- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
1.)Does editing my post make you feel better???
2.)How dare you even attempt to edit what I said and what I said boldly...
3.)If I was a mod you would get a warning for that.....
4.) With that said I'm not even going to address your assertions...
How is gay marriage or marriage in general a civil right? what amendment does that fall under?
I'm amazed at the stories formed in your mind.
I'm amazed at the stories formed in your mind.
you know these defections dont work right?
i will ask you again and we'll see if you can man up and answer or deflect AGAIN
what law are you talking about SCOTUS writing
1.)Yeah I know in the progressive mind everything is a matter of opinion...
I'm wrong because you want me to be wrong because you disagree... That I can accept,
3.)however, rewriting our Constitution to your liking I cannot.
1.) progressive? lol anther failed deflection
2.) no you are wrong because you posted lies and facts make you that way. It has nothgin to do with me
3.) BOOM! thanks for proving my point, can you quote me saying i want the constitution rewritten? nope its another BS strawman you made up oin your head instead of talking about what is actually said and reality
i will ask you again and we'll see if you can man up and answer or deflect AGAIN
what law are you talking about SCOTUS writing
1.)Apparently you just don't get it and never will....
2.)Not only that but you actually ****ed with my post again.....
I don't talk to people who a) are ignorant to basic civics and B) Think it's funny to change my post around to suit your argument(s)...
With that said - and arguing with a wall - late...............
The only failure is your failure to produce the 20 man condom study. Of course everyone knows why you won't produce the study, you can't. It doesn't exist. Yet you said it did. Everyone knows what that makes you.
I will be sure to remind people of how you invent studies that don't exist. And what that makes you.
The rest of us are 37 states, that would be the majority [ one would even call it a super majority, by the way ], that either ban SSM or define marriage as one man one woman. Sorry, you want to revisit the concept of "irrelevance" I am supposing, take that for a walk...:lamo :lamo :lamo
And normal is that which is not deviating from a norm...and if something such as homosexuality occurs in only between 2% and 5% of the population, that would mean it deviates from the norm and thus by definition is, simply, not normal.
The fact that the parts do not fit gives further credence to the fact, the fact that your opinion is just your opinion makes no never mind...
Now...if history is any determinant of the future, it is probably about time for you to make some false proclamation of winning the debate, as is your ubiquitous bent.
Are you saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equals? Under what common designation do they fall that would grant a right to equal access to marriage?
1) You could say that both groups are human beings.
....but so are individuals over 18 and individuals under 18. Yet they are not granted equal access to marriage. So that alone doesn't grant equal rights to marriage. Pedophiles fall into this category.
2) you could claim that both groups are equally consenting adults.
...but that wouldn't alone grant equal rights to marriage because first degree relatives are in this category and can't get married either.
3) you could claim that two homosexuals are in love like two heterosexuals would be.
..... Yet love alone can't grant equal rights to marriage. You and your (insert family member/pet/innate object here) may feel you are in love but cannot get married.
4) you can claim that two heterosexuals can create a loving family unit and raise children who need a home.
...yet again, polygamists and 1st degree relatives among others could fall into this category.
5) you could claim that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in that each is simply a sexual orientation one has the option to choose from.
...yet orientation is simply an affinity of one thing for another. Homosexuality is a behavior.
If you were to infer that homosexuality is an orientation then you would also have to concede that other orientations are on equal ground with homosexuality based on the simple category of alternative orientation. This would include incest, beastiality, and pedophilia. All of which are sexual orientations that without accompanied behavior are legal.
So, it appears that one cannot claim a right to marriage by simply being two (or more) consenting human beings (even of adult age) of a certain orientation who are in love and feel they can raise a healthy family. ...unless you are willing to grant marriage rights to a host of other groups such as polygamists, first degree relatives, pedophiles, animal lovers (you know the kind I'm talking about) etc.
This is why it's not a slippery slope.
Here's another premise. Heterosexuals are different than homosexuals on a basic concept. All people (aside from genetic malformations like hermaphroditism) are physically heterosexuals.
That is they are either physiologically male or female with corresponding parts. These parts are physiologically intended to attract to and complement the parts of the opposite sex. This is the intended design of our biology in order to propagate our species. Heterosexual behavior is the term given to this congruence. Homosexual behavior is a deviation from this and is an opposite behavior than our physiological biology intended. Heterosexual behavior is a congruence with our biology and homosexual behavior is an incongruence with our biology.
If our biology afforded a pathway for homosexuality to create genetic offspring then society could consider these two things simple sexual alternatives. But they are not.
Heterosexuality is a different entity completely than homosexual behavior.
So I don't see how separate but equal is even an argument here as homosexuality is not equal with heterosexuality.
Therefore if heterosexuals create a social construct called marriage it is within their prerogative to define it as being between a man and a woman. (On the way that any group rationally discriminates it's commonalities for participation) Outside groups have no legitimate argument to force their way into it without also conceding the door to Pandora's box.
I'm looking for a real discussion on this subject.
Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior. It has NOTHING to do with "societal norms" as if society could capriciously decree what is normal and what isn't.
Probably because homosexuals and their friends are pushing so hard to remove the stigma and shame of the perverse and deviant behavior - and people are pushing back as hard or harder.
This is incorrect. You do not seem to know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. And if we are talking about normal in a statistical sense, sure. However, if we are talking about normal as in acceptable, society CERTAINLY decides what is normal and what is not.
Just a technical point....If we leave it to "society" to decide what is acceptable under law, by bending to the whims of changing attitudes, and without amendment, or consistency.... don't we do damage to the rule of law?
Not really. This is pretty much what occurs. Societal norms dictate how laws are created.
I know, and maybe that is not the best way forward?
I think it is. In general, I support laws reflecting societal values.
Yeah, I guess I do too, I just wonder if we don't take the necessary time to deliberate whether or not long term these laws make sense...I mean, we seem to knee jerk a lot of laws out there whether they conflict with others or not, then we set up a premise of what laws to enforce without ever striking the old laws off the books.
This along with, on the Federal side, not doing things constitutionally, lead to tyranny.
If you guys keep using that word it's going to lose all meaning.
Well of course that's just nonsense. Homosexual sex is - and always has been - and always will be deviant behavior, perverse behavior if you prefer. And while societies may decide in general what's normal or acceptable (to them), they only do so within certain limits or boundaries otherwise unaffected by such caprices.This is incorrect. You do not seem to know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. And if we are talking about normal in a statistical sense, sure. However, if we are talking about normal as in acceptable, society CERTAINLY decides what is normal and what is not.
That's just absurd and you ought to know better than to attempt to paint homosexual behavior as somehow "normal." In fact, I would *love* to read how you would describe homosexual sex as normal. Two men having sex - baring the sordid details - explain how such an act is normal. Or two women having sex. Explain the normalcy of that, the non-deviancy of that, the non-perverseness of that.This is more demonstrative of you not understanding the issue. Your comments "perverse" and "deviant" are nothing more than your opinions and completely valueless when discussing facts in regards to orientation and behavior.
Just because you cannot make the association, and it appears unless you are the one that says it, you simply cannot make that small “leap”…well, needless to say, that hardly means it does not apply.And yet this has zero to do with what I said. 37 states are irrelevant to whether you or they have a right to be offended or not. "Them" not being fine with it is, as I said, irrelevant to the issue itself.
It is far beyond just the statistical standpoint. This is far from normal, it is far from desired, it is far from beneficial.From a statistical standpoint, this is true. However, normal has other definitions.
We note that your calls of irrelevance are usually themselves pretty much irrelevant. While you are wrong about my particular understanding, that distinction in itself is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Abnormal sexual behavior, abnormal sexual preference and abnormal sexual orientation should have no sound basis in being a determinate in societal outcomes, especially if we want those to be favorable outcomes.This is pretty irrelevant and demonstrates that you do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Well, there we go, there is the newest in a long line of false proclamations, a laughable judge of one’s own specious position's greatness…special, very special.No, if history is any determinant of the present, it is about time for me to point out how you have lost... which you have and which you usually do when debating me.
...says those who would promote homosexual marriage.
A class of self-indulgent individuals perhaps.
A class of self-indulgent individuals whose self-indulgence is characterized by their choice in sex partners.
A class marked as distinctive for their peculiar behaviors, yes.
That's demonstrably absurd; it's a lie containing no more truth than speeders claiming they speed because they have no choice. One might legitimately argue emotional or psychological trauma as a reason, but in the end it boils down to choice, a choice to give in to self-indulgent urges; and rather than acknowledge the truth, they've fabricated a web of lies to rationalize their shame - rather than be ashamed they've become proud of their deviant self-indulgences - so proud that now they want their behaviors given special treatment by society; they want - nay they demand society "accept" their deviant behavior as "normal" and they demand society treat them as "normal" who engage in such deviant behaviors.
And admittedly, society at large - including people like yourself - has bought their lies, accepted behavior as "normal" which is deviant, accepted self-indulgence as a good thing - regardless how depraved the indulgences are allowed to go.
Now, I call that depraved -- both the grossly self-indulgent behaviors as well as the societal acceptance of the grossly self-indulgent behaviors. You choose to call that bigotry. Only that's not your choice. Instead you made the choice to call that which is bad, good; that which is deviant, normal; that which is self-indulgent, "loving." You've abdicated your ability to choose as a consequence; you must call it bigotry. You have no choice. By yielding to their lies, by accepting them and denying the truth, you've become as self-indulgent as they - and how bitter the irony must be once you admit you too had "no choice."
Yeah, I guess I do too, I just wonder if we don't take the necessary time to deliberate whether or not long term these laws make sense...I mean, we seem to knee jerk a lot of laws out there whether they conflict with others or not, then we set up a premise of what laws to enforce without ever striking the old laws off the books.
This along with, on the Federal side, not doing things constitutionally, lead to tyranny.
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?