• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No rights - no responsibilities

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Those on these boards who feel gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (marriage, adoption etc.) must surely agree that as responsibilties come with rights, surely no rights means no responsibilties.

So, do you agree that gay people should be exempt from paying tax?
Why on earth should they contribute to a society which denies them the rights of their heterosexual counterparts?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Urethra Franklin said:
Those on these boards who feel gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (marriage, adoption etc.) must surely agree that as responsibilties come with rights, surely no rights means no responsibilties.
It is interesting to notice how homosexuals extremists, who claim they are so proud of their abnormal behavior, can't seem to try to describe their sexual behaviors in a correct term, i.e., "homosexual". Instead they take a term that is defined as meaning: "happy", and attempt to co-opt then redefine it, and even get stupid, mindless heterosexual lemmings to go along with their little political propaganda terms. This is done in an attempt to "sanitize" then repackage their behaviors for marketing purposes. So much for "gay pride".

So, do you agree that gay people should be exempt from paying tax?
Why on earth should they contribute to a society which denies them the rights of their heterosexual counterparts?
Interesting how a homosexual extremist feels that if they are denied just a couple of rights, just like society denies the right to people to engage in drunk driving, zoophilia and heroin use, they think that all the other responsibilities to all the other rights they all have all of a sudden should be suspended....

Using their false logic, since homosexual extremists actively work to deny heterosexual people their rights to freedom of association and to be left alone, all heterosexuals should have no responsibilities.

Homosexual extremists, as long as they don't break laws, have all the rights associated with being a citizen, they just don't get any of the rights to marry like heterosexuals get, so they have all the responsibilities associated with citizenship with the exception of any of the responsibilities that allegedly come from being married.

Zoophiles still have to pay taxes....
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
HeteroDefenseLeague said:
Urethra Franklin said:
Those on these boards who feel gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (marriage, adoption etc.) must surely agree that as responsibilties come with rights, surely no rights means no responsibilties.
It is interesting to notice how homosexuals extremists, who claim they are so proud of their abnormal behavior, can't seem to try to describe their sexual behaviors in a correct term, i.e., "homosexual". Instead they take a term that is defined as meaning: "happy", and attempt to co-opt then redefine it, and even get stupid, mindless heterosexual lemmings to go along with their little political propaganda terms. This is done in an attempt to "sanitize" then repackage their behaviors for marketing purposes. So much for "gay pride".



Interesting how a homosexual extremist feels that if they are denied just a couple of rights, just like society denies the right to people to engage in drunk driving, zoophilia and heroin use, they think that all the other responsibilities to all the other rights they all have all of a sudden should be suspended....

Using their false logic, since homosexual extremists actively work to deny heterosexual people their rights to freedom of association and to be left alone, all heterosexuals should have no responsibilities.

Homosexual extremists, as long as they don't break laws, have all the rights associated with being a citizen, they just don't get any of the rights to marry like heterosexuals get, so they have all the responsibilities associated with citizenship with the exception of any of the responsibilities that allegedly come from being married.

Zoophiles still have to pay taxes....

I'm not homosexual, just fair minded.
And it's obvious you're the banned Libertarian in disguise, so why don't you anwser the intelligent questions posed to you elsewhere? You're not capable? Why are we not surprised.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Urethra Franklin said:
Those on these boards who feel gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (marriage, adoption etc.) must surely agree that as responsibilties come with rights, surely no rights means no responsibilties.

So, do you agree that gay people should be exempt from paying tax?
Why on earth should they contribute to a society which denies them the rights of their heterosexual counterparts?
You ask an interesting question uretha.

If homosexuals pays the same taxes as anyone else, why shouldn't they have the same rights and "priviledges" as heterosexual people?
I mean conservatives say marriage is priviledge, then how do heterosexual people gain the priviledge of marriage - for being in the majority (is that the reason).

All the religious rules or laws about homosexuality all null and void when it comes to govern a secular government like the US.
Religious parties have NO right to pose their beliefs on every single person in the country.
 

Jaxian

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Clinton Township, MI
I must admit that the idea that gay people should pay no taxes is an invalid one, for surely gay people do see some legal benefits, even though they don't see all benefits. What might be up for debate, however, is whether gay people should get a tax break equal to the amount of money they had previously been taxed to pay for opposite-sex marriage.
The real question is then: if we deny benefits to some group of people but give it to another, should the people denied those benefits be taxed for them?

I would say that in some cases, the people denied those benefits should be taxed. If the people recieving benefits are at a sort of inherent disadvantage, for example if they are mentally retarded or handicapped, then as a morally good and caring society, it is our responsibility to help those people recieve an equal opportunity at happiness by using a little of everyone's money to help them out.

However, in the case of marriage, heterosexuals are at no inherent disadvantage. It cannot be stated that children is a disadvantage because not all married couples have children, there is already a seperate set of benefits for children, and same-sex couples can as easily have children as opposite-sex couples. It should stand to reason then, that if either is disadvantaged, it is homosexuals, not heterosexuals, simply because homosexuals must face the disapproval of society, which is a difficult thing to face.

So we don't grant marriage benefits only to opposite-sex couples because they have an increased need. But it could also be that opposite-sex couples aren't disadvantaged, but marriage is simply a benefit that only they would use. If this is the case, it would make sense treat it similar to a government investment program. Those who use it pay into it, those who don't do not.

Yet again, it should be clear that marriage is actually not a benefit that only opposite-sex couples would use.

So why do we disallow same-sex couples from marrying? Well, according to me, the real reason is because the majority wants to discourage same-sex relationships, they want to promote their own religious beliefs, and they want to elevate themselves over other people. We can see this in people who claim that homosexuality is immoral. Those people are not basing that immorality on homosexuality's harm to anyone else, they're basing it on their own religious beliefs; they are writing their religion into the law, saying effectively that same-sex marriage is wrong because their own religion or belief is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Yet I will argue that the real immorality, the real evil, is the promotion of one's own religion or belief above others and the elevation of one's own lifestyle above those who live differently. Those are actions bred in selfishness and stripped of compassion for those different than oneself.

If I am correct my belief about why people deny same-sex marriage (though I'm sure anyone who opposes same-sex marriage will disagree with me), then we do not actually have any good reason to give marriage only to opposite-sex couples. If this is true, gay people should not be paying less taxes. Gay people should be given access to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
HeteroDefenseLeague said:
It is interesting to notice how homosexuals extremists,

Exactly who are these "Homosexual extremists?"

I keep hearing this term, but never a definition of what exactly makes a homosexual an extremist. Is it homosexuals who actually utilize their FREEDOM OF SPEECH? Or is it homosexuals who simply disagree with you?

HDL said:
who claim they are so proud of their abnormal behavior,
Ok, here we go again. What is SO wrong with a behavior that is "adnormal?" Does it harm you or anyone else? Does it infringe on your rights or make a victim or you or others? No.
Liking licorice could be concidered an "abnormal behavior." Being left-handed an easily fall into the same catagory of "abnormal."


HDL said:
can't seem to try to describe their sexual behaviors in a correct term, i.e., "homosexual".
Ah, so when heterosexuals call themselves "straight" even though it really means errect, is that simply an Oxymoron? Concidering most of them behave more like Cromagna man!

HDL said:
Instead they take a term that is defined as meaning: "happy", and attempt to co-opt then redefine it, and even get stupid, mindless heterosexual lemmings to go along with their little political propaganda terms.
"lemmings" you mean those of the ultra-right-wing who, even when faced with facts, can't seem to let go their religious beliefs and impose them upon EVERY citizen?
Those are the REAL lemmings.

As far as the word; "Gay" being used to mean a homosexual, if you read the paragraph bellow, it will become quite ovbious that it was "reclaimed" by homosexuals after having been pinned with that term by HETEROSEXUALS!

Several possibilities exist, but the acronym for Good As You is not one of them.
The most likely explanation is that it derives from gaycat or geycat, a slang term for a tramp or hobo who is new to the road. Gaycats were commonly in the company of older tramps, implying a homosexual relationship. The term, according to Lighter, dates to at least the 1890s. Gaycats were employed as lookouts while other hoboes committed crimes. The OED2 cites the 1935 Underworld & Prison Slang by N. Ersine as defining geycat as a homosexual boy. The origin of gaycat is unknown. Green, however, says a gay cat was a tramp who offered sexual services to women.

Another possible origin is the late nineteenth century slang usage of gay to mean promiscuous. A gay house meant a brothel. This sexual sense of the term could have become associated with homosexual promiscuity and the heterosexual sense lost.
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorg.htm

So, don't go blaming GAYs for the word...



HDL said:
This is done in an attempt to "sanitize" then repackage their behaviors for marketing purposes. So much for "gay pride".
Word "repackaging" is a phenominon that has existed throughout time.
BTW: the Nazi's claimed they were "sanatizing" their country when they EXTERMINATED as many as 5,000 to 15,000 homosexual (or PERCEIVED homosexual) men.
In 1977, Lautmann and his co-authors established that between 5.000 and 15.000 men had been sent to concentration camps because of homosexual offenses, while about half of them died or were murdered there. Before, this persecution had often been denied while, at the pro-gay side, the Protestant Church of Austria had claimed 220.000 murdered homosexuals.(2) Rainer Hoffschildt is preparing a list of the names of all men persecuted for homosexual offenses by the Nazis. In the book of essays edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, he expects to come to a number of 5-7000 men but does not speak out about the number that died in these camps of death. He warns also not to use the number of cases of homosexual offenses persecuted by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945 (about 50.000) as equalling the number of victimised men because many were repeat offenders. At the other hand, gay men as well as lesbian women were persecuted under other legal provisions for example against asocials, insane people or vagrants.
http://www.triangles-roses.org/persecution_gays.htm



HDL said:
Interesting how a homosexual extremist feels that if they are denied just a couple of rights,

A COUPLE? You call being denied nearly 1,100 rights and protections...A COUPLE?
Here's the list...you tell me if you would now like to continue this lie?

(the list starts on page 2 of this PDF file)

List of rights and protections attached to marriage.

HDL said:
just like society denies the right to people to engage in drunk driving, zoophilia and heroin use,
You truly have a twisted way of looking at things. How many times do you need to be told; drunk driving, zoophilia and heroin use...ALL CREATE VICTIMS! Being homosexual DOES NOT.
No matter how much spin you put on it, the fact remains, someone BEING homosexual causes no harm to anyone, creates no victims (unless you count the persecution, extermination, murder and other crimes of HATE perpetrated against homosexuals themselves!)

HDL said:
they think that all the other responsibilities to all the other rights they all have all of a sudden should be suspended....
Responcibility of marriage is to "Love, honor and cherrish; in sickness and in health; for richer and for poorer; until death do us part." Where in that does it say anything different than what we homosexuals WANT to take part in?
What laws decree responcibilities of which homosexuals are saying they don't want to take part in?


HDL said:
Using their false logic, since homosexual extremists actively work to deny heterosexual people their rights to freedom of association and to be left alone,
How's that?
Exactly how are homosexuals denying you any rights whatsoever?
How is "freedom of association" linked to "freedom to enact laws which discriminate based on religious beliefs?"

HDL said:
all heterosexuals should have no responsibilities.
Talk about your "false logic." Again, as has been said before:

All Eagles are birds, all penguins are bird. But all eagles are NOT penguins.
Your line of logic skips quite a few steps here.


HDL said:
Homosexual extremists, as long as they don't break laws, have all the rights associated with being a citizen,
Wait for it....here it comes...the big "BUT"

HDL said:
they just don't get any of the rights to marry like heterosexuals get,
Therein lies the problem!
Are you simply not seeing it?
You said it yourself. Homosexuals are NOT afforded the right to marry! Therefor curbing a right to "freedom of association" which you whine about, but actually have and take completely for granted.

HDL said:
so they have all the responsibilities associated with citizenship with the exception of any of the responsibilities that allegedly come from being married.
Who exactly died and made you all Gawd? Since when do we, as citizens of this country, have the right to make the choice for anyone else?
If it does not cause harm, creates no victims, why do so much to make sure homosexuals can't gain access to it?
All I see is your failed logic trying to justify your religious hate as a means in which to base laws.
Sorry, but our government is SECULAR, not "Christian" as so many of your kind try to pawn off.

Zoophiles still have to pay taxes....
Zoophiles aren't trying to gain access to marriage laws. Zoophilia creates victims.
Don't even try that bit of truly flawed logic, it just won't fly.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Great volley JustineCredible :bravo:
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
shuamort said:
Great volley JustineCredible :bravo:

I just couldn't resist. He handed himself over on a silver plater, for crying out loud. I would have been remiss to have allowed that post, which was just one fat lie after another, to go unchallenged.
 

Jaxian

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Clinton Township, MI
Quertol said:
marriage= man + woman...

Simple...
That is what legal marriage is today. But we have the power to change what legal marriage is. And when someone approaches you and explains that a man and a man have just as much need for marriage as a man and a women, and that they deserve equal treatment, how do you justify leaving that equation as it is?
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Quertol said:
marriage= man + woman...

Simple...
Actually Marriage (used to) = Property owned by a man (No divorce)

Then it was changed to: Marriage = Man and Wife (Divorce only when instigated by the Man)

Then it was changed to: Marriage = Husband and Wife (Equal access to divorce) as long as it was One white man and one white woman.

Then it was changed to: Marriage = One white Husband and one white wife, or one black man/husband and one black wife.

Then it was changed to: Marriage = One husband regardless of race and one wife, regardless of race.

Then, in 1996 was it changed to: Marriage = ONE Man, One Woman. (which is based solely on ONE religious view of marriage and does not allow for any other religious interpretation.)


More precicely:

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

Polygamy: Definition: Having more than one spouse at a time, such as one man with several wives or one woman with several husbands.

Polygyny: Definition: Having several wives at the same time.

Polyandry: Definition: Having several husbands at the same time.

Endogamy: Definition: The requirement to marry someone who belongs to his or her own social group, family, clan, or tribe.
(which included insest)

Exogamy: Definition: The requirement by law to have to marry someone from another geographical area, social group, family, clan, or tribe.

Common Law Marriage: Definition: A relationship that is created by commitment and agreement to cohabitate rather than by a religious or civil wedding ceremony.

Monogamy: Definition: The practice of remaining faithful, sexually, to one person at a time. Also refers to having one spouse at a time.
History of Marriage



As Americans, we have seen changes within the institution of civil marriage. Many of us have seen these changes in our lifetimes. The status of women within marriage has changed and continues to evolve to reflect the equality of spouses. The status of ending a marriage has changed with the Supreme Court's recognition that states have to honor each other's divorces. But eligibility to marry, particularly based on race, present the most recent and vivid example of change within marriage.

At one point, 40 states in this country forbade the marriage of a white person to a person of color. In other words, people could not marry a person of the "wrong" race. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as "immoral" and "unnatural". Overwhelming numbers of Americans agreed. A Virginia Judge upheld that State's ban on interracial marriages saying, in a language with the same rhetorical tone as used against gay people today:
History of Marriage



Marriage, throughout history and time has changed several times as it undoubtedly will so again and again. Get used to it.
 

Quertol

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Jaxian said:
That is what legal marriage is today. But we have the power to change what legal marriage is. And when someone approaches you and explains that a man and a man have just as much need for marriage as a man and a women, and that they deserve equal treatment, how do you justify leaving that equation as it is?

Man+man doesn't= marriage...

Gays have equal treatment under the law... A gay man can marry any woman that he wants... A gay woman can marry any man that she wants... The law is fair... A straight man can't marry another man just as much as a gay man can't marry another man...
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Quertol said:
Man+man doesn't= marriage...
You've never heard of Massachusetts where it does. Or most of Canada. Or Spain. Or the Netherlands. Et al.

Quertol said:
Gays have equal treatment under the law... A gay man can marry any woman that he wants... A gay woman can marry any man that she wants... The law is fair... A straight man can't marry another man just as much as a gay man can't marry another man...
No they can't. They can't marry a woman who is already married. That would be polyandery for the woman which for no reason but prudish mythology is banned.
 

Quertol

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
shuamort said:
You've never heard of Massachusetts where it does. Or most of Canada. Or Spain. Or the Netherlands. Et al.

No they can't. They can't marry a woman who is already married. That would be polyandery for the woman which for no reason but prudish mythology is banned.

well very well, they could marry anyone of the opposite sex that is not already married...
 

Jaxian

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Clinton Township, MI
Quertol said:
Man+man doesn't= marriage...
I am aware that this is true in most of the US today. Yet you have the power to change our laws. You might as well be saying, "Black people = slaves" or "men = voters, women doesn't= voters". These things might have been true at one time, but that doesn't mean they aren't morally evil or that we shouldn't change them.

Gays have equal treatment under the law... A gay man can marry any woman that he wants... A gay woman can marry any man that she wants... The law is fair... A straight man can't marry another man just as much as a gay man can't marry another man...
This is not true. In order to gain the rights of marriage, a gay man has to either change the person he loves or marry someone he doesn't love, neither of which are likely to happen. Our marriage laws are not designed so that any two people can enter into a marriage, they are designed so that any straight people can enter into a marriage, and gay people are restricted from entering marriage unless they stop being gay. That is not fair. Although gay people can certainly stop being gay, our law is specifically designed to prevent anyone living the gay lifestyle from recieving benefits, and it is specifically designed to discourage people from being gay.

In the same fashion, what if we only allowed people who worship Buddha and no other God to get married? Surely any person is free to stop worshipping his own God and become a Buddhist. But that doesn't mean our law is fair. Our law would be fair if it didn't force Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and everyone else to change their religion in order to get equal treatment under the law. The fact that a person has to change his beliefs, his lifestyle, or his love in order to get equal treatment is what makes this system unfair, unequal, and unfree.

No one should be forced to trade in their freedom if they wanted to be treated equally under the law.
 

YamiB.

Active member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
261
Reaction score
41
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Quertol said:
Man+man doesn't= marriage...

Gays have equal treatment under the law... A gay man can marry any woman that he wants... A gay woman can marry any man that she wants... The law is fair... A straight man can't marry another man just as much as a gay man can't marry another man...
So interracial marriage shouldn't have been made legal? Everybody had the right to marry people from the same race.

There have been same sex marriages in the past. So not only has the definition changed, but at some points it included homosexuals.
 

Quertol

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Jaxian said:
I am aware that this is true in most of the US today. Yet you have the power to change our laws. You might as well be saying, "Black people = slaves" or "men = voters, women doesn't= voters". These things might have been true at one time, but that doesn't mean they aren't morally evil or that we shouldn't change them.



This is not true. In order to gain the rights of marriage, a gay man has to either change the person he loves or marry someone he doesn't love, neither of which are likely to happen. Our marriage laws are not designed so that any two people can enter into a marriage, they are designed so that any straight people can enter into a marriage, and gay people are restricted from entering marriage unless they stop being gay. That is not fair. Although gay people can certainly stop being gay, our law is specifically designed to prevent anyone from living the gay lifestyle from recieving benefits, and it is specifically designed to discourage people from being gay.

In the same fashion, what if we only allowed people who worship Buddha and no other God to get married? Surely any person is free to stop worshipping his own God and become a Buddhist. But that doesn't mean our law is fair. Our law would be fair if it didn't force Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and everyone else to change their religion in order to get equal treatment under the law. The fact that a person has to change his beliefs, his lifestyle, or his love in order to get equal treatment is what makes this system unfair, unequal, and unfree.

No one should be forced to trade in their freedom if they wanted to be treated equally under the law.
Why should we change our laws for 2% of the population, when they are already afforded the same rights as everyone else?

Why?
 

Jaxian

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Clinton Township, MI
Quertol said:
Why should we change our laws for 2% of the population, when they are already afforded the same rights as everyone else?

Why?
Because the law that we are changing is a law which restricts that 2% from using the same rights as anyone else, unless they change the person they love, unless they change their lifestyle, and unless they sacrifice their freedom.

We aren't changing anything at affects 98% of the people, we're just letting that 2% use the same rights that we have without having to conform to the lifestyle of the majority.

The real question is, why do we have a restriction in our law that prevents 2% of the people from using these benefits unless they change their life?
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Quertol said:
Why should we change our laws for 2% of the population, when they are already afforded the same rights as everyone else?

Why?
What difference does it make to you? What?
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Urethra Franklin said:
Those on these boards who feel gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (marriage, adoption etc.) must surely agree that as responsibilties come with rights, surely no rights means no responsibilties.

So, do you agree that gay people should be exempt from paying tax?
Why on earth should they contribute to a society which denies them the rights of their heterosexual counterparts?
You keep spouting off about gay marriage in the USA, yet your own country doesn't recognize it.

"Although the French government has resisted attempts from both the Green Party and the Socialists to legalize same-sex marriage, France does allow civil unions with limited rights for gay and lesbian couples."

source

Talk about being hypocritical.
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustineCredible said:
Exactly who are these "Homosexual extremists?"

I keep hearing this term, but never a definition of what exactly makes a homosexual an extremist. Is it homosexuals who actually utilize their FREEDOM OF SPEECH? Or is it homosexuals who simply disagree with you?
Websters definition when searching for "extremist"

Main Entry: ex·trem·ism
Pronunciation: ik-'strE-"mi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being extreme
2 : advocacy of extreme political measures : RADICALISM
- ex·trem·ist /-mist/ noun or adjective

and...

Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
- ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb

Seeing how the whole gay marriage issue is causing division amongst our population, then
the issue is of "extreme political measure".

So by definition, that would make you, JustineCredible, a "Homosexual Extremist".


JustineCredible said:
Ok, here we go again. What is SO wrong with a behavior that is "adnormal?" Does it harm you or anyone else? Does it infringe on your rights or make a victim or you or others? No.
Yea, here we go again, gays claiming their lifestyle hurts no one.I have an acronym for you. AIDS
And yes it does harm people, it kills them.What is wrong with abnormal behaviour? Oh you mean, such as "gifting"?
Where gays intentionally go out and contract AIDS.

You, JustineCredible, pass it off as sad, and that it's societies fault that these "fine individuals" have been failed by us, "society as a whole"
and have no other recourse.

JustineCredible said:
Liking licorice could be concidered an "abnormal behavior."
But it's not, so move along with this BS attempt at justifying that it could be.

JustineCredible said:
Ah, so when heterosexuals call themselves "straight" even though it really means errect, is that simply an Oxymoron? Concidering most of them behave more like Cromagna man!
Main Entry: 1straight
Pronunciation: 'strAt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English streght, straight, from past participle of strecchen to stretch -- more at STRETCH
1 a : free from curves, bends, angles, or irregularities <straight hair> <straight timber> b : generated by a point moving continuously in the same direction and expressed by a linear equation <a straight line> <the straight segment of a curve>
2 a : lying along or holding to a direct or proper course or method <a straight thinker> b : CANDID, FRANK <a straight answer> c : coming directly from a trustworthy source <a straight tip on the horses> d (1) : having the elements in an order <the straight sequence of events> (2) : CONSECUTIVE <12 straight days> e : having the cylinders arranged in a single straight line <a straight 8-cylinder engine> f : PLUMB, VERTICAL <the picture isn't quite straight>
3 a : exhibiting honesty and fairness <straight dealing> b : properly ordered or arranged <set the kitchen straight> <set us straight on that issue>; also : CORRECT <get the facts straight> c : free from extraneous matter : UNMIXED <straight whiskey> d : marked by no exceptions or deviations in support of a principle or party <votes a straight Democratic ticket> e : having a fixed price for each regardless of the number sold f : not deviating from an indicated pattern <writes straight humor> <a straight-A student> g (1) : exhibiting no deviation from what is established or accepted as usual, normal, or proper : CONVENTIONAL; also : SQUARE 5f (2) : not using or under the influence of drugs or alcohol h : HETEROSEXUAL
4 : being the only form of remuneration <on straight commission>


Ah yes, another gay life-styler, JustineCredible, redifining Webster to try and validate her statements.

JustineCredible said:
As far as the word; "Gay" being used to mean a homosexual, if you read the paragraph bellow, it will become quite ovbious that it was "reclaimed" by homosexuals after having been pinned with that term by HETEROSEXUALS!
Actually, no it doesn't. It states that the explanations are possibilities of where it originated.
Yet another JustineCredible attempt to distort what is plainly written.

JustineCredible said:
You truly have a twisted way of looking at things
You seem to be the one twisting things around, with your "definitions" and interpretations of plainly written text.


JustineCredible said:
No matter how much spin you put on it, the fact remains, someone BEING homosexual causes no harm to anyone, creates no victims.
Again, AIDS and "gifting" need to be brought to your attention.


JustineCredible said:
Talk about your "false logic." Again, as has been said before:

All Eagles are birds, all penguins are bird. But all eagles are NOT penguins.
Your line of logic skips quite a few steps here.
Here we'll skip a few more for you.

All homosexuals aren't human, all humans aren't married, so all homosexuals aren't getting married! :nahnah:


JustineCredible said:
Since when do we, as citizens of this country, have the right to make the choice for anyone else?
You might want to ask Terry Schiavo that question. :wink:
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GottaHurt said:
Seeing how the whole gay marriage issue is causing division amongst our population, then
the issue is of "extreme political measure".
So pro-lifers are extremists? Republicans are extremists? Your definition and application would suggest so


GottaHurt said:
Yea, here we go again, gays claiming their lifestyle hurts no one.I have an acronym for you. AIDS
And yes it does harm people, it kills them.What is wrong with abnormal behaviour? Oh you mean, such as "gifting"?
Where gays intentionally go out and contract AIDS.
Gay does not equal HIV nor AIDS. Your analogy is false.
 

Quertol

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
shuamort said:
Gay does not equal HIV nor AIDS. Your analogy is false.
Why is it though that there are so many more cases of Aids and Hiv in the Gay community per capita?
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
So pro-lifers are extremists? Republicans are extremists? Your definition and application would suggest so
Nice try.

shuamort said:
Gay does not equal HIV nor AIDS. Your analogy is false.
No, you read my reply to her response incorrectly.

JustineCredible wrote:
Ok, here we go again. What is SO wrong with a behavior that is "adnormal?" Does it harm you or anyone else? Does it infringe on your rights or make a victim or you or others? No.
And my response:
Yea, here we go again, gays claiming their lifestyle hurts no one.I have an acronym for you. AIDS
And yes it does harm people, it kills them.What is wrong with abnormal behaviour? Oh you mean, such as "gifting"?
Where gays intentionally go out and contract AIDS.

You, JustineCredible, pass it off as sad, and that it's societies fault that these "fine individuals" have been failed by us, "society as a whole"
and have no other recourse.
You don't see contracting AIDS on purpose as "abnormal"?
You don't see contracting AIDS on purpose as harming anyone?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GottaHurt said:
Nice try.
Go ahead and prove that your definitiion as you set forth as an extremist doesn't apply to those two groups. Here's your sentence again:
GottaHurt said:
Seeing how the whole gay marriage issue is causing division amongst our population, then the issue is of "extreme political measure".
Any issue causing division is thusly an "extreme political measure" and since you're ascribing extremists to its adherents, pro-lifers and republicans would then fit under said umbrella.
 
Top Bottom