100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Pat Robertson warns God will destroy America over same sex m | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.)  How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? homosexuals cant produce children with homosexuals , only with hetero or bi sexuals,, which brings up a whole other debate about how 'defined' they are by sexuality,,, but even so,,doesnt matter, as the government has no say over anyone elses body or reproductive rights,,, We aren't talking about the consenting adult's bodies, we are talking about the unborn child's rights and the unborn child's body. The child cannot speak for itself, so the Government must in this case. Just like we don't allow pregnant women to get drunk, try to kill her body or do drugs while pregnant, we cannot allow incest to produce a mentally or physically defective child. Your comparison of homosexuality and incest is disgusting. If you don't like homosexuality, FINE. GOOD. If you see two people having sex with absolutely 0% chance of having children the same thing as a father railing his daughter with a very high chance of producing children with deformities, then I'm not sure that anyone outside of God himself can help you. I disagree. this isnt about unborn children as the government is not in the business of eugenics and the idea that they care about 'unborn children' doesnt have alot of merit so long as they are not opposing 'termination' of pregnancies This isnt about unborn children or eugenics as there is no age limit by which women can marry even though risks of certain genetic issues rise significantly as women age,,, As I said before, the potential deformities is the ONLY argument the anti incest debate has and with technology advancing at such a rate as to make such deformities less of a risk(With proper screening and treatement),and with little support for the position that places the government as authority over anyones reproductive rights,, that argument is LOSING GROUND so, yes, the right of two consenting adults, regardless of their biology, to marry each other and choose whether they wish to take on WHATEVER risks,,, will slowly transcend into rights for incestous couples just like it has for homosexual couples,,, they are just trying to change the subject, they know this opens doors for all sorts of deviant sex laws coming about, so they still try to justify this nonsence.. since 2 people "love" each other, how long will it take to change the laws where teachers can marry students? priests marrying there alter boys? brothers marrying there sisters? and robertson is right, all counties in the past have fell apart after embracing same sex couples... sparta, greece, romans,sodam and gamora, just to name a few good question, I can raise the issue of authority for most of those relations(teachers and priests) , but I dont see the same argument holding as much water when it comes to 'siblings' who are not automatically being raised in an environment in which they have any authority over each other,,,,, especially not after they are legally 'adults' and even on the issue of abuse of authority, perhaps that should be argued to be an issue for the EMPLOYER to address and not the government,,,ie, if you abuse your position, you lose your job, not your freedom,,,,,unless it can be PROVEN to have been coercion in which case sexual harassment laws would suffice,,, interesting to ponder,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? It directly follows logically that if the debater CLAIMS their intent in denying gay marriage is the preservation of the meaning and sanctity of the heterosexual variety, then, unless they are intellectually dishonest, the most expedient thing would be to put their own house in order first by making divorces, at the very least, difficult to get. We all know THAT isn't going to happen-- Christian heterosexuals like the option too much and though they pay lip service to the sanctity of marriage, their observed habits contradict their professions. Even the name of the federal law, Defense of Marriage, inherently proclaims this double standard and some of the politicians that voted for it have 3 divorces in their woodpiles. Maybe it would make more sense to have a Constitutional amendment proclaiming that a divorce can only happen between one man and one woman. BTW, I'm definitely NOT advocating marital rape, merely pointing out that much Fundamentalist religious doctrine demands that a woman SUBMIT to her husband, because in some cultures in the past, women were considered property. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 07/03/11 02:55 PM
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? It directly follows logically that if the debater CLAIMS their intent in denying gay marriage is the preservation of the meaning and sanctity of the heterosexual variety, then, unless they are intellectually dishonest, the most expedient thing would be to put their own house in order first by making divorces, at the very least, difficult to get. We all know THAT isn't going to happen-- Christian heterosexuals like the option too much and though they pay lip service to the sanctity of marriage, their observed habits contradict their professions. Even the name of the federal law, Defense of Marriage, inherently proclaims this double standard and some of the politicians that voted for it have 3 divorces in their woodpiles. Maybe it would make more sense to have a Constitutional amendment proclaiming that a divorce can only happen between one man and one woman. BTW, I'm definitely NOT advocating marital rape, merely pointing out that much Fundamentalist religious doctrine demands that a woman SUBMIT to her husband, because in some cultures in the past, women were considered property. -Kerry O. this is different from outlawing divorce I do feel that the interest is 'communal' and 'familial', preserving the FOUNDATION which brings us all into existence in the first place supporting those who wish to take it to the extreme of making a lifetime commitment to EACH other as well as the children they may create together as to divorce, it is likewise in the interest of the children that these should be granted, for whatever reason,,, in my opinion if children are in an unhealthy home, it may be more in their interest for those adults to divorce than to be forced to remain together I would not be opposed to making divorce more difficult though, perhaps it would deter people from marrying the wrong partner if they didnt feel it was so easily 'fixed'... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
KerryO
on
Mon 07/04/11 06:45 AM
|
|
this is different from outlawing divorce I do feel that the interest is 'communal' and 'familial', preserving the FOUNDATION which brings us all into existence in the first place supporting those who wish to take it to the extreme of making a lifetime commitment to EACH other as well as the children they may create together as to divorce, it is likewise in the interest of the children that these should be granted, for whatever reason,,, in my opinion if children are in an unhealthy home, it may be more in their interest for those adults to divorce than to be forced to remain together I would not be opposed to making divorce more difficult though, perhaps it would deter people from marrying the wrong partner if they didnt feel it was so easily 'fixed'... Charity begins at home. I would think it would behoove those who loudly proclaim that gay marriages will undermine the institution need to take a good look around and fix their own house first. Broken homes caused by divorce are like the termites eating away at this 'foundation' you're talking about, and gay marriage has exactly NOTHING to do with it. Look at people like Randall Terry and how his actions has damaged his marriages and affected his childrens' lives. If marriage is a solely heterosexual privilege, I think anyone can demonstrate how badly it's been abused by the same people who would deny it to another group of people. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is different from outlawing divorce I do feel that the interest is 'communal' and 'familial', preserving the FOUNDATION which brings us all into existence in the first place supporting those who wish to take it to the extreme of making a lifetime commitment to EACH other as well as the children they may create together as to divorce, it is likewise in the interest of the children that these should be granted, for whatever reason,,, in my opinion if children are in an unhealthy home, it may be more in their interest for those adults to divorce than to be forced to remain together I would not be opposed to making divorce more difficult though, perhaps it would deter people from marrying the wrong partner if they didnt feel it was so easily 'fixed'... Charity begins at home. I would think it would behoove those who loudly proclaim that gay marriages will undermine the institution need to take a good look around and fix their own house first. Broken homes caused by divorce are like the termites eating away at this 'foundation' you're talking about, and gay marriage has exactly NOTHING to do with it. Look at people like Randall Terry and how his actions has damaged his marriages and affected his childrens' lives. If marriage is a solely heterosexual privilege, I think anyone can demonstrate how badly it's been abused by the same people who would deny it to another group of people. -Kerry O. creating life is solely a 'heterosexual privilege' so the responsibility for that life is PRIMARILY and NATURALLY upon the shoulders of those HETEROSEXUAL partners which have the sole privilege of being able to do so all the rest is a smokescreen that has little to do with my reasoning as homosexual couples are no less guilty of break ups and infidelity or any of the issues that lead heterosexuals to divorce,,, but yes, as adults , we should ALL be looking more closely at how our actions affect community and family,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is different from outlawing divorce I do feel that the interest is 'communal' and 'familial', preserving the FOUNDATION which brings us all into existence in the first place supporting those who wish to take it to the extreme of making a lifetime commitment to EACH other as well as the children they may create together as to divorce, it is likewise in the interest of the children that these should be granted, for whatever reason,,, in my opinion if children are in an unhealthy home, it may be more in their interest for those adults to divorce than to be forced to remain together I would not be opposed to making divorce more difficult though, perhaps it would deter people from marrying the wrong partner if they didnt feel it was so easily 'fixed'... Charity begins at home. I would think it would behoove those who loudly proclaim that gay marriages will undermine the institution need to take a good look around and fix their own house first. Broken homes caused by divorce are like the termites eating away at this 'foundation' you're talking about, and gay marriage has exactly NOTHING to do with it. Look at people like Randall Terry and how his actions has damaged his marriages and affected his childrens' lives. If marriage is a solely heterosexual privilege, I think anyone can demonstrate how badly it's been abused by the same people who would deny it to another group of people. -Kerry O. creating life is solely a 'heterosexual privilege' so the responsibility for that life is PRIMARILY and NATURALLY upon the shoulders of those HETEROSEXUAL partners which have the sole privilege of being able to do so ...and they shirk that duty ALL the time. Marriage or no marriage, they bring people into the world ALL the time that they either can't or won't parent, and they use divorce to dissolve those contracts as if they were mere pieces of paper. Also, there's nothing in the marriage contract that says a heterosexual couple must procreate as a condition of the marriage. Why aren't we calling those marriages 'Civil Unions'? Good luck with that one! all the rest is a smokescreen that has little to do with my reasoning as homosexual couples are no less guilty of break ups and infidelity or any of the issues that lead heterosexuals to divorce,,, but yes, as adults , we should ALL be looking more closely at how our actions affect community and family,,, So when can we expect this examination to happen? Doesn't your religion have a quote that says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" Seems to me, it's easier for some heterosexuals to cast stones against people who are different from themselves than to actually DO the hard work of getting their own house in order. That's where the real smokescreen is... -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pat Robertson,it's people like him that makes me proud i'm Atheist  If they didn't have guilt mongering and fear mongering to control the masses what could they do? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is different from outlawing divorce I do feel that the interest is 'communal' and 'familial', preserving the FOUNDATION which brings us all into existence in the first place supporting those who wish to take it to the extreme of making a lifetime commitment to EACH other as well as the children they may create together as to divorce, it is likewise in the interest of the children that these should be granted, for whatever reason,,, in my opinion if children are in an unhealthy home, it may be more in their interest for those adults to divorce than to be forced to remain together I would not be opposed to making divorce more difficult though, perhaps it would deter people from marrying the wrong partner if they didnt feel it was so easily 'fixed'... Charity begins at home. I would think it would behoove those who loudly proclaim that gay marriages will undermine the institution need to take a good look around and fix their own house first. Broken homes caused by divorce are like the termites eating away at this 'foundation' you're talking about, and gay marriage has exactly NOTHING to do with it. Look at people like Randall Terry and how his actions has damaged his marriages and affected his childrens' lives. If marriage is a solely heterosexual privilege, I think anyone can demonstrate how badly it's been abused by the same people who would deny it to another group of people. -Kerry O. creating life is solely a 'heterosexual privilege' so the responsibility for that life is PRIMARILY and NATURALLY upon the shoulders of those HETEROSEXUAL partners which have the sole privilege of being able to do so ...and they shirk that duty ALL the time. Marriage or no marriage, they bring people into the world ALL the time that they either can't or won't parent, and they use divorce to dissolve those contracts as if they were mere pieces of paper. Also, there's nothing in the marriage contract that says a heterosexual couple must procreate as a condition of the marriage. Why aren't we calling those marriages 'Civil Unions'? Good luck with that one! all the rest is a smokescreen that has little to do with my reasoning as homosexual couples are no less guilty of break ups and infidelity or any of the issues that lead heterosexuals to divorce,,, but yes, as adults , we should ALL be looking more closely at how our actions affect community and family,,, So when can we expect this examination to happen? Doesn't your religion have a quote that says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" Seems to me, it's easier for some heterosexuals to cast stones against people who are different from themselves than to actually DO the hard work of getting their own house in order. That's where the real smokescreen is... -Kerry O. people dont always advertise what is happening in their lives,, who are we to know what someone else is 'examining' or getting in order,,, that has nothing to do with having judgment concerning right or wrong, or healthy or unhealthy, or wise or unwise,,,etc,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. please explain why you feel a loving intimate relationship between a brother and sister is 'deviant'? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. butt sex is deviant sex... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. butt sex is deviant sex... The only thing that would make that deviant would be if it were an underage child or a mentally incapable person who cannot give consent. Well outside of rape of course. In a consensual relationship between two of age consenting adults there is nothing deviant about it. Men and women enjoy this form of sex also. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Tue 07/05/11 12:57 AM
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. please explain why you feel a loving intimate relationship between a brother and sister is 'deviant'? see what I mean. Mention same sex relationships and all kind of reference to all kinds of sex come out of the wood work. Too bad the preachers teach this stuff so we all have to endure it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. please explain why you feel a loving intimate relationship between a brother and sister is 'deviant'? see what I mean. Mention same sex relationships and all kind of reference to all kinds of sex come out of the wood work. Too bad the preachers teach this stuff so we all have to endure it. yes, there are all types of sex Im just curious what should be considered 'deviant' and why? and amongst those things that arent deviant, what is wrong with 'referencing' them in relation to each other? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. please explain why you feel a loving intimate relationship between a brother and sister is 'deviant'? see what I mean. Mention same sex relationships and all kind of reference to all kinds of sex come out of the wood work. Too bad the preachers teach this stuff so we all have to endure it. yes, there are all types of sex Im just curious what should be considered 'deviant' and why? and amongst those things that arent deviant, what is wrong with 'referencing' them in relation to each other? Deviancy is all sex that hurts one or both partners physically or emotionally because at least one of the partners is not willing, not capable of consent for any number of reasons. Of which does not and should not be referenced every time same sex relationships come into the conversation. There are a few on here who cannot stop themselves each and every time same sex relationships are brought up. Same sex relationships are no different from hetero relationships. They fall in the same category and should be respected with the same respect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. please explain why you feel a loving intimate relationship between a brother and sister is 'deviant'? see what I mean. Mention same sex relationships and all kind of reference to all kinds of sex come out of the wood work. Too bad the preachers teach this stuff so we all have to endure it. yes, there are all types of sex Im just curious what should be considered 'deviant' and why? and amongst those things that arent deviant, what is wrong with 'referencing' them in relation to each other? Deviancy is all sex that hurts one or both partners physically or emotionally because at least one of the partners is not willing, not capable of consent for any number of reasons. Of which does not and should not be referenced every time same sex relationships come into the conversation. There are a few on here who cannot stop themselves each and every time same sex relationships are brought up. Same sex relationships are no different from hetero relationships. They fall in the same category and should be respected with the same respect. great,, that means there is no issue with me comparing it to a loving adult incestuous relationship,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. please explain why you feel a loving intimate relationship between a brother and sister is 'deviant'? see what I mean. Mention same sex relationships and all kind of reference to all kinds of sex come out of the wood work. Too bad the preachers teach this stuff so we all have to endure it. yes, there are all types of sex Im just curious what should be considered 'deviant' and why? and amongst those things that arent deviant, what is wrong with 'referencing' them in relation to each other? Deviancy is all sex that hurts one or both partners physically or emotionally because at least one of the partners is not willing, not capable of consent for any number of reasons. Of which does not and should not be referenced every time same sex relationships come into the conversation. There are a few on here who cannot stop themselves each and every time same sex relationships are brought up. Same sex relationships are no different from hetero relationships. They fall in the same category and should be respected with the same respect. great,, that means there is no issue with me comparing it to a loving adult incestuous relationship,,, nope as long as you compare hetero sexual relationships to the same thing since there is no difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... You will notice that the anti same sex marriage folks will always relate all deviant sex to same sex relationships, they are taught that by their preachers. Guilt and fear is what the preachers are trying to instill so they have to make the connection to deviancy to make it a guilt and fear worthy thing to try to get others to try to control others sex lives and romantic lives. please explain why you feel a loving intimate relationship between a brother and sister is 'deviant'? see what I mean. Mention same sex relationships and all kind of reference to all kinds of sex come out of the wood work. Too bad the preachers teach this stuff so we all have to endure it. yes, there are all types of sex Im just curious what should be considered 'deviant' and why? and amongst those things that arent deviant, what is wrong with 'referencing' them in relation to each other? Deviancy is all sex that hurts one or both partners physically or emotionally because at least one of the partners is not willing, not capable of consent for any number of reasons. Of which does not and should not be referenced every time same sex relationships come into the conversation. There are a few on here who cannot stop themselves each and every time same sex relationships are brought up. Same sex relationships are no different from hetero relationships. They fall in the same category and should be respected with the same respect. great,, that means there is no issue with me comparing it to a loving adult incestuous relationship,,, nope as long as you compare hetero sexual relationships to the same thing since there is no difference. yep, all loving consentual adults living in matrimony as the foundation of our families,,,should be GREAT Times,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm all for gay marriage. they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more miserable adults to help increase the number of miserable children,,,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
