100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Spoiled Brats.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
WOW! You people are so hateful...talk about being intolerant. People in glass houses...just like yu'all say when it's your sacred cow... people don't need to explain why they feel the way they do. That goes for you too. You can believe what you want but don't expect people to get on any old bandwagon. Seems to me there are a few fence straddlers. They have every right to be upset with the decisions the majority made for them. You'd be upset too if you were in their place, so try to empathize with them a little. I understand where you're coming from, but I also think that people SHOULD have the right to choose for themselves. They already do choose for themselves. That's not the problem. When they want to govt. sanction instead of recognizing they are law breakers then that's the problem. So do others...have a right to live without being exposed to other people's destructive behaviors & abnormalities. I posted this in another place. I think the sexual revolution was the destruction of the family. Instead of inviting more destructive behaviors we need to educate people of things that are tearing families apart. From divorce to infidelity to all sorts of sexual practices that people think don't harm anyone. These things are not good & should never be forced on anyone as some norm. They are not. Homosexuality is one of those behaviors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heh Sodomy is against the law. Maybe you should up-date your legal research. Please look here for the legal description of sodomy. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy I would provide the description here but I am sure some posters would be hot on the report button if I did. Should I ask which of you have never engaged in sodomy? If you haven't or won't please don't ask me to bed! Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law Ruling establishes new legal ground in privacy, experts say Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 11:00 AM EST (1600 GMT) Ruling establishes new legal ground in privacy, experts say CNN's Wolf Blitzer reports on the 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court vote that underscores a right to privacy in sexual behavior (June 26) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic. The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex. Legal analysts said the ruling enshrines for the first time a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy, and its impact would reach beyond Texas and 12 other states with similar sodomy laws applied against the gay and lesbian community, and into mainstream America. "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law, according to The Associated Press. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts, the AP reported. Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws, as well. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the decision appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct, but he said laws governing marriage would be unaffected. (Full story) Laws that might be most vulnerable would be ones that govern fornication and adultery, said Diana Hassel, associate professor of law at Roger Williams University. And while Hassel said "only a handful" of states remain still have such laws, Thursday's Supreme Court ruling establishes a benchmark in privacy that had not existed. Hassel said the ruling, based on due process arguments rather than equal protection laws, would push out new areas in privacy. "This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior," Hassel said. "As long as it's between consenting adults, this ruling would appear to cover it." private being the key word... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe that's because some things are not "rights." A lot like the right not to judge? Go on, keep insisting that others are haters, "loonie libs", and the like. But, one day you'll be faced with a decision you won't want to make. And it will based on being morally correct according to your faith or an intelligent statement concerning actual people you might know. I pity you. LOL...I was exposed to things before they were politically correect dear heart. I wouldn't expose myself to people who wouldn't concern themselves with my feelings. No one should have to comprimise themselves to friends. Most people I know of all flavors respect that...people of GOOD faith that is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if marriage is only a union between man and woman, a scared institution to nurture children and create a home then women who are no longer capable of reproduction should not be allowed to marry or have sex. If sex is for procreation then women who cannot produce children should not be allowed to have sex.
It's unnatural!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Wed 11/12/08 08:10 PM
|
|
Heh Sodomy is against the law. Maybe you should up-date your legal research. Please look here for the legal description of sodomy. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy I would provide the description here but I am sure some posters would be hot on the report button if I did. Should I ask which of you have never engaged in sodomy? If you haven't or won't please don't ask me to bed! Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law Ruling establishes new legal ground in privacy, experts say Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 11:00 AM EST (1600 GMT) Ruling establishes new legal ground in privacy, experts say CNN's Wolf Blitzer reports on the 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court vote that underscores a right to privacy in sexual behavior (June 26) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic. The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex. Legal analysts said the ruling enshrines for the first time a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy, and its impact would reach beyond Texas and 12 other states with similar sodomy laws applied against the gay and lesbian community, and into mainstream America. "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law, according to The Associated Press. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts, the AP reported. Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws, as well. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the decision appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct, but he said laws governing marriage would be unaffected. (Full story) Laws that might be most vulnerable would be ones that govern fornication and adultery, said Diana Hassel, associate professor of law at Roger Williams University. And while Hassel said "only a handful" of states remain still have such laws, Thursday's Supreme Court ruling establishes a benchmark in privacy that had not existed. Hassel said the ruling, based on due process arguments rather than equal protection laws, would push out new areas in privacy. "This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior," Hassel said. "As long as it's between consenting adults, this ruling would appear to cover it." That's what happens when judges start legislating from the bench. they assist in breaking laws that have been on the books forever. That's irresponsible to break laws that protect the public. I call it govt. tyranny. Sexual behaviors are not rights. Geez... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW! You people are so hateful...talk about being intolerant. People in glass houses...just like yu'all say when it's your sacred cow... people don't need to explain why they feel the way they do. That goes for you too. You can believe what you want but don't expect people to get on any old bandwagon. This is not about the church...this is about decriminalizing behavior that's criminal. There are reasons why those laws are there but that's what happens when people become desensitized to various behaviors..those behaviors contribute to the destruction of the family unit. I find that intolerable. Instead of perpetuating destructive behaviors we need to educate people, especially children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haha Look who was on the court for that decision.
Umm and for those of you who want to talk smack about legislating from the bench I invite you to read my thread about a day in the SCOTUS, engage your brain and tell me how you'd decide it. Plugging your ears and shouting FOX news mantras by the way does not constitute an answer. Real life isn't that easy. Unless you are two years old. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW! You people are so hateful...talk about being intolerant. People in glass houses...just like yu'all say when it's your sacred cow... people don't need to explain why they feel the way they do. That goes for you too. You can believe what you want but don't expect people to get on any old bandwagon. Seems to me there are a few fence straddlers. They have every right to be upset with the decisions the majority made for them. You'd be upset too if you were in their place, so try to empathize with them a little. I understand where you're coming from, but I also think that people SHOULD have the right to choose for themselves. They already do choose for themselves. That's not the problem. When they want to govt. sanction instead of recognizing they are law breakers then that's the problem. So do others...have a right to live without being exposed to other people's destructive behaviors & abnormalities. I posted this in another place. I think the sexual revolution was the destruction of the family. Instead of inviting more destructive behaviors we need to educate people of things that are tearing families apart. From divorce to infidelity to all sorts of sexual practices that people think don't harm anyone. These things are not good & should never be forced on anyone as some norm. They are not. Homosexuality is one of those behaviors. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if marriage is only a union between man and woman, a scared institution to nurture children and create a home then women who are no longer capable of reproduction should not be allowed to marry or have sex. If sex is for procreation then women who cannot produce children should not be allowed to have sex. It's unnatural!! i think i seen something like that writtn in anther thread 
http://mingle2.com/topic/show/178494?page=6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe that's because some things are not "rights." A lot like the right not to judge? Go on, keep insisting that others are haters, "loonie libs", and the like. But, one day you'll be faced with a decision you won't want to make. And it will based on being morally correct according to your faith or an intelligent statement concerning actual people you might know. I pity you. LOL...I was exposed to things before they were politically correect dear heart. I wouldn't expose myself to people who wouldn't concern themselves with my feelings. No one should have to comprimise themselves to friends. Most people I know of all flavors respect that...people of GOOD faith that is. "Good faith" or your faith? Also, there a millions of people in your country you don't get to decide not to "expose" yourself to a certian person based on what they decide to do in private. Chances are you wouldn't know unless someone told you. You'll interact with people no matter what. Unless that is, you lock yourself in your home in fear that the mighty homosexual might say hello to you and strike me down should it happen, befriend you! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok...I stated my reasons for my position. It's no use trying to go further when so many just want to battle.
Talk about being hateful? Battle alone I'm done... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW! You people are so hateful...talk about being intolerant. People in glass houses...just like yu'all say when it's your sacred cow... people don't need to explain why they feel the way they do. That goes for you too. You can believe what you want but don't expect people to get on any old bandwagon. Seems to me there are a few fence straddlers. They have every right to be upset with the decisions the majority made for them. You'd be upset too if you were in their place, so try to empathize with them a little. I understand where you're coming from, but I also think that people SHOULD have the right to choose for themselves. They already do choose for themselves. That's not the problem. When they want to govt. sanction instead of recognizing they are law breakers then that's the problem. So do others...have a right to live without being exposed to other people's destructive behaviors & abnormalities. I posted this in another place. I think the sexual revolution was the destruction of the family. Instead of inviting more destructive behaviors we need to educate people of things that are tearing families apart. From divorce to infidelity to all sorts of sexual practices that people think don't harm anyone. These things are not good & should never be forced on anyone as some norm. They are not. Homosexuality is one of those behaviors.
Yes indeedy, it's all the breeders fault! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW! You people are so hateful...talk about being intolerant. People in glass houses...just like yu'all say when it's your sacred cow... people don't need to explain why they feel the way they do. That goes for you too. You can believe what you want but don't expect people to get on any old bandwagon. This is not about the church...this is about decriminalizing behavior that's criminal. There are reasons why those laws are there but that's what happens when people become desensitized to various behaviors..those behaviors contribute to the destruction of the family unit. I find that intolerable. Instead of perpetuating destructive behaviors we need to educate people, especially children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haha Yeah that's it!
I think we should stop straight people from having babies! Some of those babies grow up to be gay and after all that's wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok...I stated my reasons for my position. It's no use trying to go further when so many just want to battle. Talk about being hateful? Battle alone I'm done... Notice that you insist we're hating on you again, then take off. Keep reassuring yourself of that. From dictionary.com Hate: 1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry. 2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it. Do I hate you? No. Think that your beliefs are a little backwards? Yeah, yeah I do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haha Yeah that's it! I think we should stop straight people from having babies! Some of those babies grow up to be gay and after all that's wrong. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly  ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
your question was """what purpose or good does homosexuality do?""" and that is what i answered note the quote no where do you ask a question about marriage between same sex people in your post maybe you should run for public office 
the other question you asked """If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? """ if it were meant for people to fly would they not have wings if it were meant for people to go fast would they not have faster running ability or fast flapping wings if it was meant for people to swim would they not have webbed feet and fins "IF it was meant for people to to have children by marrying the same sex, would we then not have just one sex??" again show me how you and i or anyone could have ever been born if there was only a one sex society? life for man would have been real short - he would have been a anomaly. No matter how in love a homosexual may be, no matter what "rights" you think they should have [above or beyond - in love heterosexuals]- the fact remains they are not entitled to marriage benifits or rights no matter what those rights consist of - neither do heterosexual couples!! The only reason i see homosexuality existing along with other sexual orientations is because a desire is there for a number of people to do so. They are no more unique to me or less unique than anyone else, so where does this earn them [except in their own mind and desires] a special privilege here above any-other couples? that is issue the certain public wants a one sex society they want only hetrosexual sex if same gender sex is not normal why is it so prevalent in other members of the mammal species they want special treatment i think not they want equal treatment for sure there are many male female marriages that do not bear fruit does that mean they are no longer married i think not -- but because you know ahead of time that these two same gender people are not going to bear fruit you do not allow them to be together if not how long of a time frame do thy have before the marriage is dissolved for the lack of bearing fruit and if the bearing fruit is the issue at hand in the marriage argument only as a tool to ban something then should not the use of said argument be used to stop the killing of the fruit that need to be bore to permit marriage also if it is known that one can not bear fruit then they to should be barred from any marriage as well should they not why is it permitted for a man and a woman who can not bear fruit be treated any differently than any other couple that can not bear fruit pppphhhhhhheeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did this even get about homosexuals in the first place. The story was people protesting at a church. Im curious to hear the other side in a civil way. LIBBY PLEASE READ THIS TOPIC ALL THE WAY THROUGH..Im really curious to hear what you have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did this even get about homosexuals in the first place. The story was people protesting at a church. Im curious to hear the other side in a civil way. LIBBY PLEASE READ THIS TOPIC ALL THE WAY THROUGH..Im really curious to hear what you have to say.
ya killed it lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW! You people are so hateful...talk about being intolerant. People in glass houses...just like yu'all say when it's your sacred cow... people don't need to explain why they feel the way they do. That goes for you too. You can believe what you want but don't expect people to get on any old bandwagon. Seems to me there are a few fence straddlers. They have every right to be upset with the decisions the majority made for them. You'd be upset too if you were in their place, so try to empathize with them a little. I understand where you're coming from, but I also think that people SHOULD have the right to choose for themselves. They already do choose for themselves. That's not the problem. When they want to govt. sanction instead of recognizing they are law breakers then that's the problem. They had government sanction in some parts of your country. And then it got taken away. That's awfully unfair to their right to choose, don't you think so? it was heading to gay thread but when you posted this it kinda closed the door and locked it there lol |
|
|
|
|
