View Poll Results: Are you for or against gay rights?

Voters
104. You may not vote on this poll
  • For Gay Rights

    76 73.08%
  • Against Gay Rights

    28 26.92%
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 153

Thread: Opinions on Homosexuality

  1. #91
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    07-07-17 @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,121

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    States issue the marriage licenses. Marriage is defined by society. It's only your opinion that homosexual marriages are an innate US right. It's the state's right to define marriage and many states have legally done so through referendums presented to voters.
    Many states also defined marriage as a union between two people of the same race. That changed and with good reason. Why do you think it's right for some who are consenting adults to be discriminated against. Though you say you are for same sex marriage you are happy to allow the states to deny that privilege. I find your words of support toward same sex marriage very hollow. You can say them as long as your state denies the right. Seems like you have the safety net on your side.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  2. #92
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,286

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Here we go again...

    Why not two men and one woman? (or visa versa)

    Answer: Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures

    This applies to polyandry also which is what your example is.

    Why not brother and sister?

    Answer: In otherwords incest....Children born from incestuous relationships are more prone to both mental and physical problems.

    Father and son?

    Answer: Not allowed because a father (or mother) can subtly coerce their child into things like this. Making them think that it is OK and perfectly natural for daddy or mommy to be boinking their child...and this kind of teaching can last well into adulthood and even until they die. And if it is instead a "Father and daughter" or a "mother and son" type of deal then you again go into incest along with coercing.

    Man/woman and animal marriage

    Answer: The most basic ability in order to go into a marriage is that it MUST be consentual. And animals cannot consent.

    Man/woman and child marriage

    Answer: Not only is that pedophilia but again, a child cannot legally consent to a marriage because they are not mentally capable of doing so.

    These are just simple, basic common sense answers. If you want more detail then I would suggest doing your homework and looking this stuff up yourself.
    No, I asked you to do it because it was you who claimed marriage to be a "fundamental right." You then provide absurd rationale for granting power to the state to step in and violate this same "fundamental right." Perhaps you havce forgotten, or perhaps you live outside the US, but the role of the government is to secure the rights of the individual, not seek ways to trample them. Dont lecture me about rights, particularly fundamental rights, then turn and flack for state sponsored rights violations.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No. There have been plenty of studies that show that the government has a good reason to be involved in at least some restrictions on marriage and certainly in at least keeping track of who is married.
    Please provide a link to such studies or provide some of their arguments. Thank you.

    Plus, as long as the government gives certain rights/benefits to blood relations, then they should be involved in marriage to ensure that a person's choice of their closest relative becomes more important than blood relation.
    Such as?

  4. #94
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,040

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Yes, but the US Constitution doesn't protect homosexuals as a class equal to race, religion, etc. It's perfectly legal under the constitution for a state to say that marriage is between one man and one woman, just as it's perfectly fine for them to include same sex relationships in that definition.
    The US Constitution protects everyone. And sexuality is a class that has fallen under 3rd tier protection under the 14th Amendment in past cases.

    And anti-SSM laws are restrictions based on a class you mentioned, sex. As I have said many times, it is not the sexuality of a person that prevents them from entering into a same sex marriage, it is the sex. Two homosexuals can get married right now and have their marriage legally recognized by the fed and all 50 states. They just have to be a man and a woman. Two heterosexuals of the same sex cannot get married right now legally and be fully recognized legally because they are the same sex. Sex, not sexuality is the class being discriminated against. Just as race, not the attraction of a person to members of a different race, is what was the determining factor when it came to miscegenation laws.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,286

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Simple logistics of the marriage contract and the laws that currently go with it. The laws and contract are set up to deal with 2 people and only two people in the relationship. It would take some fundamental changes in those laws in order to accommodate more than two people in a marriage or a person being involved in two marriage contracts at the same time.
    In other words, to build upon my response to Kal'Stang, an individuals "fundamental right" to something is violable by the state because it might be a paperwork hassle. Sorry, not buying that. If I have a fundamental right to something, it is the obligation of the state to secure that right. How complicated it might be in doing so is irrelevant.

  6. #96
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The US Constitution protects everyone. And sexuality is a class that has fallen under 3rd tier protection under the 14th Amendment in past cases.

    And anti-SSM laws are restrictions based on a class you mentioned, sex. As I have said many times, it is not the sexuality of a person that prevents them from entering into a same sex marriage, it is the sex. Two homosexuals can get married right now and have their marriage legally recognized by the fed and all 50 states. They just have to be a man and a woman. Two heterosexuals of the same sex cannot get married right now legally and be fully recognized legally because they are the same sex. Sex, not sexuality is the class being discriminated against. Just as race, not the attraction of a person to members of a different race, is what was the determining factor when it came to miscegenation laws.
    It protects everyone, but not under the basis of sexual orientation. It is silent regarding this and homosexuals are not recognize at the Constitutional level as being a protected class.

    It is legal to discriminate against sex in some cases. If the ERA passed back in the 70's your argument would be correct. The government discriminates against sex by forcing only males to sign up for selective service and drafting. They discriminate against sex by having male and female only areas (like restrooms). It is legal for a state to say that a man can only legally marry a woman and visa versa.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #97
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    No, I asked you to do it because it was you who claimed marriage to be a "fundamental right." You then provide absurd rationale for granting power to the state to step in and violate this same "fundamental right." Perhaps you havce forgotten, or perhaps you live outside the US, but the role of the government is to secure the rights of the individual, not seek ways to trample them. Dont lecture me about rights, particularly fundamental rights, then turn and flack for state sponsored rights violations.
    Loving V Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley are all cases that state that marriage is a fundemental right. So while yeah I said it...I said it based on those cases.

    And yes the role of our government is to secure our rights. What do you think SSM is about? But that does not mean that you have an absolute right to those rights. If you use one of those rights in a situation that can or will hurt another human being then you can be held criminally liable. The most common example of this is yelling FIRE! in a theater. If you did that you would be charged for a crime, despite your right to free speech. You also cannot use your free speech right to incite violence.

    Whether you realize it or not there are always exceptions to every rule. But in the US the ONLY way that the state has a right to tread on a persons rights is if that right harms a person or society. Can you name me one single harmful thing that SSM will do to society or any single person outside of that marriage? And prove it?

    BTW, yes I am an American citizen.

    And none of what I stated was "absurd rational". If it was then you could easily dispute it. The fact that you didn't and instead went of on a tangent about me supposedly not knowing how our government and our rights work shows that you had no valid rebuttle.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Loving V Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley are all cases that state that marriage is a fundemental right. So while yeah I said it...I said it based on those cases.
    Its not so much the question if marriage is a right but if government attached to the state is a right. When will people notice the distinction?

    Oh and the screaming fire in a crowded theater example is poor since no harm could occur from such action.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,286

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Loving V Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley are all cases that state that marriage is a fundemental right. So while yeah I said it...I said it based on those cases.

    And yes the role of our government is to secure our rights. What do you think SSM is about? But that does not mean that you have an absolute right to those rights. If you use one of those rights in a situation that can or will hurt another human being then you can be held criminally liable. The most common example of this is yelling FIRE! in a theater. If you did that you would be charged for a crime, despite your right to free speech. You also cannot use your free speech right to incite violence.
    My marrying two women harms no one, yet you advocate the state violate my fundamental right to marry who I choose. Why?

    Whether you realize it or not there are always exceptions to every rule. But in the US the ONLY way that the state has a right to tread on a persons rights is if that right harms a person or society. Can you name me one single harmful thing that SSM will do to society or any single person outside of that marriage? And prove it?
    When you can show me how polygamy or incestuous marriages harm any single person outside of that marriage.


    And none of what I stated was "absurd rational". If it was then you could easily dispute it. The fact that you didn't and instead went of on a tangent about me supposedly not knowing how our government and our rights work shows that you had no valid rebuttle.
    It was absurd rationale for allowing the state to violate a "fundamental right."

  10. #100
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Opinions on Homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Its not so much the question if marriage is a right but if government attached to the state is a right. When will people notice the distinction?
    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Oh and the screaming fire in a crowded theater example is poor since no harm could occur from such action.
    Wrong. If a person yells fire in a crowded theater it can incite a panic and when people panic they shove and make people fall and stomp on those people with no regard to their safety. Thereby hurting them...all because some idiot yelled "FIRE!"
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •