100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Two more states allow same sex marriage. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice. What a ridiculous thing to say. Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century. And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused. Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right. I don't have any right to do what? Talk about Wisconsin? I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular. Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread. This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE. You are so territorial.  You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane. So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy. People can think anything they want, no one is gonna say they can't, but what they CAN'T or at least SHOULDN'T be able to do is impact public policy and what a person can or can't do irrespective of them through those thoughts. No one should have a right to tell someone else how to live simply because they don't like it. That's where your right ends where theirs begin. It's really that simple. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but unless there is proof of harm to you directly, you cannot tell them to stop it or force them to. I don't agree with mainstream religion and churches, but I cannot tell you you can't be a part of them just because I disagree. We either live in a society where we ALL have rights or no one does, because once you allow one's to be taken away you open the door for yours to be taken as well. If we value our rights at all, we will protect them all not just the ones that suit us. Otherwise, we are asking for them to be removed completely. I'm not sure you realize fully why people take stances and vote. They exercise their rights as well as voicing their opinions with their own greater life prospects and so forth in mind. Not doing so does not indicate any type of acquiescence. This is not a society, it is a culture of many different societies. To think the entire country is of common means for common ends is incorrect. In this particular neck of the woods, we feel that the greatest thing to be protected is the traditional family.... the single greatest. By popular vote, we banned same-sex marriage. Seen? Rights. No one has true rights if someone else can take them away on a whim. Rights cannot be taken away, if they can be they are no longer rights. This is the flaw in a democratic society, it only protects those with the votes, it doesn't protect everyone. It's like a sheep and 2 wolves deciding what's for dinner, the lone sheep loses out. That's not the America, not the world I prefer to live in. What a person can or cannot do in their private lives should never come down to a vote. You even say it yourself, we are a culture of many different societies......why are we trying to force everyone to act according to one? Belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only. : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law>. b : of or relating to a government guess which one is the definition of 'private'? guess which one describes MARRIAGE,, which is related to GOVERNMENT,,,,? who defines marriage this way though? It's man's doing......and you can spare me the rhetoric that says otherwise. To try and make something like that for one group only is discriminating. its not for one group, it includes ALL PEOPLE unless they dont fall under either male or female...... which by the by some do NOT......but not withstanding that.....it cannot be truly for ALL if the ability to do it is dependent on a certain criteria, that is that it MUST be to the opposite sex to be valid. That just doesn't work, that discriminates against people who either choose not to marry their opposite (ie are bi), or who based on their biological attractions could not do it. If it's truly supposed to be for ALL than you cannot limit it based on a preference. It's not for all if you are doing so, only those it suits. it includes MALES AND FEMALES,, that everyone cant marry anyone they want doesnt make it discriminatory,,, it still gives you the choice to marry or not,, I might want to be a doctor, but that I dont want to take the test, doesnt mean IM being discriminated against for not being allowed a license,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..those who oppose sodomy are somehow afraid of something,,, never quite figured that term out myself,,, both are accurate gay butt sex is more accurate than both.... anal sex doesn't imply gay, and neither does sodomy... since this thread is about gays, then gay butt sex is appropriate... No, this thread ISN'T about gays. It's about marriage equality for the human race. How you get off by throwing around the term butt sex is beyond me. Maybe you've tried it and like it?? no, it's about gays wanting to be gay... there is no such thing as marriage inequality... any man, gay or not, can marry any woman he wants... gays want extra rights, and to cram their lifestyle down everyone else's throat... man marry woman, woman marry man, seems pretty basic and inclusive of everyone,,, You want to force gay people to marry straight people if they want to get married? Why? nope, I dont want to force anyone to marry anyone,, thats the point I also dont want to force marriage to be redefined people are free to lay with and commit to whomever they choose ALREADY redefining the definition of marriage is about forcing the CULTURE to embrace that choice,, which many people in the culture have no intention of doing,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Mon 05/13/13 04:48 AM
|
|
The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice. What a ridiculous thing to say. Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century. And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused. Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right. I don't have any right to do what? Talk about Wisconsin? I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular. Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread. This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE. You are so territorial. You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane. So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy. People can think anything they want, no one is gonna say they can't, but what they CAN'T or at least SHOULDN'T be able to do is impact public policy and what a person can or can't do irrespective of them through those thoughts. No one should have a right to tell someone else how to live simply because they don't like it. That's where your right ends where theirs begin. It's really that simple. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but unless there is proof of harm to you directly, you cannot tell them to stop it or force them to. I don't agree with mainstream religion and churches, but I cannot tell you you can't be a part of them just because I disagree. We either live in a society where we ALL have rights or no one does, because once you allow one's to be taken away you open the door for yours to be taken as well. If we value our rights at all, we will protect them all not just the ones that suit us. Otherwise, we are asking for them to be removed completely. I'm not sure you realize fully why people take stances and vote. They exercise their rights as well as voicing their opinions with their own greater life prospects and so forth in mind. Not doing so does not indicate any type of acquiescence. This is not a society, it is a culture of many different societies. To think the entire country is of common means for common ends is incorrect. In this particular neck of the woods, we feel that the greatest thing to be protected is the traditional family.... the single greatest. By popular vote, we banned same-sex marriage. Seen? Rights. No one has true rights if someone else can take them away on a whim. Rights cannot be taken away, if they can be they are no longer rights. This is the flaw in a democratic society, it only protects those with the votes, it doesn't protect everyone. It's like a sheep and 2 wolves deciding what's for dinner, the lone sheep loses out. That's not the America, not the world I prefer to live in. What a person can or cannot do in their private lives should never come down to a vote. You even say it yourself, we are a culture of many different societies......why are we trying to force everyone to act according to one? Belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only. : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law>. b : of or relating to a government guess which one is the definition of 'private'? guess which one describes MARRIAGE,, which is related to GOVERNMENT,,,,? who defines marriage this way though? It's man's doing......and you can spare me the rhetoric that says otherwise. To try and make something like that for one group only is discriminating. its not for one group, it includes ALL PEOPLE unless they dont fall under either male or female...... which by the by some do NOT......but not withstanding that.....it cannot be truly for ALL if the ability to do it is dependent on a certain criteria, that is that it MUST be to the opposite sex to be valid. That just doesn't work, that discriminates against people who either choose not to marry their opposite (ie are bi), or who based on their biological attractions could not do it. If it's truly supposed to be for ALL than you cannot limit it based on a preference. It's not for all if you are doing so, only those it suits. it includes MALES AND FEMALES,, that everyone cant marry anyone they want doesnt make it discriminatory,,, it still gives you the choice to marry or not,, I might want to be a doctor, but that I dont want to take the test, doesnt mean IM being discriminated against for not being allowed a license,,,, If you cannot marry the person you actually love, you don't have a true choice. I don't care how you wanna try and twist it, the only ones that have a choice are those that fit in the narrow definition of it. Anyone who fits outside that is left out. And the doctor argument does not apply here, because in that case EVERYONE can take and pass the test to get a license, race doesn't matter, gender doesn't matter, etc. But with marriage it is limited by the genders involved if not even by the number of people involved in the case of poly relationships. If there are limitations in such a way, there is discrimination against the people who the rules cast out, whether you like it or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Mon 05/13/13 05:37 AM
|
|
Eventually, every state in the union will legalize same-sex marriages because every time they deny a marriage license based on sexual orientation they violate the civil rights of the parties attempting to obtain licensure...The NAACP named same-sex marriages "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time."...Just as every state in the union legalized inter-racial marriage, so will they legalize same-sex marriage....No government at any level can exclude any group of citizens from the "civil" benefit or the "expressive" dignity of marriage without COMPELLING public interest to do so....It's just a matter of time.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HappyBun
on
Mon 05/13/13 05:41 AM
|
|
Yes, only a matter of time before the entire world will see the light. It's about time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, only a matter of time before the entire world will see the light. It's about time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice. What a ridiculous thing to say. Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century. And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused. Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right. I don't have any right to do what? Talk about Wisconsin? I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular. Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread. This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE. You are so territorial. You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane. So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy. If you haven't noticed, take a look at the crime rate for my great state, then go ahead and make with that sarcastic laugh emoticon thingy. You're the one who doesn't even want gay people having sex, but you're calling someone else a bigot? When in the world did I ever say that? I didn't call her anything, she did. All I'm tearing at is.... mind your own state. Do I go barking at the people of Maryland demanding this and that? No. Why would it bother you so much if gay people were allowed to marry in your state? How is that affecting your life? and why do care what the people in Wisconsin do? you should worry about your own state, and then the gay's there can have all the butt sex they want... maybe people in Wisconsin don't feel the same way you do about gay butt sex... Do you think banning gay marriage is going to stop people from having anal sex? they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... Same sex marriage is legal in several states. Do you really believe that people are not having anal sex in the other states? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, only a matter of time before the entire world will see the light. It's about time. There are times when the light you see is the headlight of an oncoming train. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, only a matter of time before the entire world will see the light. It's about time. There are times when the light you see is the headlight of an oncoming train. So you get your azz out of the way before it runs you over..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. In 1963, the penalties for sodomy in the various states varied from imprisonment for two to ten years and/or a fine of US$2,000. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas. As for the U.S. Armed Forces, because "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society," its ban on sodomy, Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is not entirely without force despite Lawrence v. Texas. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125. In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the "conduct falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court," but went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are "factors unique to the military environment" that would place the conduct "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence." Examples of such factors could be fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts under the Lawrence precedent in both United States v. Meno[citation needed] and United States v. Bullock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..those who oppose sodomy are somehow afraid of something,,, never quite figured that term out myself,,, both are accurate gay butt sex is more accurate than both.... anal sex doesn't imply gay, and neither does sodomy... since this thread is about gays, then gay butt sex is appropriate... Oh, so it's strictly anal sex between gay people that you don't want to happen. You're ok with anal arc between straight people. Got it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... Same sex marriage is legal in several states. Do you really believe that people are not having anal sex in the other states? i'm sorry about whatever gave you the impression that i wanted to talk about butt sex... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... stupid question... next |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..those who oppose sodomy are somehow afraid of something,,, never quite figured that term out myself,,, both are accurate gay butt sex is more accurate than both.... anal sex doesn't imply gay, and neither does sodomy... since this thread is about gays, then gay butt sex is appropriate... Oh, so it's strictly anal sex between gay people that you don't want to happen. You're ok with anal arc between straight people. Got it. being gay is offensive to me... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... stupid question... next |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... stupid question... next it's disgusting no matter who... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... stupid question... next it's disgusting no matter who... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are not banning anything, it's against the law now... Same sex marriage is legal in several states. Do you really believe that people are not having anal sex in the other states? i'm sorry about whatever gave you the impression that i wanted to talk about butt sex... You keep talking about it. |
|
|
|
|
