for real proof, real arguments..but when I pick through it...I find, instead, its just the rant, much like a little child stomping feet on the floor, screaming they want a cookie and they are gonna get it ...and I just must be a big ol meanie for not giving it to her.

We on this side have already given away too many easy cookies...sorry...

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:

Wow, hard to argue with such "logic", logically illogical maybe. Yes it does hurt society, it does confuse children.

Click to expand...

It does not. That is a pure and bold faced lie.

Gaugingcatenate said:

I am an intelligent human being and I know its unnatural.

Click to expand...

An intelligent human being would know two things. The first is that gay sex is perfectly natural and occurs all the time, and the reality is that gender based procreation is the mutation and abnormality because life started off reproducing asexually. The second thing you would know is that it is perfectly natural for you to be aroused sexually by a person of your gender. Yup, if we blindfolded you and had a person perform arousing sexual activity on you, you would become aroused. Worse yet if you were forced into sexual activity knowingly with a person of your gender through rape there is a pretty good possibility you would become physically aroused by the experience. It is completely natural to become aroused through sexual stimulation no matter what the gender giving it to you is. Now if those are things an educated person knows that are supported by studying nature, and things like the physical things that happen to many rape victims, what does that make you?

Gaugingcatenate said:

Man and woman are naturally made to mate. Male and female parts naturally fit... how do we know that? Through the creation of beings just like us, other human beings, that is THE NATURAL WAY of continuing the species.

Click to expand...

Like I said, not all species. Many species are asexual, some can change genders, and sexual arousal and pleasure are practiced by many species without actual reproduction. Your argument is completely wrong because naturally we enjoy being aroused and just like many animals seek out those pleasant feelings even when we are not reproducing. Naturally sexually reproducing species do not always reproduce due to sexual activity.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Homosexuality, and I should not have to explain this, does not lead to a continuation of the species. And it is the other way around, man can do anything to a woman that he can do to a man, he cannot do anything to a man that he could to a woman... he can impregnate her, he cannot do that to a him...think about it...

Click to expand...

Yes, we have, and we seem to be better at that thinking thing than you are given that by your own definition of intelligent you are not. You do not know what natural is. you seem quite unaware that sexual activity can be for pleasure and does not always result in offspring. Your view seems to say that sterile people should not have sex because it won't result in offspring. You seem to think the only reason for sex is reproduction which seems to indicate pleasure and fun are not valid reasons to do anything, and all we are here for is reproduction. You even seem to think homosexuality causes damage to society despite it not being the case, and a good argument can be made that straight people produce a much higher volume of problems like violence, overpopulation, and general crazy.

Gaugingcatenate said:

The viewpoint of the majority, whether religious or not, will be what rules, no matter what or how you think.

Click to expand...

If the majority was so stupid they thought 2=2=5 then according to you we would destroy math. You just divided by zero.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:

:ranton:


Nice factually put together...oh wait, sorry, I initially mistook all that, a lot of words strung together calling my positions all sorts of names...well, I mistook that for real proof, real arguments..but when I pick through it...I find, instead, its just the rant, much like a little child stomping feet on the floor, screaming they want a cookie and they are gonna get it ...and I just must be a big ol meanie for not giving it to her.

We on this side have already given away too many easy cookies...sorry...

Click to expand...

I am sorry, I was just giving you back what you gave us. Would you like to actually make an argument or just call us all stupid because we do not share your ignorance?

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

tererun said:

Like this topic started off as, those amendments are unconstitutional and are in the process of being destroyed through the courts. Precedent has already been set for declaring them unconstitutional, and if the supreme court demands standing to defend those amendments they won't be overturning those precedents. Just because a law is passed does not mean it is right. We had slavery, prohibition, bans on interracial marriage, and many other horrible laws we have risen above. If it being set down as law is your defense of those laws then it is fundamentally flawed.

Click to expand...

Courts are a tyranny of the minority...go through the people, see what the people want. We don't want what you are trying to pawn off on us, sorry...just don't...you can get as mad as you want. We the people are the ones who decided such things...

These, for the most part, are not laws, they are amendments to the constitution of a state. The courts cannot overturn an amendment, that is the will of the people. The reason slavery was overturned is because a majority was for overturning slavery, study your history lady. Prohibition was overturned, properly, with another amendment to repeal it.

Again, instead of just spouting, study first.

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

i wonder if anybody will leave the country or take the bridge when equal rights for gays is established and legally the house is no longer divided?? I mean some people did go crazy when women and minorities were given equal rights.

I wonder if their will be any boycotts which is fine by me or riots?
so much anger, hate, hypocrisy and bigotry among SOME people