- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 980
- Location
- European Union
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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....
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.
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?
HeteroDefenseLeague said:It is interesting to notice how homosexuals extremists,
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.HDL said:who claim they are so proud of their abnormal behavior,
HDL said:can't seem to try to describe their sexual behaviors in a correct term, i.e., "homosexual".
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.
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorg.htmSeveral 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.
HDL said:This is done in an attempt to "sanitize" then repackage their behaviors for marketing purposes. So much for "gay pride".
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.
HDL said:Interesting how a homosexual extremist feels that if they are denied just a couple of rights,
HDL said:just like society denies the right to people to engage in drunk driving, zoophilia and heroin use,
HDL said:they think that all the other responsibilities to all the other rights they all have all of a sudden should be suspended....
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,
HDL said:all heterosexuals should have no responsibilities.
HDL said:Homosexual extremists, as long as they don't break laws, have all the rights associated with being a citizen,
HDL said:they just don't get any of the rights to marry like heterosexuals get,
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.
Zoophiles still have to pay taxes....
shuamort said:Great volley JustineCredible :bravo:
Quertol said:marriage= man + woman...
Simple...
Quertol said:marriage= man + woman...
Simple...
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.
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:
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?
You've never heard of Massachusetts where it does. Or most of Canada. Or Spain. Or the Netherlands. Et al.Quertol said:Man+man doesn't= marriage...
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 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...
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.
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.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...
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.
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?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?
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?
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?
Yea, here we go again, gays claiming their lifestyle hurts no one.I have an acronym for you. AIDSJustineCredible 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.
But it's not, so move along with this BS attempt at justifying that it could be.JustineCredible said:Liking licorice could be concidered an "abnormal behavior."
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!
Actually, no it doesn't. It states that the explanations are possibilities of where it originated.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!
You seem to be the one twisting things around, with your "definitions" and interpretations of plainly written text.JustineCredible said:You truly have a twisted way of looking at things
Again, AIDS and "gifting" need to be brought to your attention.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.
Here we'll skip a few more for you.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.
You might want to ask Terry Schiavo that question. :wink:JustineCredible said:Since when do we, as citizens of this country, have the right to make the choice for anyone else?
So pro-lifers are extremists? Republicans are extremists? Your definition and application would suggest soGottaHurt said:Seeing how the whole gay marriage issue is causing division amongst our population, then
the issue is of "extreme political measure".
Gay does not equal HIV nor AIDS. Your analogy is false.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.
shuamort said:Gay does not equal HIV nor AIDS. Your analogy is false.
Nice try.shuamort said:So pro-lifers are extremists? Republicans are extremists? Your definition and application would suggest so
No, you read my reply to her response incorrectly.shuamort said:Gay does not equal HIV nor AIDS. Your analogy is false.
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.
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:Nice try.
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.GottaHurt said:Seeing how the whole gay marriage issue is causing division amongst our population, then the issue is of "extreme political measure".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?