- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 24,353
- Reaction score
- 14,925
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure
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.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?
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.
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.
They can voice their opinions publicly, freedom of speech and the public can decide.
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.
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.
Neither Obama nor Democrats are in any way, shape, or form responsible for either of those groups. You're seriously paranoid, sir.~snip~
Obama and the Democrats are already running a full scale eugenics program. It's called Planned Parenthood and Hip Hop Culture.
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.Homosexuality was never removed from the DSM Criteria for scientific reasons. Purely political ones. Money buys morality in US Politics.
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.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.
Tell that to the photographers being targeted for not wanting to take pictures of gay weddings
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?
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.
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?
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?
I'm trying to understand to what extent you want the government to go in governing based on perceived biological imperative.
Based on what? Why do you say this? Where do you get this information?
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.
That's not an "atheist government". I'd love to hear how you think that's an "atheist government".
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?
A business of public accommodation is different than an individual.
What issue would that be?
What exactly are you trying to dispute?
Neither Obama nor Democrats are in any way, shape, or form responsible for either of those groups. You're seriously paranoid, sir.
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.
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.
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.
Whether these guys are trolls or not, this thread has become another "yell at the monitor" event. Good day sirs, I'm out.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.
They can no longer "reserve the right".
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.
This is a cop out. Challenge the views people currently have.Where was the first Planned Parenthood built? What were Sanger's views on blacks.
Yes, and Clint Eastwood, Fox news, and Christianity control rural culture.Jay Z, MTV and Beyonce control Hip Hop Culture. Obama is their homey.
Actually you mentioned morality four times.I never said it had to do anything with morality. Please try and follow along.
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.
Yeah, he said a lot of funny things like that jokes do not exist.Freud himself viewed homosexuality and paranoia as being inseparable.
I accept everyone. I do not accept homosexual sex.
Love the sinner. Hate the sin.
^^This doesn't sound accepting to me.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.
There's no room for discrimination in modern business. People don't like it.Tell that to the photographers being attacked for not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding.
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.Will children be taken away from their parents if they don't accept homosexuality as normal?
Discriminatory laws aren't constitutional until the supreme court decides they're not. They're unconstitutional the moment they're written down.Radical Authoritarians on the Left abandoned the restraints of The Constitution long ago
This is a cop out. Challenge the views people currently have.
Yes, and Clint Eastwood, Fox news, and Christianity control rural culture.
Actually you mentioned morality four times.
Yeah, he said a lot of funny things like that jokes do not exist.
^^This doesn't sound accepting to me.
There's no room for discrimination in modern business. People don't like it.
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.
Discriminatory laws aren't constitutional until the supreme court decides they're not. They're unconstitutional the moment they're written down.