Page 48 of 69 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 690

Thread: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

  1. #471
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Monk, there is no point in arguing with you anymore. The more I ask you to prove anything you say, the more you insult. You want to claim victory - be my guest.

    This is boring. You say the same things over and over again, yet you never prove a single, solitary one of your assertions. You insult people when they call you on your own words. You lie, you back pedal, and you're generally rude.

    Have fun.
    I haven't read the exchange between you two, but I have "debated" with MacIntosh, so here is my 3 cents worth...

    Mac, meet monk, monk, meet Mac
    pot, meet kettle...
    seriously Mac, I have discussed with you, remember?
    BTW, I have discussed with Monk-eye as well, and he is now on my ignore list.
    Last edited by UtahBill; 11-09-08 at 09:56 PM.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  2. #472
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-24-09 @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    964

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Peter the gay is almost dying and in his will he declares that he consents that Paul the sissy can have sex with his dead body before bury him.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of Peter and Paul commiting necrophilia? I don't think so.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of a brother and sister commiting incest? Hell don't know.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of dudes commiting homophilia? No way.

    Why?

    Because society must put limits to what is decent and moral to maintain order.

    It is clear that nothing good in humans comes from homophilia, neither as part of society and less as a species.

    I still think that perverts are paying good money to some leaders in society to abuse their authority and make official the negative behaviour of homosexuality.

    We need to protect our children from such perversion, it is no doubt that homosexuals need help, but instead of recognizing their mental sickness, they have manipulated the reality of their status to the point of demand rights instead of mental therapy.

    Homophilia belongs to the same cataloguing of necrophilia, zoophilia, and incest, so, any other attempt to pass a bill aproving gay marriage, such bill must include the whole group as one. Otherwise, such bill will "discriminate" to the ones who commint incest and such is not fair...

  3. #473
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by conquer View Post
    Peter the gay is almost dying and in his will he declares that he consents that Paul the sissy can have sex with his dead body before bury him.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of Peter and Paul commiting necrophilia? I don't think so.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of a brother and sister commiting incest? Hell don't know.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of dudes commiting homophilia? No way.

    Why?

    Because society must put limits to what is decent and moral to maintain order.

    It is clear that nothing good in humans comes from homophilia, neither as part of society and less as a species.

    I still think that perverts are paying good money to some leaders in society to abuse their authority and make official the negative behaviour of homosexuality.

    We need to protect our children from such perversion, it is no doubt that homosexuals need help, but instead of recognizing their mental sickness, they have manipulated the reality of their status to the point of demand rights instead of mental therapy.

    Homophilia belongs to the same cataloguing of necrophilia, zoophilia, and incest, so, any other attempt to pass a bill aproving gay marriage, such bill must include the whole group as one. Otherwise, such bill will "discriminate" to the ones who commint incest and such is not fair...


    Those are very offensive comments.
    What we need to "protect our children" from is not homosexuals, but people who display such hateful intolerance.

  4. #474
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    We should have a ban on homophobic marriage, to stop them from trying to teach our children that homophobia is an acceptable lifestyle. Homophobes don't care about getting married because they love someone anyway...they just want the right to get married so that they can shove their lifestyle down everyone else's throat.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #475
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Those are very offensive comments.
    What we need to "protect our children" from is not homosexuals, but people who display such hateful intolerance.
    He is on my ignore list, I forget why, but this will serve to keep him there..
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  6. #476
    Cànan a' Gàidheal
    Anima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    West Coast of Scotland
    Last Seen
    06-24-12 @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,741

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    [QUOTE=conquer;1057804456]
    Homophilia belongs to the same cataloguing of necrophilia, [/quote[

    False. Necrophilia involves a person who can't consent. Gay relationships don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by conqueror

    zoophilia,
    False. Zoophilia involves a creature that can't consent. Gay relationships don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by conqueror
    and incest
    And again...false. Incest is most often committed as a crime against children, who by virtue of their rage, cannot consent.

    So if the above situations all involve non-consent and garm and gay relationships do not, what's your basis, besides hatred and a desire to smear consenting adults who desire to live their lives in happiness, causing no one any harm, for equating them?

    Quote Originally Posted by conqueror
    so, any other attempt to pass a bill aproving gay marriage, such bill must include the whole group as one. Otherwise, such bill will "discriminate" to the ones who commint incest and such is not fair...
    False, and on the whole, hateful equivocation with no logical basis.

    Let me ask you something conqueror. How does allowing gay couples to live out their lives in happiness hurt you? How does allowing a gay man to receive care on his partner's health insurance hurt you? How does a child being raised by two able and loving parents who just happen to be the same gender hurt you?

  7. #477
    Professor
    Travelsonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,375

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by conquer View Post

    It is clear that nothing good in humans comes from homophilia, neither as part of society and less as a species.
    Except forcing putzes like you to live with the fact that MOST people aen['t as rediculously bigoted like you.
    Nationalism in high dosages may be hazardous to your health. Please consult a psychiatrist before beginning a regular regimen, and if feelings of elitism and douchbaggery continue, discontinue immediately before you become unable to do so on your own.

  8. #478
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by conquer View Post
    Peter the gay is almost dying and in his will he declares that he consents that Paul the sissy can have sex with his dead body before bury him.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of Peter and Paul commiting necrophilia? I don't think so.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of a brother and sister commiting incest? Hell don't know.

    Is the law capable to protect the rights of dudes commiting homophilia? No way.

    Why?

    Because society must put limits to what is decent and moral to maintain order.

    It is clear that nothing good in humans comes from homophilia, neither as part of society and less as a species.

    I still think that perverts are paying good money to some leaders in society to abuse their authority and make official the negative behaviour of homosexuality.

    We need to protect our children from such perversion, it is no doubt that homosexuals need help, but instead of recognizing their mental sickness, they have manipulated the reality of their status to the point of demand rights instead of mental therapy.

    Homophilia belongs to the same cataloguing of necrophilia, zoophilia, and incest, so, any other attempt to pass a bill aproving gay marriage, such bill must include the whole group as one. Otherwise, such bill will "discriminate" to the ones who commint incest and such is not fair...
    It is good to know that you are completely clueless and can only communicate inaccurate, bigoted information. Please tell us when you have something of substance or something that makes sense to say on the topic.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #479
    Banned Coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    01-26-10 @ 03:40 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    846

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    By jfuh
    It is still a contract of property before the state, nothing more nothing less.
    I was referring to the woman becoming the property of the man.
    It simply isn't that anymore.




    By jfuh
    And as it is a contract like every other contract before the state, there is no matter of ones race, sex or creed.

    ... it was changed to include everyone - with the exception of this property contract before the state for homosexuals.

    Rate it as you will, it's still a contract before the state and thus there is no reason why gays should not be allowed.
    That isn't accurate. Contracts are limited all the time.
    The contract that exists, and allowed to be enter into, is for anyone (with a few exceptions), if they so choose, to enter into it with someone of the opposite gender.
    That is equal.




    By jfuh
    Once the state made marriage a state issue, then like contracts of everything else there can be no limitations whatsoever of someone's sexuality.
    There isn't a limit on sexuality.
    It is is a contract of partnership, specifically called marriage, that only two people of opposite gender can execute. It has nothing to do with a persons sexuality.
    Matter of fact, many gay people have availed themselves of this very contract to have a partnership with someone of the opposite gender.




    By jfuh
    So there you go, forcing your sexuality onto someone else. This is quite despicable.
    Forcing?
    Despicable?

    I haven't forced my sexuality on anybody.
    I find it despicable foolish for someone to make assumptions about another when they haven't revealed the any such information about their self.
    For all you know, I might be gay, transsexual or even bi.
    Heck, for all you know, I might be mono-sexual.




    By jfuh
    No, not the creation of some new right, you have the right to choose anyone according to your sexuality because you are straight, but should you be gay you have said right taken away from you.
    Homosexuals are simply asking for the equality of the same right to property and recognition under the state as heterosexuals already enjoy.
    Yes, it is a creation of a new 'right'. (And I use the term 'right' loosely.)
    The current 'right' is for two of opposite gender to engage in a contract by the name of marriage.
    Everybody has that same right - to marry someone of the opposite gender. Equality is there and no one has had it taken away from them because they are gay.
    Like I already said; many gay people have availed their self of this contract.

    People can already engage in contractual partnerships without being married.
    What gay people are wanting is a new contract to be created between two of the same sex, (Something that doesn't exist at this time.) have it legally recognized as, and called, marriage. All in an effort to obtain the same benefits that those in marriage have.

    Yes, they are trying to have a new 'right' established.




    By jfuh
    So if your neighbor were gay and they married that's disrespectful to you and your marriage? WTF??
    This isn't about me, is it?
    I can also see you are missing the point I am trying to make.

    We have a group of people who are outside the norm in regards to their sexual preference. This group of people (in general) really haven't been accepted or respected but rejected and disrespected as a whole, because of it.
    This same group of people want to be accepted and respected as normal (Not that being outside the norm isn't normal in itself.) and in their pursuit they are trying to take a State recognized contract between two of the opposite sex and have it apply to them also.
    The disrespect comes from them wanting to be socially and legally accepted and respected but refusing to respect those different from them in trying to usurp the commitment/partner contract that is between those of the opposite sex for their own same sex purposes.
    That is disrespect.



    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


    By Kandahar
    However, opposition to gay marriage *is* based on hate and fear. I'm willing to accept multiple viewpoints on most issues as long as they're well-defended.
    But there is NO logical argument to oppose gay marriage. None.
    And you are incorrect.

  10. #480
    Banned Coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    01-26-10 @ 03:40 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    846

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    By veganshawn
    You are uniformed about the history of gay marriage and it is a common mistake to think it is a "new" issue, there have been documented cases in some native American tribes, ancient Greece, Egypt, part of Africa and Asia etc.. do a google search and read up on history.
    No, it is you who are uniformed as to my knowledge of the subject.
    Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, or norm, but you are speaking of anomalies within the norm (or that which isn't 'in general').
    Where as, I was speaking 'in general'.

    But hey, if you want to discuss those different cultures you mentioned above as having had same gender marriages that were common place and excepted, lets do it. It is easy to point out the differences.
    Otherwise, all you have is anomalies.




    By veganshawn
    All children should be taught there is nothing wrong with gay people!
    No, schools should not be involved in teaching any such thing. Individuals should decide for themselves how they feel about it.



    By veganshawn
    And a lot of people in this country once tolerated racism and sexism, didn't make it right for them nor does it make it right now.
    It didn't make it wrong either. The only thing that makes it wrong now is interpretation of/and law.



    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::



    By Orius
    So you acknowledge that the meaning of marriage has changed over time, from one where the women was contractually the man's property (and thus she received his last name), to one, post-suffrage, where the woman has the right to self-determination and the ability to even keep her last name if she so chooses. If what marriage means can change in that sense, then it can change in others as well.
    The contract involves two of the opposite gender. That 'meaning' really hasn't changed.



    By Orius
    The marriage contract has nothing to do with love. It is about legal recognition of the state. You don't need the state to officiate whether or not you love someone, but you *do* want the joint benefits of being married. If it were just about love, then the state wouldn't be involved at all.
    I fully agree, yet the impetus to enter into said contract is, 'in general', love.
    Which is why those seeking a new 'right' be created frequently sight this in their arguments. When in reality they are seeking this new 'right' because of the benefits associated with marriage.




    By Orius
    I don't need a parental government telling me which marriages are and aren't "real". The same people who argue for smaller government are the same people who, ironically, want the government to step in and limit the definition of legal marriage contracts. It's one giant hypocrisy.
    I don't need some people to come along and try to change the definition of marriage to suite their own purposes.
    What I see as hypocrisy is those who know that marriage was created for, and acknowledged by the government for, those of the opposite gender, but then try to make it apply to those of the same gender.




    By Orius
    The only thing being usurped here is freedom of self-determination, and equal representation.
    Not true.



    By Orius
    A same-sex couple getting married has zero affect on the lives of others.
    Not true.



    By Orius
    It has nothing to do with school policy, as that is a separate issue altogether. Gays already walk the streets in big cities together, holding hands. If the argument is that children will be affected, then they are already being affected.
    I haven't made that argument.



    By Orius
    You can't stop social change and expansion of civil rights. The nature of social evolution will prevent this from being suppressed forever. I give it 10 years, 15 tops, until it is accepted nation wide.
    I suppose that by 'nation wide', you mean government acknowledged. If so, then I think it will take longer than that.
    If by 'nation wide', you mean accepted by the whole populous... no, there will always be people how view it as wrong.
    In general I agree, yet social change and expansion of civil rights are stopped all the time. The ones that do get passed just make it easier for future legislation to be passed.



    It should be clear that I am against the term 'marriage' being usurped by same gender couples. Marriage was never meant to accommodate them and should remain the sole term used for opposite gender couples.

    Let me elaborate on my personal view.
    I have no problem with homosexual or transgender people.
    I have no problem with the creation of a contract of partnership being entered into by same gender couples so that they may receive the same benefits as those who engage in marriage. Just don't call it 'marriage' because it clearly is not. It is a partnership that is different from 'marriage'.

    I am also against any benefits given to those who are married, which means that I am also against any benefits given for those who decide to have children. These practices are truly unfair and should be done away with.

Page 48 of 69 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... 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
  •