Political Crossfire Forums

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Who's cares if you are somewhat immoral? I mean really. who's life is it to live? Not mine, so I really don't care who you marry and spent the rest of your life with.
I don't think there is a single viable argument against what I just said.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

ProGunAmerican wrote: Who's cares if you are somewhat immoral? I mean really. who's life is it to live? Not mine, so I really don't care who you marry and spent the rest of your life with.
I don't think there is a single viable argument against what I just said.

You're right, there isn't.

Wait... "God...". Nevermind, that's an awful way to argue.

Let them marry.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:52 pm Post subject:

ProGunAmerican wrote: Who's cares if you are somewhat immoral? I mean really. who's life is it to live? Not mine, so I really don't care who you marry and spent the rest of your life with.
I don't think there is a single viable argument against what I just said.

A good post indeed. And dont' forget to add, who is to say what is immoral, anyway?

Ek0nomik wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Who's cares if you are somewhat immoral? I mean really. who's life is it to live? Not mine, so I really don't care who you marry and spent the rest of your life with.
I don't think there is a single viable argument against what I just said.

You're right, there isn't.

Wait... "God...". Nevermind, that's an awful way to argue.

Agreed.

I don't see what others lose, by just letting them marry. I don't see how it has to hurt others. Why do those it doesn't affect care?

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Quote: A good post indeed. And dont' forget to add, who is to say what is immoral, anyway?
I think it was Bush.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

ProGunAmerican wrote: Quote: A good post indeed. And dont' forget to add, who is to say what is immoral, anyway?
I think it was Bush.

:lol:

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: I don't see what others lose, by just letting them marry. I don't see how it has to hurt others. Why do those it doesn't affect care?

In all honesty, I can't even count the amount of times I have heard a male around my age (18) explain how they are so disgusted if they see any male / male affection. Homophobia is something that really strikes people. I don't understand why so many people are in such fear of it. While I was browsing DeviantArt today (it's an art community) I came across a photograph of two males kissing. It was a beautiful photograph. The lighting and and quality of the image was incredible. I thought to myself for a minute and realized I had better shut my dorm door so I don't have to listen to the insensitive bullsh*t because people are coming into my room constantly to chill. Insecurity, I believe, is one of the greatest threats for a homosexual right movement.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:14 am Post subject:

ProGunAmerican wrote: Quote: A good post indeed. And dont' forget to add, who is to say what is immoral, anyway?
I think it was Bush.

Yeah, apperently.

It is my belief, that many people actually believe he, and those like him, truly determine morality.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5633 Location: Fulton, Ks

Skeptical Mystic wrote: micfranklin wrote: 00timh wrote: To those locked in this epic battle over homosexuality, I think it is time to call a truce. You will never get the opposite side to agree to your views no mater how you say it or what angle you take. I'm not trying to kill your discussions. It is just that it is post after post of the same argument that goes nowhere. Gay people are not going to become un gay. Many straight people will always feel threatened by them.

Yeah, no matter what you say to them, you're still wrong to them. Sounds almost immoral.
Gee, sounds like the kind of treatment we get from our opponents all the time. No matter what we say in our defense, we're still 'wrong' to them and viewed as immoral.

If it ended there, we could perhaps agree to disagree. But they won't leave us alone - instead they've decided to make us targets in their culture war. I refuse to roll over and play dead for them.

No truce.

yes gays/minorities/women are always targets :roll:

Stop acting like everyones out to get you.

I don't have any problem with guys or girls choosing to be gay, as long as they don't parade it around (gay pride parades, making out in public (which goes for both gays or straight people)) I don't care if your with another guy or if your with a girl there's no point in going around outraging public decency. :-D

F'losrix

The Underground wrote: yes gays/minorities/women are always targets
Actually, yes - they are.

Quote: Stop acting like everyones out to get you.
It's not everyone. It's a well-funded, very vocal coalition of political groups with anti-gay agendas, and their supporters.

Quote: I don't have any problem with guys or girls choosing to be gay
Did you choose to be heterosexual? What age were you when you made this conscious decision? Do you remember the date?

Quote: as long as they don't parade it around (gay pride parades, making out in public (which goes for both gays or straight people))
We'll stop having gay pride events when everyone else who has some characteristic they celebrate (race, ethnicity, religion) agree to stop holding their events in public.

When was the last time you saw a heterosexual couple making out in public?

Now, when was the last time you saw a gay couple holding hands in public, much less making out?

(pictures in the news media or on the Internet don't count - I want to know when you personally witnessed it)

Quote: I don't care if your with another guy or if your with a girl there's no point in going around outraging public decency.
Who gets to define public decency? The anti-gay crowd? Why should they have the privilege?

Why do you think to gay people showing affection in public amounts to indecency?

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5633 Location: Fulton, Ks

Skeptical Mystic wrote: The Underground wrote: yes gays/minorities/women are always targets
Actually, yes - they are.

Quote: Stop acting like everyones out to get you.
It's not everyone. It's a well-funded, very vocal coalition of political groups with anti-gay agendas, and their supporters.

Quote: I don't have any problem with guys or girls choosing to be gay
Did you choose to be heterosexual? What age were you when you made this conscious decision? Do you remember the date?

Quote: as long as they don't parade it around (gay pride parades, making out in public (which goes for both gays or straight people))
We'll stop having gay pride events when everyone else who has some characteristic they celebrate (race, ethnicity, religion) agree to stop holding their events in public.

When was the last time you saw a heterosexual couple making out in public?

Now, when was the last time you saw a gay couple holding hands in public, much less making out?

(pictures in the news media or on the Internet don't count - I want to know when you personally witnessed it)

Quote: I don't care if your with another guy or if your with a girl there's no point in going around outraging public decency.
Who gets to define public decency? The anti-gay crowd? Why should they have the privilege?

Why do you think to gay people showing affection in public amounts to indecency?
1) no they aren't
2) your right there are some
3) Yes i did the day i saw a girl that looked good to me
4) It's amazing that only minorities and religions feel the need to have their own parades to celebrate themselves. Me personally i couldn't care less you want to celebrate christmas go do it on your own effing property, but as long as it's being recognized as a national holiday then people are free to celebrate it on that day. Now if there was a National Homosexual Day then i wouldn't have a problem with there being a parade and stuff.
4B) straight- yesterday
Gay- last friday night (and that WAS making out)
5) I was saying rather you were gay or straight theres no need for it.

F'losrix

The Underground wrote: 3) Yes i did the day i saw a girl that looked good to me
Circular. Why did she look good to you? Wasn't it because you were already a heterosexual?

Quote: 4) It's amazing that only minorities and religions feel the need to have their own parades to celebrate themselves. Me personally i couldn't care less you want to celebrate christmas go do it on your own effing property, but as long as it's being recognized as a national holiday then people are free to celebrate it on that day. Now if there was a National Homosexual Day then i wouldn't have a problem with there being a parade and stuff.
What, so people can only parade if it's some sort of national holiday? So much for freedom of expression.

Quote: 4B) straight- yesterday
Gay- last friday night (and that WAS making out)
Really? In public? Where?

Quote: 5) I was saying rather you were gay or straight theres no need for it.
So you don't believe it's okay for a couple to hold hands in public or give each other a hug & kiss when parting?

You would prefer that people behave in public as if they felt no affection for each other?

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5633 Location: Fulton, Ks

Skeptical Mystic wrote: The Underground wrote: 3) Yes i did the day i saw a girl that looked good to me
Circular. Why did she look good to you? Wasn't it because you were already a heterosexual?

Quote: 4) It's amazing that only minorities and religions feel the need to have their own parades to celebrate themselves. Me personally i couldn't care less you want to celebrate christmas go do it on your own effing property, but as long as it's being recognized as a national holiday then people are free to celebrate it on that day. Now if there was a National Homosexual Day then i wouldn't have a problem with there being a parade and stuff.
What, so people can only parade if it's some sort of national holiday? So much for freedom of expression.

Quote: 4B) straight- yesterday
Gay- last friday night (and that WAS making out)
Really? In public? Where?

Quote: 5) I was saying rather you were gay or straight theres no need for it.
So you don't believe it's okay for a couple to hold hands in public or give each other a hug & kiss when parting?

You would prefer that people behave in public as if they felt no affection for each other?
1) Possibly but acting on that would be what would make me heterosexual
2) So you wouldn't have a problem if there was an I hate gay people parade?
3) yes really. yes in public. linn county, kansas
4) holding hands/hug and kiss when parting are totally different then sitting somewhere making out in public

The Grandmaster

The Underground wrote:
I don't have any problem with guys or girls choosing to be gay, as long as they don't parade it around (gay pride parades, making out in public (which goes for both gays or straight people)) I don't care if your with another guy or if your with a girl there's no point in going around outraging public decency. :-D

Whoah there. :h
Nothing wrong with two girls making out at a nightclub.
That's one of the main reasons I go, for that amazing entertainment.

The Grandmaster

The Underground wrote:
3) Yes i did the day i saw a girl that looked good to me

Oh really. If you weren't already straight, why did the girl look good to you. :-D

The Grandmaster

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
Quote: 4B) straight- yesterday
Gay- last friday night (and that WAS making out)
Really? In public? Where?

Actually Skeptic, it happens all the time at parties and nightclubs.

But you know what, it doesnt matter. Your point still stands.

Anyone can f**k anyone they want to, right in the middle of the street for all I care. Fine with me. I don't have to watch. How often it happens is irrelevant. People should be able to make out with who they want.

I won't have anyone arguing I shouldn't get to watch girls make out at bars, which I think that guy was about to get to, perhaps indirectly :-D

The Underground wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: The Underground wrote: 3) Yes i did the day i saw a girl that looked good to me
Circular. Why did she look good to you? Wasn't it because you were already a heterosexual?

1) Possibly but acting on that would be what would make me heterosexual

Actually no, it is your intrinsic desire that would define you being a heterosexual. Thus, upon seeing a girl who looked good to you, it was demonstrated to you that your desire was for females, through no choice of your own. It was no more a choice for you than it was for Skeptic here.

F'losrix

The Underground wrote: 1) Possibly but acting on that would be what would make me heterosexual
No, No, No! Behavior is NOT what determines whether a person is 'gay' or 'straight'. The behavior can be the outward manifestation of one's sexual orientation, but it isn't necessarily always so.

For example, if a guy knows he likes other guys but marries a woman anyway, his behavior may be heterosexual in nature, but his sexual orientation is still homosexual. This is actually a trap that some gay men fall into - they think that getting married and having sex with their wife will make them stop having homosexual desires. When that doesn't work, some of them go on to have children, thinking that fatherhood will provoke the change. When that fails, the end result is often misery and divorce.

Quote: 2) So you wouldn't have a problem if there was an I hate gay people parade?
Nope. Freedom of speech being protected by the First Amendment means I don't exactly have a lot of say in the matter. Just because I don't like the message doesn't mean I get to squelch it.

Quote: 3) yes really. yes in public. linn county, kansas
More context, please.

Quote: 4) holding hands/hug and kiss when parting are totally different then sitting somewhere making out in public
So why do people get all bent out of shape if two guys hold hands in public, some of them arguing that it's indecent, then?

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Come on, does anyonw want to try to debate this argument?

Who's cares if you are somewhat immoral? I mean really. who's life is it to live? Not mine, so I really don't care who you marry and spent the rest of your life with.

F'losrix · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:42 pm Post subject:

ProGunAmerican wrote: Come on, does anyonw want to try to debate this argument?

Who's cares if you are somewhat immoral? I mean really. who's life is it to live? Not mine, so I really don't care who you marry and spent the rest of your life with.
It depends on whether that immorality rises to the level of infringing on another's rights. It also depends on whether one believes that some level of morality beyond what the government controls is necessary to the preservation of society. From there, it depends on what one believes is or isn't moral.

I subscribe to the idea that personal morality does play a role in whether or not our society prospers or declines. I also subscribe to the idea that the government shouldn't be in charge of people's personal morality - only in the preservation of their basic individual rights. And I certainly do not accept as proved that homosexuality is immoral, just because of what some religious text may or may not say about the subject.

Should I care whether or not someone else is immoral? Maybe, insofar as I care about society's continuation. Should I take action based on that sentiment? Depends on the type of action, but not if it goes so far as to infringe on another person's right to privacy and self-determination.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Skeptical Mystic wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Come on, does anyonw want to try to debate this argument?

Who's cares if you are somewhat immoral? I mean really. who's life is it to live? Not mine, so I really don't care who you marry and spent the rest of your life with.
It depends on whether that immorality rises to the level of infringing on another's rights. It also depends on whether one believes that some level of morality beyond what the government controls is necessary to the preservation of society. From there, it depends on what one believes is or isn't moral.

I subscribe to the idea that personal morality does play a role in whether or not our society prospers or declines. I also subscribe to the idea that the government shouldn't be in charge of people's personal morality - only in the preservation of their basic individual rights. And I certainly do not accept as proved that homosexuality is immoral, just because of what some religious text may or may not say about the subject.

Should I care whether or not someone else is immoral? Maybe, insofar as I care about society's continuation. Should I take action based on that sentiment? Depends on the type of action, but not if it goes so far as to infringe on another person's right to privacy and self-determination.
I don't see how you wanting to marry another guy could even come close to infridging on anybodies rights.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:48 am Post subject:

ProGunAmerican wrote: Come on, does anyonw want to try to debate this argument?

Who's cares if you are somewhat immoral? I mean really. who's life is it to live? Not mine, so I really don't care who you marry and spent the rest of your life with.

I think ProGun, those against are having difficulty opposing this argument.

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:31 am Post subject:

ProGunAmerican wrote: I don't see how you wanting to marry another guy could even come close to infridging on anybodies rights.
Nor do I.