• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

captainawesome said:
aids has been around since the late 70's long before the push for same sex marriage. it has nothing to do with insurance. other than the same rights to benefits as heteros. it is about equality.
Click to expand...

Homos never cared about having the same marital rights as heteros until AFTER the aids epidemic hit and the problems with the "gay" lifestyle became apparent. Every healthy homosexual male I've known has had no interest whatsoever in marrying and more than one has confided to me that it's an absolutely stupid idea; at least for the men. As one told me.... the beginning of the end of a homosexual relationship is the day they move in together. I've known women that were exceptions to the rule. I've never known a male couple that was.

Marriage is a heterosexual relationship model. Oddly enough this was the very thing that repelled homosexuals until the recent fascination and one can only wonder why this fascination with "homosexual marriage" came into being.... the more I think about it, the more obvious it is that AIDS was a big factor in this.
 
Papa bull said:
Homos never cared about having the same marital rights as heteros until AFTER the aids epidemic hit and the problems with the "gay" lifestyle became apparent. Every healthy homosexual male I've known has had no interest whatsoever in marrying and more than one has confided to me that it's an absolutely stupid idea; at least for the men. As one told me.... the beginning of the end of a homosexual relationship is the day they move in together. I've known women that were exceptions to the rule. I've never known a male couple that was.

Marriage is a heterosexual relationship model. Oddly enough this was the very thing that repelled homosexuals until the recent fascination and one can only wonder why this fascination with "homosexual marriage" came into being.... the more I think about it, the more obvious it is that AIDS was a big factor in this.
Click to expand...

You have no gay friends that confide in you. No gay would be a friend with someone who throws slurs around like you do and hold us in obvious disdain.

so you can spout homo all you want.

Still has nothing to do with AIDS.
 
mac said:
You're aware of male genitals and how they work, yes?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suspected that was the point you wanted to make. As I, and every man in the world can attest, getting blood flowing is a simple matter of manual stimulation. Hell, sometimes a stiff breeze is enough (pardon the pun, I couldn't help myself). Does that indicate that I'm sexually attracted to either my hand or the wind? No, it does not.

Along the same lines, are you familiar with the term "gay for pay"?
 
captainawesome said:
You have no gay friends that confide in you. No gay would be a friend with someone who throws slurs around like you do and hold us in obvious disdain.

so you can spout homo all you want.

Still has nothing to do with AIDS.
Click to expand...

I never used homo until you used "hetero". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don't like it, stop dishing it out.
 
Papa bull said:
I never used homo until you used "hetero". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don't like it, stop dishing it out.
Click to expand...

Sure.... you don't use slurs. Sure you have gay friends that confide we don't really want equality.
 
captainawesome said:
Sure.... you don't use slurs. Sure you have gay friends that confide we don't really want equality.
Click to expand...

Do you consider homo a slur? Then why do you use "hetero"? Give respect if you want respect. I have, in the past had a number of gay friends and lived in Midtown Atlanta. I know for a fact that it was never an issue of equal rights for most gays; that was actually something of a joke. In the last few years, the propaganda has ratcheted up the "rights" angle but that's been a cultivated angle and one very different from even 5 years ago. There was a time in the past when you could actually discuss the pros and cons of homosexual marriage with homosexuals. Not any more. The push has been to try to make any opposition to homosexual marriage equate to hatred, bigotry and pure evil animus. And, of course, that's complete bull****.
 
Education is key to eliminating discrimination which should be the main goal not having marriage is not the main source of discrimination to homosexuals
 
Think about the fact that being homosexual is often the main charistic people associate with you
 
Papa bull said:
You should try to explain that to Wolfsgirl. Good luck trying.
Click to expand...

Yep, and more people support calling those unions MARRIAGE, than those that support calling them civil unions.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Yep, and more people support calling those unions MARRIAGE, than those that support calling them civil unions.
Click to expand...

Finally you said something factually correct. (at least sort of). I still think most would accept "civil unions" even if they'd prefer "marriage".
 
Papa bull said:
Do you consider homo a slur? Then why do you use "hetero"? Give respect if you want respect. I have, in the past had a number of gay friends and lived in Midtown Atlanta. I know for a fact that it was never an issue of equal rights for most gays; that was actually something of a joke. In the last few years, the propaganda has ratcheted up the "rights" angle but that's been a cultivated angle and one very different from even 5 years ago. There was a time in the past when you could actually discuss the pros and cons of homosexual marriage with homosexuals. Not any more. The push has been to try to make any opposition to homosexual marriage equate to hatred, bigotry and pure evil animus. And, of course, that's complete bull****.
Click to expand...

Breeders is the derogatory term for hetero sexuals
 
Papa bull said:
Do you consider homo a slur? Then why do you use "hetero"? Give respect if you want respect. I have, in the past had a number of gay friends and lived in Midtown Atlanta. I know for a fact that it was never an issue of equal rights for most gays; that was actually something of a joke. In the last few years, the propaganda has ratcheted up the "rights" angle but that's been a cultivated angle and one very different from even 5 years ago. There was a time in the past when you could actually discuss the pros and cons of homosexual marriage with homosexuals. Not any more. The push has been to try to make any opposition to homosexual marriage equate to hatred, bigotry and pure evil animus. And, of course, that's complete bull****.
Click to expand...

The opposition is do to hate and bigoted beliefs.

As for Homo it just depends on the context.
 
winston53660 said:
Breeders is the derogatory term for hetero sexuals
Click to expand...

So homos don't think heteros is derogatory.... Hey..... us breeders don't think homo is derogatory. We're both just dropping "sexual" from the root word so it's all good.

I do know that "breeders" is the intended slur but I smile when I hear it because it's funny as hell. Homosexuals seem to look down on the whole meme of "the breeders" but want to mimic their relationships, now. It's a bit of a pathetic irony.
 
Papa bull said:
Finally you said something factually correct. (at least sort of). I still think most would accept "civil unions" even if they'd prefer "marriage".
Click to expand...

no. Same word for all. Civil Unions for all or marriage for all.
 
truth seeker? said:
Think about the fact that being homosexual is often the main charistic people associate with you
Click to expand...

No, my cooking tends to be the thing people associate me with.
Only on forums does my sexual orientation become an issue, and I live in Mississippi.
 
Papa bull said:
Finally you said something factually correct. (at least sort of). I still think most would accept "civil unions" even if they'd prefer "marriage".
Click to expand...

Not me, unless ALL unions were called civil unions. Same name, same rights and responsibilities.
 
The school i went to the most common name calling was on off about sexuality i was in fact was homophobic when at school and education was what opened my mind many of my friends are still homophobic
 
Why would you want to be married to sorry but must be said a CORRUPT ORIGINATION THE CHURCH WHICH DOES NOT EVEN REPRESENT THE VIEW'S OF JESUS COME ON
 
wolfsgirl said:
Not me, unless ALL unions were called civil unions. Same name, same rights and responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Yeah... you're one of the people I was talking about when I stated that homosexuals have rejected the concept of civil unions even if they carried all the exact same rights... which proved to me that it's relaly not about the rights as much as making a political statement. Which is why I'll be arguing against homosexual marriages ad infinitum now or until I have some reason to believe that it's really about rights and not about agendas and attention-seeking. And after the display I've seen lately, that will take some time if it ever happens at all.
 
Papa bull said:
Gay marriage was never an issue until the AIDS epidemic and the subsequent issues with "partner benefits". If you are gay then you know the real problem with what I'm saying is that it's one of the dirty little secrets of the LGBT community that has been trying to figure out ways to work through the AIDS crisis and the ensuing difficulties of insurance, medical costs, hospitalization issues, etc. You and I both know there will be a lot of homosexual marriages purely for the sake of insurance, now. 1 in 5. That's a scary number. As much as we know about prevention and it's still 1 in 5 for homosexual males? Insurance is absolutely a part of this discussion and one of the drivers for the "gay marriage" that no one wanted until the aids epidemic came along.
Click to expand...

You are very wrong. It in fact came up long before HIV was even known about. Baker v Nelson happened in Minnesota in 1971. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case. The couple sued for same sex marriage then.

It was absolutely an issue prior to AIDS, the only reason it was not pushed prior to now is because of several factors.

First, it was in fact considered a mental illness due to faulty research up til around 1973. And most states also had bans on sodomy up til this time as well. Up til this last few decades, most jobs would fire someone for being gay.

Slowly, the states began to overturn their sodomy bans over the next couple of decades until the SCOTUS finally struck down the last bans ten years ago. And in the last few decades, with the growth of technology and the computer age, where many of the most successful business leaders are young and highly intelligent, we now see business leaders saying "why the heck should I fire someone for simply being in a relationship with someone of the same sex?". This is what has lead to the major push in same sex marriage. Those who have been together for decades, such as Windsor and her wife and Richard Baker and James McConnell (who are still together since 1971) absolutely would have loved marriage before now, but they were much more concerned with just living their lives and not getting fired (or in some places worse) for who they loved.
 
Papa bull said:
Yeah... you're one of the people I was talking about when I stated that homosexuals have rejected the concept of civil unions even if they carried all the exact same rights... which proved to me that it's relaly not about the rights as much as making a political statement. Which is why I'll be arguing against homosexual marriages ad infinitum now or until I have some reason to believe that it's really about rights and not about agendas and attention-seeking. And after the display I've seen lately, that will take some time if it ever happens at all.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't settle for something other than marriage when other couples were given marriage either, and I'm heterosexual. Why should anyone have to settle for another name for their union just because some people do not approve of sharing the current name? Not to mention the cost of implementing such a thing.
 
Papa bull said:
I am definitely biased. I was on the fence and quite ambivalent about it for some time. Every time I hear homosexual advocates accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being a hater and a bigot, it just hardens the issue for me. I'm not on the fence any more. I'm glad this state not only doesn't allow homosexual marriage but forbids civil unions or anything resembling them and won't recognize them in this or any other state. I'm guessing the politicians that signed that amendment to the state constitution into law got called haters and bigots a few times too many, too. I'd sign the damned thing with blood because the left has made it a cultural war. So screw 'em. You'll probably win the war eventually, but it'll take years and you'll have to spend millions and even billions in court cases to finally get a case before judges demented enough to let you have your way. But it won't be soon. You were a lot more sympathetic when you were pretending to just be poor souls deprived of rights instead of making it clear that you are just a bunch of punk-ass activists badmouthing and condemning everyone with a different opinion than your own.
Click to expand...

Move to Kansas. Maybe Westboro Baptist Church will swing you the other way. :2razz:

I don't believe the butthurt act. I don't think everyone who opposes same sex marriage is a "hater" but I do think you are lacking in integrity if your principles are entirely based on being retaliatory to the whims of extremists. Yeah, there are dips on both sides. But you were never really on the "fence" if you are so clearly biased as to ignore the extremists on the other side.

And dude, you are doing exactly what you are accusing those activists of doing. You are badmouthing and condemning everyone with a different opinion than your own and seeking sympathy for being called a "hater" by the extremists. That is hypocrisy in my book.
 
Papa bull said:
Yeah... you're one of the people I was talking about when I stated that homosexuals have rejected the concept of civil unions even if they carried all the exact same rights... which proved to me that it's relaly not about the rights as much as making a political statement. Which is why I'll be arguing against homosexual marriages ad infinitum now or until I have some reason to believe that it's really about rights and not about agendas and attention-seeking. And after the display I've seen lately, that will take some time if it ever happens at all.
Click to expand...

I want the protections that marriage will offer me and my family. That is it. I didn't really care what it was called as long as it was the same for everyone as far as the government was concerned. I suspect you have always been opposed to granting any legal recognition to same sex couples and you are now using the far leftists elements of the gay rights movement as justification to oppose it now. If that is the case it is really sad because that means you can't just say you oppose it on grounds of principles, you need to try to deceive others and yourself rather than standing behind values or religious convictions. Do you really think anyone will respect you for declaring animosity? Do you think that you will inspire fear in people or divide the movement? All it does is make you look like you lack integrity. That is it.

I respect Jerry, one of the members on this forum. Not because of how he has come around on same sex marriage, but because even though he has, he argues vehemently with the leftists on why same sex marriage should be a part of society. He does not like the leftists or their arguments any more than you do, but he doesn't allow them to dictate his position on this issue. That is integrity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom