100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Glad you liked all that Dragoness.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas: Just because someone has a right to do something that doesn't mean everyone should accept it and embrace it. Acknowledging that another has a right to do something is to accept that they have that right. No one who disagrees with homosexual lifesytle needs to change their opinion about it, nor "embrace" it. I think the fact alone that half of the Aids cases in America are from Homosexuals and this number is growing is reason enough not to promote this lifestyle. That is sufficient reason for you to hold your beliefs about it, it is not sufficient reason to impede upon another's rights. I mean, we still promote McDonalds, we still promote alchohol... the list of dangerous/deadly things that are allowed is very long. On a side note, HIV research results in big money medicine. The cost to the American taxpayers for a lifetime of treatment of Aids is averaging over $600,000 dollars and that was for the year 2006... Granting that the numbers are true. Do we deny equal rights to all who cost "the American taxpayer"? Even if I was a God hating Atheist I wouldn't be promoting this sort of lifestyle because facts clearly show these people don't care about the risk of Aids or other STD's and account for half of cases despite being just 2-3% of the population. The facts given cannot "clearly show that these people do not care about the risks of AIDS." Caring about the risks does not make one immune to contraction, nor does not caring about the risks make one contract the virus. Granted, a careless person puts themselves and their partners in harms way, but that poses no more danger to a straight person - either way. Yet the American people should feel guilty for not supporting it out of love? Give me a break. Another imaginary argument being scapegoated. Thomas, Is your rectum in danger? It is none of your concern whether or not a gay man chooses to take the risk of tearing his own anus, it poses no danger to you whatsoever. So what if it is "unnatural"? Do we deny Tammy Faye Baker her equal rights because her looks are clearly "unnatural"? Evidently, we have the right to do unnatural things in the privacy of our own home, and in the case of Tammy Faye - we can out and about quite unnaturally as well in some instances. I have said this many times in here gay marriage is not a right.Gays and others have ever right and American has.Put a gay American next to a straight American and tell me who has more rights under the Constitution and the bill of rights.The answer is they are both equal. So this whole gay marriage issue isn't about rights at all because nobody including the gays are not having their rights violated.If marriage was a right then it would be totally logical and plausible to say if someone wanted to divorce you against your will you could claim your civil rights were being taken away and violated since one person did not want to be divorced. So what this whole issue revolves around(much like the majority of the millions of laws in the United states)is... 1.)What the people want. 2.)If this is good for society? 3.)How many pros vs cons. 4.)Is it morally acceptable? 5.)Who it will effect and how much it will cost. 6.)Who stands to benefit the most. I don't think promoting any lifestyle gay or straight that is raising Aids cases in the United states should be promoted.It is common sense that if you keep promoting homosexuality as good,normal,and something that should be embraced you are going to have more homosexuals and more Aids cases.Statistics from the CDC from 2010 show a decline in Aids cases due to drugs and straight sex but a huge rise in homosexuals. Is adding more homosexuals to our society making our society better or worse?I think all the statistics and research has shown they have higher suicide rates,far more STD's,much higher AIDS cases,more likely to use illegal drugs,more likely to have a high number of sexual partners,have a average lifespan of 20 years less,and are far more likely to be murdered or beat then your average citizen.If this was a group of people that were not homosexuals then should we promote them?This doesn't sounds like it is benefiting society only taking away from it. Which brings me to the next point.You seem to think that everyone has a right to do anything they want and we all have to accept it.The only rights anyone has is under the Constitution and bill of rights.The rest of what you do is governed by laws.How many laws are governed by morality and decency alone?I know my rights and I know what the Constitution says about them.The homosexuals should learn the difference between what rights you are legally allowed to have and how they do or do not apply to homosexuality. I think bringing McDonalds and people who drink alcohol into this debate is just trying to stray away from the main topic.People can eat McDonalds and burger king every day and live to be 80.I understand that people die from clogged arteries but this is not something that happened from a one time exposure,something that is incurable,and something that is extremely expensive to treat.If people have high Cholesterol they can simply stop eating bad foods and reverse it.Eating McDonalds also does not infect others with a sexual transmitted disease they didn't want.Alcohol already has hundreds of laws to deal with where it is drank,who drinks it,what age they can drink it,and other legal related issues.I think the majority of people believe people should not get drunk to impairment or drink excessive alcohol on a daily basis and a large portion probably would ban alcohol if it was put to a vote. You keep bringing up do we deny rights to people by the way they act?The answer is yes we do.You have the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness until you murder someone and spend the rest of your life in a 4X10 cell.You may have the right to a firearm but you don't have the right to shoot at anyone or anything.If you have a felony you do not have the rights to own a firearm anymore.Do you have the right to free speech?The Constitution say you do until you call 9/11 and make a prank call.You think you can call anyone any name you want and slander their reputation with lies?You will get sued for it.The list goes on and on. So if a group of people are costing the American tax payers dollars by constantly doing harmful things to society then take away their rights.This could be anyone from bank robbers,child molesters,scam artists,and anyone else you can think of. If you want more research on the percentage of homosexuals who practice unsafe sex with strangers,know they have Aids but don't tell anyone about it,how homosexuals are having a increase of Aids and STDS,how they have a far more higher number of sexual partners,and how they engage in risky behavior this is likely to contract Aids and STD's I will gladly post it. Finally I would like to say I can't believe how hypocritical some of you are.The issue has been brought up many times about brothers marrying their sisters,fathers marrying their daughters,and people who love animals as they do a real person and have sexual contact with them. Do these people not have rights now? Are these people not a minority like the homosexuals claim? Are they not in love and denied this basic human right to marry? Are you not suppressing them the same way you claim the Christians are? I would have a lot more respect for you homosexual supporters if you would also allow family members to marry as well.Because you claim you don't support it out of morality issues.What a joke!The Christians can't object to something out of morality for them but for you it's fine.For gays it's a basic human right to marry but for brother and sister they have no rights.Your no different than the Christians.You just object to them because you hate them and this is a good way to find a excuse to beat down on them. I can only hope one day we have a member here who wants to marry their brother or sister and you can debate them about morality issues and why you object to it.Then I can grab some popcorn and laugh and see how funny it is to watch a two faced complete hypocrite use his own words against him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 01/07/11 06:47 PM
|
|
I think the fact alone that half of the Aids cases in America are from Homosexuals and this number is growing is reason enough not to promote this lifestyle I missed an easy one here...  I'm almost embarrassed. What of the other half, then?  If half are gay, and that justifies not promoting that lifestyle, then by the exact same measure, the straight half of the AIDS population should not have their lifestyle promoted either. Unless of course, we are talking about holding gays and straights accountable to different standards for being 'guilty' of the exact same offense - having AIDS. Seeing how that would be a clear case of hypocrisy, and everyone here agrees that being hypocritical is immoral, then after bringing these reasonable considerations to light, we must certainly further agree that this 'reasoning' that has bee put forth for not promoting gay lifestyle be swiftly abandoned. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Milesoftheusa
on
Fri 01/07/11 07:01 PM
|
|
Gross overgeneralization is to take a portion and unjustifiably apply it to a whole. I contend that that is what is going on here. p1. A certain percentage of gays break the law. p2. Breaking the law is destructive to our society. C. Therefore, gays break the law and are destructive to our society. Now the above reflects the thinking expressed thus far, and there are many things wrong with it besides just being a gross overgeneralization, but I digress...not all gays break the law, and seeing how the act of breaking the law has yet to have destroyed our society, I suggest that this is an argument from irrational fear as well among other things. Fear of the gay population increasing, that is. Racism often takes the form of a gross overgeneralization. Just because I have met a few whites whom I dislike for reason X(a personality feature), does not mean that I can take X from that specific case and apply it to all whites. All whites may not have that feature. Now if reason X is the fact that they are white, it is clearly a matter of racism. That is, to apply a negative label upon a particular group of people based soley upon their common denominator(race) is to be racist. One is allowed to be racist in their own beliefs, because we have freedom of belief. It is only a problem if behavior stemming from that belief infringes upon the rights of a person of that race. In other words, a person's personal freedom of belief does not supercede another's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's just the way it is. Miles, I ask that you justify the claim that gay/lesbian lifestyle is destructive to our society. Its really quite simple. Aids did not come about into the human race from Hetersexual couples. If then it was not introduced to our population by them then wherever it was introduced from is from destruction.. Shalom...Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties Too bad that isn't true cause then you might be right but alas, not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 01/07/11 07:07 PM
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties Too bad that isn't true cause then you might be right but alas, not. what was untrue? or do we believe the EXIT was meant to be an entrance in reality?.....although it doesnt have the biological components to protect it upon entry that the vaginal walls do,,,, perhaps there are those who believe it is MEANT as a compliment for a penis,,, shrugs maybe we should just go to not recognizing ANY Marriage, let people have 'relationships' with no guidelines beyond consent and no mention or recognition of whether there is a SEXUAL bonding taking place Id support that before supporting a national referendum to SUPPORT or ENCOURAGE homosexual activity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas: Just because someone has a right to do something that doesn't mean everyone should accept it and embrace it. Acknowledging that another has a right to do something is to accept that they have that right. No one who disagrees with homosexual lifesytle needs to change their opinion about it, nor "embrace" it. I think the fact alone that half of the Aids cases in America are from Homosexuals and this number is growing is reason enough not to promote this lifestyle. That is sufficient reason for you to hold your beliefs about it, it is not sufficient reason to impede upon another's rights. I mean, we still promote McDonalds, we still promote alchohol... the list of dangerous/deadly things that are allowed is very long. On a side note, HIV research results in big money medicine. The cost to the American taxpayers for a lifetime of treatment of Aids is averaging over $600,000 dollars and that was for the year 2006... Granting that the numbers are true. Do we deny equal rights to all who cost "the American taxpayer"? Even if I was a God hating Atheist I wouldn't be promoting this sort of lifestyle because facts clearly show these people don't care about the risk of Aids or other STD's and account for half of cases despite being just 2-3% of the population. The facts given cannot "clearly show that these people do not care about the risks of AIDS." Caring about the risks does not make one immune to contraction, nor does not caring about the risks make one contract the virus. Granted, a careless person puts themselves and their partners in harms way, but that poses no more danger to a straight person - either way. Yet the American people should feel guilty for not supporting it out of love? Give me a break. Another imaginary argument being scapegoated. Thomas, Is your rectum in danger? It is none of your concern whether or not a gay man chooses to take the risk of tearing his own anus, it poses no danger to you whatsoever. So what if it is "unnatural"? Do we deny Tammy Faye Baker her equal rights because her looks are clearly "unnatural"? Evidently, we have the right to do unnatural things in the privacy of our own home, and in the case of Tammy Faye - we can out and about quite unnaturally as well in some instances. I have said this many times in here gay marriage is not a right.Gays and others have ever right and American has.Put a gay American next to a straight American and tell me who has more rights under the Constitution and the bill of rights.The answer is they are both equal. So this whole gay marriage issue isn't about rights at all because nobody including the gays are not having their rights violated.If marriage was a right then it would be totally logical and plausible to say if someone wanted to divorce you against your will you could claim your civil rights were being taken away and violated since one person did not want to be divorced. So what this whole issue revolves around(much like the majority of the millions of laws in the United states)is... 1.)What the people want. 2.)If this is good for society? 3.)How many pros vs cons. 4.)Is it morally acceptable? 5.)Who it will effect and how much it will cost. 6.)Who stands to benefit the most. I don't think promoting any lifestyle gay or straight that is raising Aids cases in the United states should be promoted.It is common sense that if you keep promoting homosexuality as good,normal,and something that should be embraced you are going to have more homosexuals and more Aids cases.Statistics from the CDC from 2010 show a decline in Aids cases due to drugs and straight sex but a huge rise in homosexuals. Is adding more homosexuals to our society making our society better or worse?I think all the statistics and research has shown they have higher suicide rates,far more STD's,much higher AIDS cases,more likely to use illegal drugs,more likely to have a high number of sexual partners,have a average lifespan of 20 years less,and are far more likely to be murdered or beat then your average citizen.If this was a group of people that were not homosexuals then should we promote them?This doesn't sounds like it is benefiting society only taking away from it. Which brings me to the next point.You seem to think that everyone has a right to do anything they want and we all have to accept it.The only rights anyone has is under the Constitution and bill of rights.The rest of what you do is governed by laws.How many laws are governed by morality and decency alone?I know my rights and I know what the Constitution says about them.The homosexuals should learn the difference between what rights you are legally allowed to have and how they do or do not apply to homosexuality. I think bringing McDonalds and people who drink alcohol into this debate is just trying to stray away from the main topic.People can eat McDonalds and burger king every day and live to be 80.I understand that people die from clogged arteries but this is not something that happened from a one time exposure,something that is incurable,and something that is extremely expensive to treat.If people have high Cholesterol they can simply stop eating bad foods and reverse it.Eating McDonalds also does not infect others with a sexual transmitted disease they didn't want.Alcohol already has hundreds of laws to deal with where it is drank,who drinks it,what age they can drink it,and other legal related issues.I think the majority of people believe people should not get drunk to impairment or drink excessive alcohol on a daily basis and a large portion probably would ban alcohol if it was put to a vote. You keep bringing up do we deny rights to people by the way they act?The answer is yes we do.You have the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness until you murder someone and spend the rest of your life in a 4X10 cell.You may have the right to a firearm but you don't have the right to shoot at anyone or anything.If you have a felony you do not have the rights to own a firearm anymore.Do you have the right to free speech?The Constitution say you do until you call 9/11 and make a prank call.You think you can call anyone any name you want and slander their reputation with lies?You will get sued for it.The list goes on and on. So if a group of people are costing the American tax payers dollars by constantly doing harmful things to society then take away their rights.This could be anyone from bank robbers,child molesters,scam artists,and anyone else you can think of. If you want more research on the percentage of homosexuals who practice unsafe sex with strangers,know they have Aids but don't tell anyone about it,how homosexuals are having a increase of Aids and STDS,how they have a far more higher number of sexual partners,and how they engage in risky behavior this is likely to contract Aids and STD's I will gladly post it. Finally I would like to say I can't believe how hypocritical some of you are.The issue has been brought up many times about brothers marrying their sisters,fathers marrying their daughters,and people who love animals as they do a real person and have sexual contact with them. Do these people not have rights now? Are these people not a minority like the homosexuals claim? Are they not in love and denied this basic human right to marry? Are you not suppressing them the same way you claim the Christians are? I would have a lot more respect for you homosexual supporters if you would also allow family members to marry as well.Because you claim you don't support it out of morality issues.What a joke!The Christians can't object to something out of morality for them but for you it's fine.For gays it's a basic human right to marry but for brother and sister they have no rights.Your no different than the Christians.You just object to them because you hate them and this is a good way to find a excuse to beat down on them. I can only hope one day we have a member here who wants to marry their brother or sister and you can debate them about morality issues and why you object to it.Then I can grab some popcorn and laugh and see how funny it is to watch a two faced complete hypocrite use his own words against him. Too bad I just wasted those two minutes reading this drivel. It comes down to the fact that demonizing gay relationships by making them akin to a kin sexual act makes the argument even more useless. The difference is that gay folks should have the legal rights to marry. They should be treated the same as heterosexual couples in every way because they are the same. Incest is however a whole different matter. It causes mutations in their children. Not similar to gay marriage at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glad you liked all that Dragoness. You know I have a crush on your mind and always have It is such a wonderful thing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas: Just because someone has a right to do something that doesn't mean everyone should accept it and embrace it. Acknowledging that another has a right to do something is to accept that they have that right. No one who disagrees with homosexual lifesytle needs to change their opinion about it, nor "embrace" it. I think the fact alone that half of the Aids cases in America are from Homosexuals and this number is growing is reason enough not to promote this lifestyle. That is sufficient reason for you to hold your beliefs about it, it is not sufficient reason to impede upon another's rights. I mean, we still promote McDonalds, we still promote alchohol... the list of dangerous/deadly things that are allowed is very long. On a side note, HIV research results in big money medicine. The cost to the American taxpayers for a lifetime of treatment of Aids is averaging over $600,000 dollars and that was for the year 2006... Granting that the numbers are true. Do we deny equal rights to all who cost "the American taxpayer"? Even if I was a God hating Atheist I wouldn't be promoting this sort of lifestyle because facts clearly show these people don't care about the risk of Aids or other STD's and account for half of cases despite being just 2-3% of the population. The facts given cannot "clearly show that these people do not care about the risks of AIDS." Caring about the risks does not make one immune to contraction, nor does not caring about the risks make one contract the virus. Granted, a careless person puts themselves and their partners in harms way, but that poses no more danger to a straight person - either way. Yet the American people should feel guilty for not supporting it out of love? Give me a break. Another imaginary argument being scapegoated. Thomas, Is your rectum in danger? It is none of your concern whether or not a gay man chooses to take the risk of tearing his own anus, it poses no danger to you whatsoever. So what if it is "unnatural"? Do we deny Tammy Faye Baker her equal rights because her looks are clearly "unnatural"? Evidently, we have the right to do unnatural things in the privacy of our own home, and in the case of Tammy Faye - we can out and about quite unnaturally as well in some instances. I have said this many times in here gay marriage is not a right.Gays and others have ever right and American has.Put a gay American next to a straight American and tell me who has more rights under the Constitution and the bill of rights.The answer is they are both equal. So this whole gay marriage issue isn't about rights at all because nobody including the gays are not having their rights violated.If marriage was a right then it would be totally logical and plausible to say if someone wanted to divorce you against your will you could claim your civil rights were being taken away and violated since one person did not want to be divorced. So what this whole issue revolves around(much like the majority of the millions of laws in the United states)is... 1.)What the people want. 2.)If this is good for society? 3.)How many pros vs cons. 4.)Is it morally acceptable? 5.)Who it will effect and how much it will cost. 6.)Who stands to benefit the most. I don't think promoting any lifestyle gay or straight that is raising Aids cases in the United states should be promoted.It is common sense that if you keep promoting homosexuality as good,normal,and something that should be embraced you are going to have more homosexuals and more Aids cases.Statistics from the CDC from 2010 show a decline in Aids cases due to drugs and straight sex but a huge rise in homosexuals. Is adding more homosexuals to our society making our society better or worse?I think all the statistics and research has shown they have higher suicide rates,far more STD's,much higher AIDS cases,more likely to use illegal drugs,more likely to have a high number of sexual partners,have a average lifespan of 20 years less,and are far more likely to be murdered or beat then your average citizen.If this was a group of people that were not homosexuals then should we promote them?This doesn't sounds like it is benefiting society only taking away from it. Which brings me to the next point.You seem to think that everyone has a right to do anything they want and we all have to accept it.The only rights anyone has is under the Constitution and bill of rights.The rest of what you do is governed by laws.How many laws are governed by morality and decency alone?I know my rights and I know what the Constitution says about them.The homosexuals should learn the difference between what rights you are legally allowed to have and how they do or do not apply to homosexuality. I think bringing McDonalds and people who drink alcohol into this debate is just trying to stray away from the main topic.People can eat McDonalds and burger king every day and live to be 80.I understand that people die from clogged arteries but this is not something that happened from a one time exposure,something that is incurable,and something that is extremely expensive to treat.If people have high Cholesterol they can simply stop eating bad foods and reverse it.Eating McDonalds also does not infect others with a sexual transmitted disease they didn't want.Alcohol already has hundreds of laws to deal with where it is drank,who drinks it,what age they can drink it,and other legal related issues.I think the majority of people believe people should not get drunk to impairment or drink excessive alcohol on a daily basis and a large portion probably would ban alcohol if it was put to a vote. You keep bringing up do we deny rights to people by the way they act?The answer is yes we do.You have the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness until you murder someone and spend the rest of your life in a 4X10 cell.You may have the right to a firearm but you don't have the right to shoot at anyone or anything.If you have a felony you do not have the rights to own a firearm anymore.Do you have the right to free speech?The Constitution say you do until you call 9/11 and make a prank call.You think you can call anyone any name you want and slander their reputation with lies?You will get sued for it.The list goes on and on. So if a group of people are costing the American tax payers dollars by constantly doing harmful things to society then take away their rights.This could be anyone from bank robbers,child molesters,scam artists,and anyone else you can think of. If you want more research on the percentage of homosexuals who practice unsafe sex with strangers,know they have Aids but don't tell anyone about it,how homosexuals are having a increase of Aids and STDS,how they have a far more higher number of sexual partners,and how they engage in risky behavior this is likely to contract Aids and STD's I will gladly post it. Finally I would like to say I can't believe how hypocritical some of you are.The issue has been brought up many times about brothers marrying their sisters,fathers marrying their daughters,and people who love animals as they do a real person and have sexual contact with them. Do these people not have rights now? Are these people not a minority like the homosexuals claim? Are they not in love and denied this basic human right to marry? Are you not suppressing them the same way you claim the Christians are? I would have a lot more respect for you homosexual supporters if you would also allow family members to marry as well.Because you claim you don't support it out of morality issues.What a joke!The Christians can't object to something out of morality for them but for you it's fine.For gays it's a basic human right to marry but for brother and sister they have no rights.Your no different than the Christians.You just object to them because you hate them and this is a good way to find a excuse to beat down on them. I can only hope one day we have a member here who wants to marry their brother or sister and you can debate them about morality issues and why you object to it.Then I can grab some popcorn and laugh and see how funny it is to watch a two faced complete hypocrite use his own words against him. Too bad I just wasted those two minutes reading this drivel. It comes down to the fact that demonizing gay relationships by making them akin to a kin sexual act makes the argument even more useless. The difference is that gay folks should have the legal rights to marry. They should be treated the same as heterosexual couples in every way because they are the same. Incest is however a whole different matter. It causes mutations in their children. Not similar to gay marriage at all. oh come now, it is very similar. INcest does not ALWAYS cause mutations, wasnt that the argument about someone concern with hiv? why punish the many for the few, was the argument as I remember not all sibling couplings will result in 'mutated' children,,, so why then should tney not have the marital 'right' of all other citizens then....? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties Too bad that isn't true cause then you might be right but alas, not. what was untrue? or do we believe the EXIT was meant to be an entrance in reality?.....although it doesnt have the biological components to protect it upon entry that the vaginal walls do,,,, perhaps there are those who believe it is MEANT as a compliment for a penis,,, shrugs maybe we should just go to not recognizing ANY Marriage, let people have 'relationships' with no guidelines beyond consent and no mention or recognition of whether there is a SEXUAL bonding taking place Id support that before supporting a national referendum to SUPPORT or ENCOURAGE homosexual activity There are lots of heterosexual women who like back door action also. Nothing wrong with it. All or nothing huh? Can't just give people equal rights to happiness? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas: Just because someone has a right to do something that doesn't mean everyone should accept it and embrace it. Acknowledging that another has a right to do something is to accept that they have that right. No one who disagrees with homosexual lifesytle needs to change their opinion about it, nor "embrace" it. I think the fact alone that half of the Aids cases in America are from Homosexuals and this number is growing is reason enough not to promote this lifestyle. That is sufficient reason for you to hold your beliefs about it, it is not sufficient reason to impede upon another's rights. I mean, we still promote McDonalds, we still promote alchohol... the list of dangerous/deadly things that are allowed is very long. On a side note, HIV research results in big money medicine. The cost to the American taxpayers for a lifetime of treatment of Aids is averaging over $600,000 dollars and that was for the year 2006... Granting that the numbers are true. Do we deny equal rights to all who cost "the American taxpayer"? Even if I was a God hating Atheist I wouldn't be promoting this sort of lifestyle because facts clearly show these people don't care about the risk of Aids or other STD's and account for half of cases despite being just 2-3% of the population. The facts given cannot "clearly show that these people do not care about the risks of AIDS." Caring about the risks does not make one immune to contraction, nor does not caring about the risks make one contract the virus. Granted, a careless person puts themselves and their partners in harms way, but that poses no more danger to a straight person - either way. Yet the American people should feel guilty for not supporting it out of love? Give me a break. Another imaginary argument being scapegoated. Thomas, Is your rectum in danger? It is none of your concern whether or not a gay man chooses to take the risk of tearing his own anus, it poses no danger to you whatsoever. So what if it is "unnatural"? Do we deny Tammy Faye Baker her equal rights because her looks are clearly "unnatural"? Evidently, we have the right to do unnatural things in the privacy of our own home, and in the case of Tammy Faye - we can out and about quite unnaturally as well in some instances. I have said this many times in here gay marriage is not a right.Gays and others have ever right and American has.Put a gay American next to a straight American and tell me who has more rights under the Constitution and the bill of rights.The answer is they are both equal. So this whole gay marriage issue isn't about rights at all because nobody including the gays are not having their rights violated.If marriage was a right then it would be totally logical and plausible to say if someone wanted to divorce you against your will you could claim your civil rights were being taken away and violated since one person did not want to be divorced. So what this whole issue revolves around(much like the majority of the millions of laws in the United states)is... 1.)What the people want. 2.)If this is good for society? 3.)How many pros vs cons. 4.)Is it morally acceptable? 5.)Who it will effect and how much it will cost. 6.)Who stands to benefit the most. I don't think promoting any lifestyle gay or straight that is raising Aids cases in the United states should be promoted.It is common sense that if you keep promoting homosexuality as good,normal,and something that should be embraced you are going to have more homosexuals and more Aids cases.Statistics from the CDC from 2010 show a decline in Aids cases due to drugs and straight sex but a huge rise in homosexuals. Is adding more homosexuals to our society making our society better or worse?I think all the statistics and research has shown they have higher suicide rates,far more STD's,much higher AIDS cases,more likely to use illegal drugs,more likely to have a high number of sexual partners,have a average lifespan of 20 years less,and are far more likely to be murdered or beat then your average citizen.If this was a group of people that were not homosexuals then should we promote them?This doesn't sounds like it is benefiting society only taking away from it. Which brings me to the next point.You seem to think that everyone has a right to do anything they want and we all have to accept it.The only rights anyone has is under the Constitution and bill of rights.The rest of what you do is governed by laws.How many laws are governed by morality and decency alone?I know my rights and I know what the Constitution says about them.The homosexuals should learn the difference between what rights you are legally allowed to have and how they do or do not apply to homosexuality. I think bringing McDonalds and people who drink alcohol into this debate is just trying to stray away from the main topic.People can eat McDonalds and burger king every day and live to be 80.I understand that people die from clogged arteries but this is not something that happened from a one time exposure,something that is incurable,and something that is extremely expensive to treat.If people have high Cholesterol they can simply stop eating bad foods and reverse it.Eating McDonalds also does not infect others with a sexual transmitted disease they didn't want.Alcohol already has hundreds of laws to deal with where it is drank,who drinks it,what age they can drink it,and other legal related issues.I think the majority of people believe people should not get drunk to impairment or drink excessive alcohol on a daily basis and a large portion probably would ban alcohol if it was put to a vote. You keep bringing up do we deny rights to people by the way they act?The answer is yes we do.You have the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness until you murder someone and spend the rest of your life in a 4X10 cell.You may have the right to a firearm but you don't have the right to shoot at anyone or anything.If you have a felony you do not have the rights to own a firearm anymore.Do you have the right to free speech?The Constitution say you do until you call 9/11 and make a prank call.You think you can call anyone any name you want and slander their reputation with lies?You will get sued for it.The list goes on and on. So if a group of people are costing the American tax payers dollars by constantly doing harmful things to society then take away their rights.This could be anyone from bank robbers,child molesters,scam artists,and anyone else you can think of. If you want more research on the percentage of homosexuals who practice unsafe sex with strangers,know they have Aids but don't tell anyone about it,how homosexuals are having a increase of Aids and STDS,how they have a far more higher number of sexual partners,and how they engage in risky behavior this is likely to contract Aids and STD's I will gladly post it. Finally I would like to say I can't believe how hypocritical some of you are.The issue has been brought up many times about brothers marrying their sisters,fathers marrying their daughters,and people who love animals as they do a real person and have sexual contact with them. Do these people not have rights now? Are these people not a minority like the homosexuals claim? Are they not in love and denied this basic human right to marry? Are you not suppressing them the same way you claim the Christians are? I would have a lot more respect for you homosexual supporters if you would also allow family members to marry as well.Because you claim you don't support it out of morality issues.What a joke!The Christians can't object to something out of morality for them but for you it's fine.For gays it's a basic human right to marry but for brother and sister they have no rights.Your no different than the Christians.You just object to them because you hate them and this is a good way to find a excuse to beat down on them. I can only hope one day we have a member here who wants to marry their brother or sister and you can debate them about morality issues and why you object to it.Then I can grab some popcorn and laugh and see how funny it is to watch a two faced complete hypocrite use his own words against him. Too bad I just wasted those two minutes reading this drivel. It comes down to the fact that demonizing gay relationships by making them akin to a kin sexual act makes the argument even more useless. The difference is that gay folks should have the legal rights to marry. They should be treated the same as heterosexual couples in every way because they are the same. Incest is however a whole different matter. It causes mutations in their children. Not similar to gay marriage at all. oh come now, it is very similar. INcest does not ALWAYS cause mutations, wasnt that the argument about someone concern with hiv? why punish the many for the few, was the argument as I remember not all sibling couplings will result in 'mutated' children,,, so why then should tney not have the marital 'right' of all other citizens then....? Stats on HIV were that minority women were the fastest growing group for lack of using condoms. Hiv is actually not a gay issue like it used to be. The mutations can happen even to the grandchildren. It is not healthy. But gay shouldn't be compared to incest as it is not in the same catagory. It is not anymore unhealthy then hetero sex is. Demonizing gay relationships doesn't make the arguer any points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 01/07/11 07:31 PM
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties Too bad that isn't true cause then you might be right but alas, not. what was untrue? or do we believe the EXIT was meant to be an entrance in reality?.....although it doesnt have the biological components to protect it upon entry that the vaginal walls do,,,, perhaps there are those who believe it is MEANT as a compliment for a penis,,, shrugs maybe we should just go to not recognizing ANY Marriage, let people have 'relationships' with no guidelines beyond consent and no mention or recognition of whether there is a SEXUAL bonding taking place Id support that before supporting a national referendum to SUPPORT or ENCOURAGE homosexual activity There are lots of heterosexual women who like back door action also. Nothing wrong with it. All or nothing huh? Can't just give people equal rights to happiness? we absolutely COULD if we first agree on what is a 'right' and what is a 'privilege' and how the difference should be manifested I have the right not to be touched if I dont want to be, I have a right to be safe in my own home I have the PRIVILEGE of an abundance of restaurants and foods to choose from I have the privilege of seeing movies and being entertained I have the privilege of being married now, if all rights are going to be equal, and marriage is going to be a right,, than siblings should have the 'right' to be married unless or until the laws no longer allow unrelated couples with the potential to conceive sick children to be married so long as unrelated people who might pass on some illness can marry, so should related people be able to what do ya think? or perhaps, we can allow one partner to agree to being 'fixed' so no offspring can be created, and allow all consentual partners to marry with that condition? sure everyone would be fine with daddy boffing his daughter so long as they were grown and promised not to create any mutations? .... under the logic proposed here, that would be fair and just and thats how I see us swinging if we dont wake up one day even incest will have to be accepted as equally significant to any other relationship and any still left with a conscious to say otherwise will be called bigots, haters, or perhaps INCESTOPHOBES,.,.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cad, Your repetitive utterances have no weight at all. Is that the best you can do? Immaturely insult people and pretend that their posts have no merit, when in fact you actually recognize that my main points cannot be refuted. I've proven that the biblical cannon of stories has no merit. They contain clear and obvious contradictions that can never be resolved. And even observations of the real world have clearly shown that these ancient fables are false. Even religious clergy have confessed that these stories contain such utter absurdities and contradictions that they themselves can only have faith that someday God will explain why these biblical stories are so lame. The only thing we can know with absolute certainty is that these stories clearly are not the "verbatim word of any God". At best there may be some spiritually inspired writings in the mix. That's about the only saving grace they can possibly have. However, once we look around at the entire human culture throughout the world we begin to see that anything that is contained in the Bible that actually appears to be truly "wise", can also be found in just about every other religion on Earth. So at best, we might conclude that all the writings of mankind contains some spiritual wisdom. Even writings that may not be focused on religious or spiritual ideals. Trying to hold the ancient Hebrew ramblings up as the "only true word of God" is every bit as futile as trying to do the same thing with Greek Mythology. Neither of these ancient fables has any more merit than the other in terms of their divine claims. Besides, you seem to have missed a major point. I'm actually in total agreement with the moral values that Jesus was alleged to have taught. I embrace him fully as my brother, and honor him by recognizing that he was indeed most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. So I honor Jesus, and preserve his dignity whilst rejecting all the bigotry and hatred that had been bestowed upon him by the rumors that were created about him being "The Christ". Jesus fits in far better with the pantheistic view of the Eastern Mystics. Which is a very beautiful view of reality, and of spirituality both. It's beautiful.  It's a shame you can't see God through the eyes of the Mystics. All this religious bigotry would vanish, and there would be nothing left but pure love. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas: Just because someone has a right to do something that doesn't mean everyone should accept it and embrace it. Acknowledging that another has a right to do something is to accept that they have that right. No one who disagrees with homosexual lifesytle needs to change their opinion about it, nor "embrace" it. I think the fact alone that half of the Aids cases in America are from Homosexuals and this number is growing is reason enough not to promote this lifestyle. That is sufficient reason for you to hold your beliefs about it, it is not sufficient reason to impede upon another's rights. I mean, we still promote McDonalds, we still promote alchohol... the list of dangerous/deadly things that are allowed is very long. On a side note, HIV research results in big money medicine. The cost to the American taxpayers for a lifetime of treatment of Aids is averaging over $600,000 dollars and that was for the year 2006... Granting that the numbers are true. Do we deny equal rights to all who cost "the American taxpayer"? Even if I was a God hating Atheist I wouldn't be promoting this sort of lifestyle because facts clearly show these people don't care about the risk of Aids or other STD's and account for half of cases despite being just 2-3% of the population. The facts given cannot "clearly show that these people do not care about the risks of AIDS." Caring about the risks does not make one immune to contraction, nor does not caring about the risks make one contract the virus. Granted, a careless person puts themselves and their partners in harms way, but that poses no more danger to a straight person - either way. Yet the American people should feel guilty for not supporting it out of love? Give me a break. Another imaginary argument being scapegoated. Thomas, Is your rectum in danger? It is none of your concern whether or not a gay man chooses to take the risk of tearing his own anus, it poses no danger to you whatsoever. So what if it is "unnatural"? Do we deny Tammy Faye Baker her equal rights because her looks are clearly "unnatural"? Evidently, we have the right to do unnatural things in the privacy of our own home, and in the case of Tammy Faye - we can out and about quite unnaturally as well in some instances. I have said this many times in here gay marriage is not a right.Gays and others have ever right and American has.Put a gay American next to a straight American and tell me who has more rights under the Constitution and the bill of rights.The answer is they are both equal. So this whole gay marriage issue isn't about rights at all because nobody including the gays are not having their rights violated.If marriage was a right then it would be totally logical and plausible to say if someone wanted to divorce you against your will you could claim your civil rights were being taken away and violated since one person did not want to be divorced. So what this whole issue revolves around(much like the majority of the millions of laws in the United states)is... 1.)What the people want. 2.)If this is good for society? 3.)How many pros vs cons. 4.)Is it morally acceptable? 5.)Who it will effect and how much it will cost. 6.)Who stands to benefit the most. I don't think promoting any lifestyle gay or straight that is raising Aids cases in the United states should be promoted.It is common sense that if you keep promoting homosexuality as good,normal,and something that should be embraced you are going to have more homosexuals and more Aids cases.Statistics from the CDC from 2010 show a decline in Aids cases due to drugs and straight sex but a huge rise in homosexuals. Is adding more homosexuals to our society making our society better or worse?I think all the statistics and research has shown they have higher suicide rates,far more STD's,much higher AIDS cases,more likely to use illegal drugs,more likely to have a high number of sexual partners,have a average lifespan of 20 years less,and are far more likely to be murdered or beat then your average citizen.If this was a group of people that were not homosexuals then should we promote them?This doesn't sounds like it is benefiting society only taking away from it. Which brings me to the next point.You seem to think that everyone has a right to do anything they want and we all have to accept it.The only rights anyone has is under the Constitution and bill of rights.The rest of what you do is governed by laws.How many laws are governed by morality and decency alone?I know my rights and I know what the Constitution says about them.The homosexuals should learn the difference between what rights you are legally allowed to have and how they do or do not apply to homosexuality. I think bringing McDonalds and people who drink alcohol into this debate is just trying to stray away from the main topic.People can eat McDonalds and burger king every day and live to be 80.I understand that people die from clogged arteries but this is not something that happened from a one time exposure,something that is incurable,and something that is extremely expensive to treat.If people have high Cholesterol they can simply stop eating bad foods and reverse it.Eating McDonalds also does not infect others with a sexual transmitted disease they didn't want.Alcohol already has hundreds of laws to deal with where it is drank,who drinks it,what age they can drink it,and other legal related issues.I think the majority of people believe people should not get drunk to impairment or drink excessive alcohol on a daily basis and a large portion probably would ban alcohol if it was put to a vote. You keep bringing up do we deny rights to people by the way they act?The answer is yes we do.You have the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness until you murder someone and spend the rest of your life in a 4X10 cell.You may have the right to a firearm but you don't have the right to shoot at anyone or anything.If you have a felony you do not have the rights to own a firearm anymore.Do you have the right to free speech?The Constitution say you do until you call 9/11 and make a prank call.You think you can call anyone any name you want and slander their reputation with lies?You will get sued for it.The list goes on and on. So if a group of people are costing the American tax payers dollars by constantly doing harmful things to society then take away their rights.This could be anyone from bank robbers,child molesters,scam artists,and anyone else you can think of. If you want more research on the percentage of homosexuals who practice unsafe sex with strangers,know they have Aids but don't tell anyone about it,how homosexuals are having a increase of Aids and STDS,how they have a far more higher number of sexual partners,and how they engage in risky behavior this is likely to contract Aids and STD's I will gladly post it. Finally I would like to say I can't believe how hypocritical some of you are.The issue has been brought up many times about brothers marrying their sisters,fathers marrying their daughters,and people who love animals as they do a real person and have sexual contact with them. Do these people not have rights now? Are these people not a minority like the homosexuals claim? Are they not in love and denied this basic human right to marry? Are you not suppressing them the same way you claim the Christians are? I would have a lot more respect for you homosexual supporters if you would also allow family members to marry as well.Because you claim you don't support it out of morality issues.What a joke!The Christians can't object to something out of morality for them but for you it's fine.For gays it's a basic human right to marry but for brother and sister they have no rights.Your no different than the Christians.You just object to them because you hate them and this is a good way to find a excuse to beat down on them. I can only hope one day we have a member here who wants to marry their brother or sister and you can debate them about morality issues and why you object to it.Then I can grab some popcorn and laugh and see how funny it is to watch a two faced complete hypocrite use his own words against him. Too bad I just wasted those two minutes reading this drivel. It comes down to the fact that demonizing gay relationships by making them akin to a kin sexual act makes the argument even more useless. The difference is that gay folks should have the legal rights to marry. They should be treated the same as heterosexual couples in every way because they are the same. Incest is however a whole different matter. It causes mutations in their children. Not similar to gay marriage at all. oh come now, it is very similar. INcest does not ALWAYS cause mutations, wasnt that the argument about someone concern with hiv? why punish the many for the few, was the argument as I remember not all sibling couplings will result in 'mutated' children,,, so why then should tney not have the marital 'right' of all other citizens then....? Stats on HIV were that minority women were the fastest growing group for lack of using condoms. Hiv is actually not a gay issue like it used to be. The mutations can happen even to the grandchildren. It is not healthy. But gay shouldn't be compared to incest as it is not in the same catagory. It is not anymore unhealthy then hetero sex is. Demonizing gay relationships doesn't make the arguer any points. I beg to differ. when comparing the risks of sibling couplings with that of the mainstream , the difference is VERY similar to that when you compare the risks of homosexual activity to those of the mainstream go to cdc and read any of the articles on homosexuality, it isnt JUST aids that makes homosexual activity much riskier and much more unhealthy than others,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties Too bad that isn't true cause then you might be right but alas, not. what was untrue? or do we believe the EXIT was meant to be an entrance in reality?.....although it doesnt have the biological components to protect it upon entry that the vaginal walls do,,,, perhaps there are those who believe it is MEANT as a compliment for a penis,,, shrugs maybe we should just go to not recognizing ANY Marriage, let people have 'relationships' with no guidelines beyond consent and no mention or recognition of whether there is a SEXUAL bonding taking place Id support that before supporting a national referendum to SUPPORT or ENCOURAGE homosexual activity There are lots of heterosexual women who like back door action also. Nothing wrong with it. All or nothing huh? Can't just give people equal rights to happiness? we absolutely COULD if we first agree on what is a 'right' and what is a 'privilege' and how the difference should be manifested I have the right not to be touched if I dont want to be, I have a right to be safe in my own home I have the PRIVILEGE of an abundance of restaurants and foods to choose from I have the privilege of seeing movies and being entertained I have the privilege of being married now, if all rights are going to be equal, and marriage is going to be a right,, than siblings should have the 'right' to be married unless or until the laws no longer allow unrelated couples with the potential to conceive sick children to be married so long as unrelated people who might pass on some illness can marry, so should related people be able to what do ya think? or perhaps, we can allow one partner to agree to being 'fixed' so no offspring can be created, and allow all consentual partners to marry with that condition? sure everyone would be fine with daddy boffing his daughter so long as they were grown and promised not to create any mutations? .... You know I really don't care who marries who BECAUSE IT ISN'T MINE OR YOUR DAMN BUSINESS ANYWAY. I am defending the laws of the land because there is some logic to siblings not marrying and underage not marrying and severely mentally challenged not marrying. There is no logic for gay folks not to marry. Gay couples are exactly the same as hetero couples in all ways. But if we were to deal with my personal feelings about it which I don't share often on here.......... I think it is ignorant for people to be all up in other people's business to the point that they tell them who to have sex with. Law of the land being followed here of course. Gay folks have to fight for their rights just like black folks have had to. I support their fight. I see the injustice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness wrote: There are lots of heterosexual women who like back door action also. Nothing wrong with it. Yeah really. I was going to mention that one myself. Just go to an "Adult" dating site and you'll quickly discover that heterosexual couples are doing far more than you might have ever imagined. In fact, I'll make a little public confession here. I've been to some "Adult" dating sites. But I'm personally not interested in catering to the desires of a woman who prefers "back door action". Yet unfortunately I found that many women were indeed into that. So much so that they put right in their profile that they aren't interested in men who are up to it. It was a bit depressing because if it wasn't for that desire, these women were otherwise quite attractive. But it's just not my thing. So I had to pass. So "back door action" is in no way limited to homosexuals. In fact, it's quite popular among heterosexual women who are seeking me. I know because I've run across quite a few profiles of women who state clearly that they enjoy it and are interested in a man who enjoys it. So there you go. It's all over the Internet. Just go to an Adult dating site and see for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 01/07/11 07:48 PM
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties Too bad that isn't true cause then you might be right but alas, not. what was untrue? or do we believe the EXIT was meant to be an entrance in reality?.....although it doesnt have the biological components to protect it upon entry that the vaginal walls do,,,, perhaps there are those who believe it is MEANT as a compliment for a penis,,, shrugs maybe we should just go to not recognizing ANY Marriage, let people have 'relationships' with no guidelines beyond consent and no mention or recognition of whether there is a SEXUAL bonding taking place Id support that before supporting a national referendum to SUPPORT or ENCOURAGE homosexual activity There are lots of heterosexual women who like back door action also. Nothing wrong with it. All or nothing huh? Can't just give people equal rights to happiness? we absolutely COULD if we first agree on what is a 'right' and what is a 'privilege' and how the difference should be manifested I have the right not to be touched if I dont want to be, I have a right to be safe in my own home I have the PRIVILEGE of an abundance of restaurants and foods to choose from I have the privilege of seeing movies and being entertained I have the privilege of being married now, if all rights are going to be equal, and marriage is going to be a right,, than siblings should have the 'right' to be married unless or until the laws no longer allow unrelated couples with the potential to conceive sick children to be married so long as unrelated people who might pass on some illness can marry, so should related people be able to what do ya think? or perhaps, we can allow one partner to agree to being 'fixed' so no offspring can be created, and allow all consentual partners to marry with that condition? sure everyone would be fine with daddy boffing his daughter so long as they were grown and promised not to create any mutations? .... You know I really don't care who marries who BECAUSE IT ISN'T MINE OR YOUR DAMN BUSINESS ANYWAY. I am defending the laws of the land because there is some logic to siblings not marrying and underage not marrying and severely mentally challenged not marrying. There is no logic for gay folks not to marry. Gay couples are exactly the same as hetero couples in all ways. But if we were to deal with my personal feelings about it which I don't share often on here.......... I think it is ignorant for people to be all up in other people's business to the point that they tell them who to have sex with. Law of the land being followed here of course. Gay folks have to fight for their rights just like black folks have had to. I support their fight. I see the injustice. what would be the logic if they first agreed to be 'fixed' ,, if the children are taken out of the equation(as they are never PART of the equation for a homosexual couple),,, you make siblings EQUAL to homosexuals who love and want to commit a lifetime to each other we go towards a community where the common answer for everything in the community will be 'I dont care, it doesnt affect me', and that is what scares me most someday fifty years from now, people will be saying,,'what was the big issue people had about fathers marrying their daughters? what bigots and religious zealous they must have been,,," and the rub is this, we DO have the right to love and sex with whomever we choose,, thats the BEAUTY marriage however, is a PUBLIC and OFFICIAL aknowledgement and holds a PUBLIC AND OFFICIAL place in the community(as a base for community) therefore it becomes my business, much like others in my neighborhood who dont take care of their children becomes my business(even though they arent 'my' children) by proxy because that dynamic becomes one that IMPACTS my community |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties Too bad that isn't true cause then you might be right but alas, not. what was untrue? or do we believe the EXIT was meant to be an entrance in reality?.....although it doesnt have the biological components to protect it upon entry that the vaginal walls do,,,, perhaps there are those who believe it is MEANT as a compliment for a penis,,, shrugs maybe we should just go to not recognizing ANY Marriage, let people have 'relationships' with no guidelines beyond consent and no mention or recognition of whether there is a SEXUAL bonding taking place Id support that before supporting a national referendum to SUPPORT or ENCOURAGE homosexual activity There are lots of heterosexual women who like back door action also. Nothing wrong with it. All or nothing huh? Can't just give people equal rights to happiness? we absolutely COULD if we first agree on what is a 'right' and what is a 'privilege' and how the difference should be manifested I have the right not to be touched if I dont want to be, I have a right to be safe in my own home I have the PRIVILEGE of an abundance of restaurants and foods to choose from I have the privilege of seeing movies and being entertained I have the privilege of being married now, if all rights are going to be equal, and marriage is going to be a right,, than siblings should have the 'right' to be married unless or until the laws no longer allow unrelated couples with the potential to conceive sick children to be married so long as unrelated people who might pass on some illness can marry, so should related people be able to what do ya think? or perhaps, we can allow one partner to agree to being 'fixed' so no offspring can be created, and allow all consentual partners to marry with that condition? sure everyone would be fine with daddy boffing his daughter so long as they were grown and promised not to create any mutations? .... You know I really don't care who marries who BECAUSE IT ISN'T MINE OR YOUR DAMN BUSINESS ANYWAY. I am defending the laws of the land because there is some logic to siblings not marrying and underage not marrying and severely mentally challenged not marrying. There is no logic for gay folks not to marry. Gay couples are exactly the same as hetero couples in all ways. But if we were to deal with my personal feelings about it which I don't share often on here.......... I think it is ignorant for people to be all up in other people's business to the point that they tell them who to have sex with. Law of the land being followed here of course. Gay folks have to fight for their rights just like black folks have had to. I support their fight. I see the injustice. what would be the logic if they first agreed to be 'fixed' ,, if the children are taken out of the equation(as they are never PART of the equation for a homosexual couple),,, you make siblings EQUAL to homosexuals who love and want to commit a lifetime to each other we go towards a community where the common answer for everything in the community will be 'I dont care, it doesnt affect me', and that is what scares me most someday fifty years from now, people will be saying,,'what was the big issue people had about fathers marrying their daughters? what bigots and religious zealous they must have been,,," and the rub is this, we DO have the right to love and sex with whomever we choose,, thats the BEAUTY marriage however, is a PUBLIC and OFFICIAL aknowledgement and holds a PUBLIC AND OFFICIAL place in the community(as a base for community) therefore it becomes my business, much like others in my neighborhood who dont take care of their children becomes my business(even though they arent 'my' children) by proxy because that dynamic becomes one that IMPACTS my community Since there is no similarity between incest and gay couples, I will not keep hashing it. Demonizing gay couples to make their union appear unhealthy is not a valid argument anyway. As for marriage it sure as hell isn't your damn business who marries who. You over step your boundaries in that area as are all those who oppose gay marriage for whatever reason they do. None of the opposition to gay marriage is valid it is all undue demonizing of people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harmony: this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US. Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing? I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest. As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground. All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages. the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me. But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy. Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell. in the opinions of SOME, for years the APA would disagree, until politics changed their position we dont want to see siblings marry, hopefully because we realize the unbalanced result of parents becoming aunts and uncles to their own kids similarly, gay marriage is an unbalanced equation, where there is no 'compliment' biologically between the two parties Too bad that isn't true cause then you might be right but alas, not. what was untrue? or do we believe the EXIT was meant to be an entrance in reality?.....although it doesnt have the biological components to protect it upon entry that the vaginal walls do,,,, perhaps there are those who believe it is MEANT as a compliment for a penis,,, shrugs maybe we should just go to not recognizing ANY Marriage, let people have 'relationships' with no guidelines beyond consent and no mention or recognition of whether there is a SEXUAL bonding taking place Id support that before supporting a national referendum to SUPPORT or ENCOURAGE homosexual activity There are lots of heterosexual women who like back door action also. Nothing wrong with it. All or nothing huh? Can't just give people equal rights to happiness? we absolutely COULD if we first agree on what is a 'right' and what is a 'privilege' and how the difference should be manifested I have the right not to be touched if I dont want to be, I have a right to be safe in my own home I have the PRIVILEGE of an abundance of restaurants and foods to choose from I have the privilege of seeing movies and being entertained I have the privilege of being married now, if all rights are going to be equal, and marriage is going to be a right,, than siblings should have the 'right' to be married unless or until the laws no longer allow unrelated couples with the potential to conceive sick children to be married so long as unrelated people who might pass on some illness can marry, so should related people be able to what do ya think? or perhaps, we can allow one partner to agree to being 'fixed' so no offspring can be created, and allow all consentual partners to marry with that condition? sure everyone would be fine with daddy boffing his daughter so long as they were grown and promised not to create any mutations? .... You know I really don't care who marries who BECAUSE IT ISN'T MINE OR YOUR DAMN BUSINESS ANYWAY. I am defending the laws of the land because there is some logic to siblings not marrying and underage not marrying and severely mentally challenged not marrying. There is no logic for gay folks not to marry. Gay couples are exactly the same as hetero couples in all ways. But if we were to deal with my personal feelings about it which I don't share often on here.......... I think it is ignorant for people to be all up in other people's business to the point that they tell them who to have sex with. Law of the land being followed here of course. Gay folks have to fight for their rights just like black folks have had to. I support their fight. I see the injustice. what would be the logic if they first agreed to be 'fixed' ,, if the children are taken out of the equation(as they are never PART of the equation for a homosexual couple),,, you make siblings EQUAL to homosexuals who love and want to commit a lifetime to each other we go towards a community where the common answer for everything in the community will be 'I dont care, it doesnt affect me', and that is what scares me most someday fifty years from now, people will be saying,,'what was the big issue people had about fathers marrying their daughters? what bigots and religious zealous they must have been,,," and the rub is this, we DO have the right to love and sex with whomever we choose,, thats the BEAUTY marriage however, is a PUBLIC and OFFICIAL aknowledgement and holds a PUBLIC AND OFFICIAL place in the community(as a base for community) therefore it becomes my business, much like others in my neighborhood who dont take care of their children becomes my business(even though they arent 'my' children) by proxy because that dynamic becomes one that IMPACTS my community Since there is no similarity between incest and gay couples, I will not keep hashing it. Demonizing gay couples to make their union appear unhealthy is not a valid argument anyway. As for marriage it sure as hell isn't your damn business who marries who. You over step your boundaries in that area as are all those who oppose gay marriage for whatever reason they do. None of the opposition to gay marriage is valid it is all undue demonizing of people. same can be and will be said about 'demonizing'(disagreeing with) incestuous marriage we will see how the community flourishes once we reach the anything goes with consenting adults stage ,,,,, once pandoras box is opened under the guise of a 'right' , there will be no turning back,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
