Political Crossfire Forums

[wscreate]

But who the f... cares? Equally, who the f... cares if someone chooses to be gay? Freedom dictates that it does not matter who one chooses to sleep with. Why do special interest groups try to ram political agendas based on sexual preference down the throats of people who could care less?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Same is your regular joe dosent see it like that.

For hundreds of years people have been presacuted even on a state wide level in the west for being gay, all this PC and agenda pushing crap is the just a semi-justifed back lash by gay people which in turn causes the oposite reaction from homophobes, and an attempt by spineless politicans to distance them selves from 'the old ways' in order to win votes.

The cure? the goverment needs to completely remove itself from all forms of interventionist social engineering on sexuality. That includes schools and even the states relationship with marridge.

[F'losrix]

wscreate wrote: But who the f... cares? Equally, who the f... cares if someone chooses to be gay? Freedom dictates that it does not matter who one chooses to sleep with. Why do special interest groups try to ram political agendas based on sexual preference down the throats of people who could care less?
People care about whether sexuality is a choice, because if there were conscious decision making involved, it would help to justify their stand that gay people are worthy of blame for choosing to be different, and this would bolster their agenda to wipe us off the face of the earth.

People are ramming the issue down your throat for one of two reasons:

1) They want you to agree that gay people are an evil to be eliminated or at the very least, kept at bay.

OR

2) They want you stand up for the cause of freedom for everyone, instead of sitting on your duff complaining that you'd rather be left alone.

[Coral]

If same sex marriage isn't constitutional why did Bush and Co try to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage?

[FCTE]

Coral wrote: If same sex marriage isn't constitutional why did Bush and Co try to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage?


Marriage is covered by the 10th Amendment. Because it's not a matter of the Constitution it goes to the the state or the individual citizen. A Constitutional ban would be pretty unconstitutional as gov't has no place in marriage.

[F'losrix]

FCTE wrote: Coral wrote: If same sex marriage isn't constitutional why did Bush and Co try to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage?


Marriage is covered by the 10th Amendment. Because it's not a matter of the Constitution it goes to the the state or the individual citizen. A Constitutional ban would be pretty unconstitutional as gov't has no place in marriage.
Not really. You'd basically be amending the constitution to give the federal government a role in marriage. Not that they haven't already assumed one anyway. One might argue that DOMA is unconstitutional - yes. But not an amendment - they aren't unconstitutional because they actually represent a change to it. It would of course be valid to argue that the change conflicts with other constitutional principles. But it's not the same thing.

[Ozzone]

soldierofchrist wrote: wscreate wrote: But who the f... cares? Equally, who the f... cares if someone chooses to be gay? Freedom dictates that it does not matter who one chooses to sleep with. Why do special interest groups try to ram political agendas based on sexual preference down the throats of people who could care less?
But what about adoption? Should they be able to adopt kids? Is that really in the children's best interest? Kids are better suited to live in a stable, one mom, one dad household. Also, I know it's a cliche arguement, but where is the line drawn? After gay marriage is legalized, how soon before polygamy is legalized? Or man-boy marriage? Hell, we even have people fighting for bestiality, Peter Singer the chair of Princeton University's Center for Human Values wrote:
Heavy Petting wrote: We are all animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings.
How soon after the ACLU and GLSEN get their way with same sex marriae, will NAMBLA, and polygamists get their way?

As soon as the ACLU decides they can push that issue also.

[eXploiTeD]

A better question is, who the hell cares if polygamy is legal? Seriously, why do people care so much about what other people do? If your goal is to maintain some basic moral standard, I'm sorry, but I'll just have to laugh - what moral standard? People do f****d up s**t everyday, and making these things prohibited isn't necessarily going to help.

Bestality can never be legal. Animals are unable to give consent. Nonconsensual sex is rape, thus bestality is a form of animal abuse.

[grim]

eXploiTeD wrote: A better question is, who the hell cares if polygamy is legal? Seriously, why do people care so much about what other people do? If your goal is to maintain some basic moral standard, I'm sorry, but I'll just have to laugh - what moral standard? People do f****d up s**t everyday, and making these things prohibited isn't necessarily going to help.

Bestality can never be legal. Animals are unable to give consent. Nonconsensual sex is rape, thus bestality is a form of animal abuse.

Listen... you're not Welsh are you? :]

[F'losrix]

soldierofchrist wrote: But what about adoption? Should they be able to adopt kids? Is that really in the children's best interest? Kids are better suited to live in a stable, one mom, one dad household.
Falsely assumes that gay people never have stable households. Ignores the fact that many heterosexual households are unstable. Ignores the fact there aren't enough heterosexual households willing to adopt, especially for older children, or children with emotional problems.

Quote: Also, I know it's a cliche arguement, but where is the line drawn? After gay marriage is legalized, how soon before polygamy is legalized? Or man-boy marriage? Hell, we even have people fighting for bestiality
The line is drawn at consensual relationships between competent adults.

But of course, opponents of gay marriage always insist that there's nothing to keep us from stepping over that line - not because they necessarily believe there's any truth to the argument, but merely because it makes a good scare tactic.

[eXploiTeD]

soldierofchrist wrote: eXploiTeD wrote: A better question is, who the hell cares if polygamy is legal? Seriously, why do people care so much about what other people do? If your goal is to maintain some basic moral standard, I'm sorry, but I'll just have to laugh - what moral standard? People do f****d up s**t everyday, and making these things prohibited isn't necessarily going to help.

Bestality can never be legal. Animals are unable to give consent. Nonconsensual sex is rape, thus bestality is a form of animal abuse.
Because it will destroy any chance a kid has at a normal childhood. We can't just have people shelfishly destroying the institution of marriage. And I had to laugh at your navity. Of course bestiality can be legal. Hell, 50 years ago people would have laughed at 2 men wanting to get married being legal. Marriage and family the cornerstones of a healthy society, once you tamper with that, society is doomed to fall helplessly.

Sounds like a bunch of hoots and clicks to me.

"OMG TEH INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS UNDER ATTAK!!!~~~11 OH NOEEES!"

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of being nice about stuff like this. You want to know what would happen to society if everybody stopped marrying? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that marriage simply does not matter; it hasn't mattered for quite some time. If you wanted to prevent people from "selfishly destroying the institution of marriage," divorce would be illegal - end of story.

As for the child, I don't care if he doesn't have a normal childhood - you know why? Because no one has a normal child hood. I had various medical problems; my best friends dad was abusive; my first girlfriend's sister had three abortions. You know what? The world is f****d up, and you're not making it any better by moralizing about some institution that really - to be perfectly frank - does not matter.

"By allowing more people to marry, we're going to destroy marriage, and than civilization will collapse because people will no longer have any reason to go to work, or have a long-term partner, or be responsible... And because gay people can now get married, chaos and terror will break out in the street, moral degradation will reign, and than God will come and make peace for 1000 years..."

And I get called naive?

[F'losrix]

soldierofchrist wrote: Because it will destroy any chance a kid has at a normal childhood.
By normal, you mean of course being raised in a heterosexual household. The assumption that underlies this all is that gay people are evil and letting them raise children perpetuates evil.

Why don't you just come right out and say what you mean instead of hiding behind words like 'normal'?

Quote: We can't just have people shelfishly destroying the institution of marriage.
Oh, but we can have them selfishly doing everything possible to restrict the rights of gay people - including their right to form familial relationships with the partner of their choosing and raise children.

Quote: And I had to laugh at your navity. Of course bestiality can be legal. Hell, 50 years ago people would have laughed at 2 men wanting to get married being legal. Marriage and family the cornerstones of a healthy society, once you tamper with that, society is doomed to fall helplessly.
Leap of logic. Just because change is inevitable very generally speaking, that doesn't mean all changes are inevitable.

Prove that marriage and family are the cornerstone of a healthy society. Better yet, prove that letting gay people form families and participate in this stabilizing influence on society will somehow have the opposite effect.

[F'losrix]

soldierofchrist wrote: Anyways, gay marriage is inherently unstable.
Why? Prove that this is true.

Quote: We will soon have polygamy
Maybe, maybe not.

Quote: and bestiality.
Highly unlikely.

Quote: If that's the society you want I fear we may soon get it. Homosexuals do have marriage rights, they have equal rights, they have the same right to marry any member of the opposite sex whom they are not related too, just like everyone else.
Why force them to marry on your terms?

[FCTE]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Not really. You'd basically be amending the constitution to give the federal government a role in marriage. Not that they haven't already assumed one anyway. One might argue that DOMA is unconstitutional - yes. But not an amendment - they aren't unconstitutional because they actually represent a change to it. It would of course be valid to argue that the change conflicts with other constitutional principles. But it's not the same thing.

It violates the 10th Amendment, so you'd have to amend that too which would over step states rights and bring us right back to the Civil War.

That type of Amendment would be one of the first to override an amendment in the Bill of Rights, which would be a dangerous precedent to set.

[logictellsus]

soldierofchrist wrote:
Because it will destroy any chance a kid has at a normal childhood.
Just because children of a gay couple weren't raised by two heterosexual parents as you were doesn't make them unnormal. Responsible, loving homosexual parents certainly seems preferable to abusive, alcoholic heterosexual parents. When it comes down to it, parental sexuality has little bearing on child rearing -- love, care, and guidance abilities do.

soldierofchrist wrote: We can't just have people shelfishly destroying the institution of marriage.
Who's destroying it? If gay marriage was legal, would you still be able to marry heterosexually? Yes, you would. What's selfish is how you can't fathom change in the social order, so you throw claims and suspection on homosexuals. You attack them, so that your fear of change can perpetuate and stop the change.

soldierofchrist wrote: And I had to laugh at your navity. Of course bestiality can be legal. Hell, 50 years ago people would have laughed at 2 men wanting to get married being legal. Marriage and family the cornerstones of a healthy society, once you tamper with that, society is doomed to fall helplessly.

Is it really? A healthy, loving family perhaps is a good foundation for the development of future generations and thus the health of society. Without willing homosexual couples adopting, many children would go unadopted, would often receive poor parenting and poor economic conditions; rather than care and guidance.

[Coral]

soldierofchrist wrote: eXploiTeD wrote: A better question is, who the hell cares if polygamy is legal? Seriously, why do people care so much about what other people do? If your goal is to maintain some basic moral standard, I'm sorry, but I'll just have to laugh - what moral standard? People do f****d up s**t everyday, and making these things prohibited isn't necessarily going to help.

Bestality can never be legal. Animals are unable to give consent. Nonconsensual sex is rape, thus bestality is a form of animal abuse.
Because it will destroy any chance a kid has at a normal childhood. We can't just have people shelfishly destroying the institution of marriage. And I had to laugh at your navity. Of course bestiality can be legal. Hell, 50 years ago people would have laughed at 2 men wanting to get married being legal. Marriage and family the cornerstones of a healthy society, once you tamper with that, society is doomed to fall helplessly.

The only reason they wouldn't have a "normal" childhood is because they would have to deal with the discrimination and bigotry of the crusaders. If the crusaders stopped sticking their noses in other people's business the world would be far more "normal".

[Onevote]

soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: But what about adoption? Should they be able to adopt kids? Is that really in the children's best interest? Kids are better suited to live in a stable, one mom, one dad household.
Falsely assumes that gay people never have stable households. Ignores the fact that many heterosexual households are unstable. Ignores the fact there aren't enough heterosexual households willing to adopt, especially for older children, or children with emotional problems.

Quote: Also, I know it's a cliche arguement, but where is the line drawn? After gay marriage is legalized, how soon before polygamy is legalized? Or man-boy marriage? Hell, we even have people fighting for bestiality
The line is drawn at consensual relationships between competent adults.

But of course, opponents of gay marriage always insist that there's nothing to keep us from stepping over that line - not because they necessarily believe there's any truth to the argument, but merely because it makes a good scare tactic.
As long as the ACLU remains a powerful legal force, every boundry as we know it, will be pushed. Anyways, gay marriage is inherently unstable. We will soon have polygamy, and bestiality. If that's the society you want I fear we may soon get it. Homosexuals do have marriage rights, they have equal rights, they have the same right to marry any member of the opposite sex whom they are not related too, just like everyone else. I often wonder why it is we feel compelled to try to force our moral standards on others. What is normal is a relative argument. I grew up in a family unit that could only be described as an absolute disaster. While my gay aunt has been a happy relationship for more than 25 years all of her 7 brothers and sisters have been married and divorced. Stability comes from sound judgment and decision making. The old saying,
'you get out of it what you put into it" is what makes the difference in the results of everything from how our children turn out to the destiny of our relationships with others.

[callous]

wscreate wrote: But who the f... cares? Equally, who the f... cares if someone chooses to be gay? Freedom dictates that it does not matter who one chooses to sleep with. Why do special interest groups try to ram political agendas based on sexual preference down the throats of people who could care less?

They only care if you try to degrade their way of life by calling it "choice" or limiting their range of freedoms based on your perspective that their way of life is a "choice".

[FCTE]

soldierofchrist wrote: You're doing the same thing. You feel gay marriage would constitute a moral society, and you want to force that upon me the majority of people in this country who oppose it.


I haven't really seen that in this thread.

My policy is live and let live.

Who someone else is f#cking doesn't make a damn bit a difference in my life or yours.

[Eduffy80911]

FCTE wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: You're doing the same thing. You feel gay marriage would constitute a moral society, and you want to force that upon me the majority of people in this country who oppose it.


I haven't really seen that in this thread.

My policy is live and let live.

Who someone else is f#cking doesn't make a damn bit a difference in my life or yours.

You'd still be free to consider it immoral, just not illegal. Kind of like country music. Subjecting me to it is immoral, but legal.