Give gays their rights!

[ShamMol]

They should do the same for Homosexuals then.
I don’t know why gay marriage has to be talked to death. The people for it are not going to budge, and the people against it are not going to budge. Every time it comes up I get more angry and bitter about having the Gay agenda imposed on me and my family. Marriage will do nothing for the gay community, and will cost taxpayers millions in health care costs. For every responsible, committed, person like our Shuamort, there are ten on the other side. The lifestyle of the common homosexual is not pretty, and people who promote it are doing those who follow a disservice. It is wrong to allow our young people to believe it is a normal and acceptable lifestyle, which they may wish to experiment with.
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source

So you would base the actions of a few for the punative measures against all in that group. Every single homosexual I know is not that way. They have boyfriends or girlfriends, they have sex, and they are completely normal. Saftey in the car is completely different from homosexual marriage. And if you don't want to get into it, why even respond with your bigoted remarks?

Physicians for life (souce #1)-biased, extremely conservative. source number two is catholic...can hardly trust that site due to the Church's view on anything homosexual. third souce i could find no information on, however, cited the bible several times and seems to be biased through religion. And the other was the family council, come on now Sqauk, use some normal sources that aren't conservative for once. Your one source that was even close to being unbiased was the first and it had some glaring falsities, especially about being gay and pedophilia (not all gays are pedophiles or even close). “Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV over those who never engaged in anal sex.” It gave no actual information and istead was a report that they could if they weren't in a committed relationship like those who would get married are.

 

[Montalban]

Animals do not have the ability to consent to that behavior. I'll just pre-emptively say neither do children with an adult either.

Do you eat animals? Do they 'consent' to being eaten? If not, then we should all be forced by law to being vegitarians.

Do you keep any as pets? Do they 'consent' to being eaten?

If a man or woman has sex using some kind of 'equipment', should this then be outlawed because that equipment has to give its consent?

Thanks in advance.

('cause that's the line you've now taken; only 'consent' by all parties is required; and if it's a human only (with equipment) that needs to consent, then that's removed your objection re: bestiality - so I expect you'll now be championing the rights of people to have 'relations' with sheep).

 

[Squawker]

So you would base the actions of a few for the punative measures against all in that group. Every single homosexual I know is not that way. They have boyfriends or girlfriends, they have sex, and they are completely normal. Saftey in the car is completely different from homosexual marriage. And if you don't want to get into it, why even respond with your bigoted remarks?

Typical left wing response. Resort to name calling. It isn’t the actions of a few, and it isn’t completely normal as you call it.

Physicians for life (souce #1)-biased, extremely conservative. source number two is catholic...can hardly trust that site due to the Church's view on anything homosexual. third souce i could find no information on, however, cited the bible several times and seems to be biased through religion. And the other was the family council, come on now Sqauk, use some normal sources ? that aren't conservative for once. Your one source that was even close to being unbiased was the first and it had some glaring falsities, especially about being gay and pedophilia (not all gays are pedophiles or even close).

You have some stats to back that up? Get some links up here to dispute my sources please.

“Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV over those who never engaged in anal sex.”

You disagree with that on what basis?

It gave no actual information and istead was a report that they could if they weren't in a committed relationship like those who would get married are.

There isn’t any evidence to support that, but good try.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Every time it comes up I get more angry and bitter about having the Gay agenda imposed on me and my family. Marriage will do nothing for the gay community, and will cost taxpayers millions in health care costs.

I'm really shocked that any thinking person in the USA would admit to be so prejudiced. Shame on you!

The lifestyle of the common homosexual is not pretty, and people who promote it are doing those who follow a disservice. It is wrong to allow our young people to believe it is a normal and acceptable lifestyle, which they may wish to experiment with.

What you wrote is no different than being a racist, an anti-semite, a neo-Nazi or any other HATE group or position that you can think of. No one is forcing you to condone it, but to write a hate-filled post that you don't care about their health and welfare is despicable.

Ever read the Declaration of Independence, you know, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL? That means that you're no better than any other American, no exceptions. You do not have more rights than anyone else. You just wrote that you want to limit people's rights based on who they have sex with in the privacy of their own home and with the consent of their partner?

You're not a real American. Ever read the "Ugly American"? It's about American arrogance in Southeast Asia. This book should be updated to include those among us who are homophobes.

 

[Squawker]

Hey Champ -- Go take your meds, buddy. :crazy3:

 

[Montalban]

I'm really shocked that any thinking person in the USA would admit to be so prejudiced. Shame on you!

Everyone is prejudiced. Some, like myself and the person you are insulting are totally against people going around committing sin. Funny that.

Ever read the Declaration of Independence, you know, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL? That means that you're no better than any other American, no exceptions.

A literal interpretation is all "Men" are created equal. These same men that wrote this did not believe it to be "Everyone" (hence several owned slaves). Thus you're brandishing this non-liberal declaration as if it's 'liberal'.

You do not have more rights than anyone else.

Prisoners have their 'freedoms' taken away from them.

You make so many sweeping-statements as to sound clichéd.

You just wrote that you want to limit people's rights based on who they have sex with in the privacy of their own home and with the consent of their partner?

Within the framework of 'privacy' and 'home'...

Do you accept that a person has a right to have sex where someone isn't a consenting partner?

Do you accept that a person has the right to have sex with a child?
Do you accept that a person has the right to have sex with a corpse, or a person who's in a vegetative state?

Do you accept that a person has the right to have sex with an animal?
If you answered 'no' to any of these, then you are accepting the need to place restrictions upon people who have sex within the 'privacy' of their own homes.

What about a person who has sex in the privacy of their own homes, films it and then broadcasts it on the internet?

You're not a real American.

Then you believe that this person is less than you, so much for being unprejudiced.



You are also making an argument that is highly artificial. Gay people don't just go around and have homosexual relations in the privacy of their own homes. They appear on the streets in 'gay pride' acts. They make TV and film stories promoting gay lifestyle (directly in "Queer as Folk" and less directly as in "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"). And they control some of the media through fear and intimidation. When people speak out against the sin of homosexuality they are ridiculed and/or threatened with suits against 'free speech' etc.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Everyone is prejudiced. Some, like myself and the person you are insulting are totally against people going around committing sin. Funny that.

You're the poster boy for Separation of Church & State. "Commiting Sin" LOL! So what about all of the heterosexual people getting BJ's or having Anal Sex? Do they also forfeit the right to marry? What a ridiculous argument!

A literal interpretation is all "Men" are created equal. These same men that wrote this did not believe it to be "Everyone" (hence several owned slaves). Thus you're brandishing this non-liberal declaration as if it's 'liberal'.

No, I am "brandishing" the Declaration for what it means, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. In the 21st Century that means that ALL PEOPLE are created equal. Maybe the homophobes of the USA need to step into the 21st Century and leave their bigotry where it belongs, in the past?

Prisoners have their 'freedoms' taken away from them.

Gay people are not prisoners! Comparing a law abiding citizen to a incarcerated person is real genius. It appears you do not know that when one breaks the law and is convicted you lose your freedoms? :thinking

Within the framework of 'privacy' and 'home'...

Do you accept that a person has a right to have sex where someone isn't a consenting partner?

No I do not, do you? Why do you think I wrote CONSENTING?

Do you accept that a person has the right to have sex with a child?

You're showing why people who are bigoted are ignorant. Good example!

Do you accept that a person has the right to have sex with a corpse, or a person who's in a vegetative state?

Read again what you've written? I wrote two consenting adults. Spend 30 seconds and look up the words "Consenting" and "Adult."

Do you accept that a person has the right to have sex with an animal?

If you answered 'no' to any of these, then you are accepting the need to place restrictions upon people who have sex within the 'privacy' of their own homes.

I cannot believe how terrible your points are, just plain dumb, sorry.

What about a person who has sex in the privacy of their own homes, films it and then broadcasts it on the internet?

Sex on the Internet is not illegal if it complies with the law.

You are also making an argument that is highly artificial. Gay people don't just go around and have homosexual relations in the privacy of their own homes. They appear on the streets in 'gay pride' acts. They make TV and film stories promoting gay lifestyle (directly in "Queer as Folk" and less directly as in "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"). And they control some of the media through fear and intimidation. When people speak out against the sin of homosexuality they are ridiculed and/or threatened with suits against 'free speech' etc.

You're just a sad, angry bigot. Another "Ugly American."

Ever consider that God considers bigotry a sin? Ever consider that you hate people simply because they have sex with someone of their own sex? One word comes to mind, PATHETIC, but then again bigots are pathetic, don't you think?

 

[ShamMol]

Typical left wing response. Resort to name calling. It isn’t the actions of a few, and it isn’t completely normal as you call it.

Stating the truth isn't name calling. What does bigot mean, let us look it up. "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." I would say that pretty much sums up almost everyone in this forum, so completely correct. Not name calling when it is correct my son.

You have some stats to back that up? Get some links up here to dispute my sources please.

Why should I dispute your sources farther? They are presented by extreme right wing groups and the only source that had any credibility was just a report to a commission, however, I will contend that any homosexual in a committed relationship would not suffer the same STDs from having multiple partners, much like heterosexual men. It is a contention I have made time and time again about the need for committed relationships, and the homosexual relationships I have seen have been just that.

You disagree with that on what basis?

I don't disagree, I just say there is a different side as well.

There isn’t any evidence to support that, but good try.

There isn't any evidence not to support my claim except the one that is cited by conservatives in the abortion debate. Those that are in committed relationships do not add extra STDs into the relationship and thus are safe so to speak as long as they remain committed; if they come into the relationship with STDs (as heterosexuals do too) then both partners should notify each other so that they can combat it with medication, no matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual. All committed relationships should practice safe sex as well so to prevent transmission.

 

[Montalban]

You're the poster boy for Separation of Church & State. "Commiting Sin" LOL! So what about all of the heterosexual people getting BJ's or having Anal Sex? Do they also forfeit the right to marry? What a ridiculous argument!

So this then is the 'weight' of argument you produce. A few statements of 'you're wrong', and a few that are personal attacks. Well done.

No, I am "brandishing" the Declaration for what it means, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. In the 21st Century that means that ALL PEOPLE are created equal. Maybe the homophobes of the USA need to step into the 21st Century and leave their bigotry where it belongs, in the past?

You then mean 'this is what it means to you'. Not 'this is what it means'. Because when it was written it didn't even mean 'all men'. And even by your definition it doesn't mean 'all men' because prisoners have their rights curtailed. So, simply brandishing this, making it into some kind of jingo adds no weight to your argument.

Gay people are not prisoners! Comparing a law abiding citizen to a incarcerated person is real genius. It appears you do not know that when one breaks the law and is convicted you lose your freedoms?

Sorry that you dealt with the generalisations. This leads to finding holes in your knee-jerk sloganeering.

No I do not, do you? Why do you think I wrote CONSENTING?

Which means that you're against meat-eating, unless the animal gives its consent.

You're showing why people who are bigoted are ignorant. Good example!

Cool. You're continued insults, and re-stating 'no it's not', plus making sweeping generalisations (that seem to upset you when I find holes in them) shows the lack of ability for a reasoned debate, without name calling.

Read again what you've written? I wrote two consenting adults. Spend 30 seconds and look up the words "Consenting" and "Adult."

Therefore you are against the 'exploitation' of animals that don't consent.

I cannot believe how terrible your points are, just plain dumb, sorry.

Ouch! That is such a hard hitting retort

Sex on the Internet is not illegal if it complies with the law.

So what are you now arguing for 'legality' rather than 'consent'? Do you understand that you're now attempting a different argument?
I don't consent that children of mine have their freedom of exploring the internet curtailed because of the 'legal' posting of porn where they might stumble across it.

You're just a sad, angry bigot. Another "Ugly American."

Another weak remark from a very poor argument.

Ever consider that God considers bigotry a sin? Ever consider that you hate people simply because they have sex with someone of their own sex? One word comes to mind, PATHETIC, but then again bigots are pathetic, don't you think?

Thanks for the straw-man. Find where I said I hate homosexuals. If not, I do think you should then look up 'straw-man'. If you need any tips in constructing an argument I'd be more than happy to PM them to you.

In summary you make a jingo of "All men are created equal" which you not only know means something different now to when your forefathers wrote it, but you also know that even now if doesn't mean "All men" because one clases of men (prisoners) aren't given the same rights as you or I.... which makes your knee-jerk attempt at sloganeering rather odd.

Next you talk about sex and 'consent'. If 'consent' where an issue, you'd be against any form of exploitation without 'consent', including the eating of animals, who I am sure aren't particularly fond of the idea.

Then you make an attempt at another argument; you're not about 'consent' but 'legality'. Well, homosexual sex was once illegal (that must mean that you'd be against it when it was illegal, and for it, now that its legal).

And interspersed in amongst this 'argument' (and I use the term most liberally) are a few attempts at personal insult, and straw-man.

Good one! :smile:

 

[Montalban]

26 X World Champs argues for homosexaul uion by making use of absolutes "All men are created equal" but then it doesn't mean what he thinks it means, not now, not even when it was first stated... in that it doesn't refer to ALL MEN.

What of 'consent'. If consent is the 'rule' by which we judge what is right, or wrong (that is, even if we include 'privacy' and 'home') then why is the killing of animals still good? They don't consent to that... and in fact he's only concerned if there's only one human involved anyway, else he'd want to outlaw any sexual act that involves one adult human and some appliance.


:spin:

Add to this a 'liberal' dose of insult, and we have a very convincing argument ! :mrgreen:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Because when it was written it didn't even mean 'all men'. And even by your definition it doesn't mean 'all men' because prisoners have their rights curtailed. So, simply brandishing this, making it into some kind of jingo adds no weight to your argument.

How absurd! You justify being a bigot by citing that criminals are not afforded the same basic freedoms as non-criminals! That is the cornerstone of your argument?

Which means that you're against meat-eating, unless the animal gives its consent.

Consenting ADULTS, not consenting cows. Yes, I believe that humans can eat meat, fish, etc. Here's a brain wave update...that does not mean that being for Gay rights makes someone a vegan or that eating meat makes someone a hypocrite re gay rights. Your "logic" is so contrived, so WRONG that it does clearly expose you as a bigot because as I wrote previously bigotry's roots are in ignorance, and for you to think that prisoners or cows not being treated equally or as consenting adults as the basis for banning gay marriage is a feeble attempt to mask your bigotry.

So what are you now arguing for 'legality' rather than 'consent'? Do you understand that you're now attempting a different argument?
I don't consent that children of mine have their freedom of exploring the internet curtailed because of the 'legal' posting of porn where they might stumble across it.

Well then you need to sit them down, treat them like they're educated and explain to them that you do not approve of their visiting porn sites until they've reached the age of CONSENT. There's that word again, CONSENT. We're talking about CONSENTING ADULTS and you're somehow equating porn sites to gay marriage as if they're related...or is that you're weakly trying to suggest that these porn sites are somehow contributing to homosexuality?

In BLUE state America we believe in CHOICE, logical and legal choice. To base an argument against personal freedom on the points that you're relying on really makes my points for me, thank you. Why? You're grasping for straws so you have to included criminals and animals to make your "point." How about coming up with a legitimate argument to discriminate against your fellow law abiding Americans? Give it a shot? Now keep in mind that employing bigotry in your argument completely nulls your point of view in general, and it personally exposes you as anti-American.

In summary you make a jingo of "All men are created equal" which you not only know means something different now to when your forefathers wrote it, but you also know that even now if doesn't mean "All men" because one clases of men (prisoners) aren't given the same rights as you or I.... which makes your knee-jerk attempt at sloganeering rather odd.

Know how weak your statement is? Employing your "logic" means that the Constitution should never be amended because it's original meaning is what it means, and the progression of intellect and changing mores do not matter. Great argument! Amendments were adopted as a vital foundation of the Constitution for precisely the opposite reason of your "means something different" rationale.

Intellectual pursuit and the evolution of American society is based on change, DUH! Otherwise we'd still have a society that includes slavery, lacks women's rights, and does not permit for equal protection under the law.

Next you talk about sex and 'consent'. If 'consent' where an issue, you'd be against any form of exploitation without 'consent', including the eating of animals, who I am sure aren't particularly fond of the idea.

Totally ridiculous and lame, sorry...doesn't even merit further reply other than, "WRONG."

Then you make an attempt at another argument; you're not about 'consent' but 'legality'. Well, homosexual sex was once illegal (that must mean that you'd be against it when it was illegal, and for it, now that its legal).

Slavery was once illegal too, so was women's voting, abortion, inter-racial marriage, oral sex, anal sex, and thousands of other outdated tenets that we, as a nation have intellectually evolved from due to greater knowledge and greater social conscience. You're stuck in some law and order phase in your life where you're unable to grasp that laws from centuries past were wrong and changing them is RIGHT.

And interspersed in amongst this 'argument' (and I use the term most liberally) are a few attempts at personal insult, and straw-man.

I guess bigotry really offends me and I believe that bigots need to be made accountable for their sick way of thinking and their ignorance needs to be constantly exposed so that others are not lured into or so that others are lured away from the ignorance that fuels bigotry.... :2mad: :screwy

 

[ShamMol]

I loved the Blue State America comment 26x, so true too.

 

[RightinNYC]

I loved the Blue State America comment 26x, so true too.

There's actually very little difference between "blue" states and "red" states.

That's a myth propagated by the media to catch headlines.

 

[Squawker]

Champ said:

How about coming up with a legitimate argument to discriminate against your fellow law abiding Americans? Give it a shot? Now keep in mind that employing bigotry in your argument completely nulls your point of view in general, and it personally exposes you as anti-American.

That is an unfair statement Champ. You lefties didn’t approve when the right called you un-American for your anti-war stand. Opposing Gay marriage doesn’t make one Anti-American or a bigot. You want to call names instead of posting facts that support your view.

OTTAWA, February 17, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A group of physicians has presented to Canadian Parliamentarians scientific evidence that homosexual marriage is a health risk to Canadians.
Source

Malebranche's study contradicts the view that coming out of the closet or disclosing one's homosexuality is associated with improved mental health, responsible behavior, and lower rates of HIV infection. To the contrary, African-American men who disclose their homosexuality have a higher HIV prevalence than those who do not choose to do so (24% versus 14%). They also engaged in more unprotected anal sex (41% versus 32%) than those who do not disclose.
Source
• A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of three-hundred-sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their last same-sex encounter.[7]
• A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men and women. Another cdc study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected anal sex--the riskiest sexual behavior--in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent increase from the previous two years.[8]
Source

 

[26 X World Champs]

Champ said:
That is an unfair statement Champ. You lefties didn’t approve when the right called you un-American for your anti-war stand. Opposing Gay marriage doesn’t make one Anti-American or a bigot. You want to call names instead of posting facts that support your view.

This is not about sex! It's about equal rights. Your entire post deals with meaningless statistics about having sex. My posts deal with people having the same rights as any other law abiding American.

IMHO to be against equal rights for all law abiding Americans is UNAMERICAN. How can it not be? It's either equal rights for all, or nothing...there's no room for equal rights for some in 21st Century America...IMHO! Do you care to disagree with this most basic of civil rights?

Please stop referring to the same sex statistics they have nothing to do with civil rights.

Please do defend obliterating the 14th Amendment due to prejudice? If we are truly to be a government that is separated from religion than people's religious views re homosexuality are invalid, right? It is not right to use a religious argument to support a civil rights issue, is it? I believe to do so would be crossing a line that our Constitution does not allow.

Allowing Gays to legally marry has no bearing on people who disagree with that lifestyle anymore than legally allowing two people from different races to marry. Banning either is a civil rights violation. If you're anti-marriage for gays than you are a bigot because you support depriving someone of their civil rights. If that is not bigotry, then what is it?

 

[Rev.]

In summary you make a jingo of "All men are created equal" which you not only know means something different now to when your forefathers wrote it, but you also know that even now if doesn't mean "All men" because one clases of men (prisoners) aren't given the same rights as you or I.... which makes your knee-jerk attempt at sloganeering rather odd.

Know how weak your statement is? Employing your "logic" means that the Constitution should never be amended because it's original meaning is what it means, and the progression of intellect and changing mores do not matter. Great argument! Amendments were adopted as a vital foundation of the Constitution for precisely the opposite reason of your "means something different" rationale.

If I may, Montalban...

Champ, it would not be appropriate to use that founding Fathers statement "all men are created equal" to support your arguement that homosexuals should be granted more rights. Today we make it mean "all persons regardless of race, gender, creed...and possibly sexual-orientation" BUT when our founding fathers said "all men" they MEANT "all white, male-gendered persons." And I think, based on their voting record, they most likely would have included "heterosexual" in their list of qualifications for manhood.

Our founding fathers, God rest their souls, were as bigoted as they come.

Slavery was once illegal too, so was women's voting, abortion, inter-racial marriage, oral sex, anal sex, and thousands of other outdated tenets that we, as a nation have intellectually evolved from due to greater knowledge and greater social conscience. You're stuck in some law and order phase in your life where you're unable to grasp that laws from centuries past were wrong and changing them is RIGHT.

It's interesting how some things which were wrong now are right, but some things which were right (or at least not condemned) are now wrong. But it is not fair to judge history based on 21st century ideals. Who knows? In another generation, many things we now consider right may be wrong again. The pendulum is already swinging to where divorce will be the great social evil again...

 

[26 X World Champs]

It's interesting how some things which were wrong now are right, but some things which were right (or at least not condemned) are now wrong. But it is not fair to judge history based on 21st century ideals. Who knows? In another generation, many things we now consider right may be wrong again. The pendulum is already swinging to where divorce will be the great social evil again...

I am not condemning our forefathers. I am simply pointing out that our mores have evolved so that all law abiding citizens deserve equal civil rights. Their sexual preference should not be a deciding factor if two men or two women want to get married.

As you know, legal gay marriage does not mean that others will suffer, not even a little bit. Maybe bigots will be pissed off but is that a bad thing? Do bigots have the same rights as others? YES....but they do not have more rights, and they are not allowed to violate someone else's rights...isn't that right?

In other words, it is perfectly legal to be a bigot philosophically (ugly, but legal). It is illegal to make bigoted laws that discriminate against any law abiding citizen for any reason, no exceptions. Surely you cannot argue with this basic principle?

 

[Squawker]

As you know, legal gay marriage does not mean that others will suffer, not even a little bit. Maybe bigots will be pissed off but is that a bad thing? Do bigots have the same rights as others? YES....but they do not have more rights, and they are not allowed to violate someone else's rights...isn't that right?

Then you didn't even read my sources Champ. You railed about how this was over civil rights and not about sex. Marriage isn't a civil right, and you have failed to prove homosexuals are discriminated against enough to warrant "special rights" over and above what we all have. Your use of the word bigot does nothing for your argument.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Then you didn't even read my sources Champ. You railed about how this was over civil rights and not about sex. Marriage isn't a civil right, and you have failed to prove homosexuals are discriminated against enough to warrant "special rights" over and above what we all have. Your use of the word bigot does nothing for your argument.

So things like health insurance, hospital visitation rights, pension benefits, etc. don't count? If all things were equal then gays would have equal health care rights, equal everything, but they do not.

Squawk why can't you live with a gay couple having the right to visit each other in a hospital as family? Why do you want to deprive them of pensions? How does that hurt you?

Let me put it his way....let's say one of your children or brothers were gay and in a long term committed relationship. Now let's say their partner is deathly ill, in a hospital but your son or brother is not allowed to be there at the very end as he's passing. Is that OK with you? Is it also OK that your son's partner's pension not be given to your son when clearly that is the wish of your son's deceased partner? That too is OK and fair?

When you prevent someone from having the same rights that you have innocent people get hurt, really hurt, and their lives can be destroyed by these prejudices.

These must be civil rights violations, and they are also moral and ethical violations. It's no different than denying someone their rights as stated above because they had oral sex and you think that's immoral....

Why can't you simply let people live their lives and not support laws that hurt them? Is that too much for you? Are you that cold and non-caring?

 

[Schweddy]

Why can't you simply let people live their lives and not support laws that hurt them? Is that too much for you? Are you that cold and non-caring?

Why can't they accept Civil unions and be done with it?
Are they not so caring as they want to "force" thier lifestyle into our system?

That cuts both ways.

 

[Squawker]

So things like health insurance, hospital visitation rights, pension benefits, etc. don't count? If all things were equal then gays would have equal health care rights, equal everything, but they do not.
Squawk why can't you live with a gay couple having the right to visit each other in a hospital as family? Why do you want to deprive them of pensions? How does that hurt you?

They already have those so called “rights”. If I don’t have a spouse, I name my next of kin or beneficiary. I sign a form that says who can visit me in the hospital, and I have a will made out. All these things are available to everyone including Gays. They haven’t proven they deserve special protection. Let me use Maine for an example. The people voted down “special rights” legislation for Gays two different times. Our Democrat controlled Legislature decided they knew better than the people and passed the bill anyway. This is how they justified it. They held hearings for one day, during the week of course, and invited only Gays to speak out. They opined they had been fired for the sole reason that they were homosexual. No employers were allowed to speak on their own behalf. Would you explain to me how this happens? How does an employer know someone is gay? How is it in the employers interest to fire a person who is doing his job properly? What recourse would a retailer have if a gay person was openly kissing his lover, and the retailer lost customers and revenue because of it? The Federal Government has strict guidelines to determine discrimination and Gays don’t have a legitimate case. They have to resort to underhanded means to force it on people. As vauge suggested, where is their sense of responsibility to their fellow citizens?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Then you didn't even read my sources Champ. You railed about how this was over civil rights and not about sex. Marriage isn't a civil right, and you have failed to prove homosexuals are discriminated against enough to warrant "special rights" over and above what we all have. Your use of the word bigot does nothing for your argument.

You know what Thomas Paine said?

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

 

[26 X World Champs]

Why can't they accept Civil unions and be done with it?
Are they not so caring as they want to "force" thier lifestyle into our system?

That cuts both ways.

Force? Our? They? You sound like white supremists sound, or sounded prior to Civil Rights legislation in the 20th Century.....Thomas Paine said:

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.

Please tell me what the difference is between denying someone the right to marry based on their race or their sexual preference?

 

[Schweddy]

Please tell me what the difference is between denying someone the right to marry based on their race or their sexual preference?

You havn't been paying attention.

Marriage is NOT A RIGHT.

 

[Squawker]

You havn't been paying attention.

Champ always ignores anything that goes against his rhetoric. lol Now we have "white supremist" added to "bigot". You can do better than that, Champ.