Political Crossfire Forums

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

soldierofchrist wrote: Onevote wrote: 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.
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. You can't possibly think two people, " not including yourself " should require your approval to marry. do you? Since you seem to be fundamentally Christian , I'll put it this way. Marriage is between two consenting souls and God! Right or wrong? So, no
I don't think gay marriage will constitute a moral society. I simply think it's neither my nor your place to approve or not.

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15851 Location: In The Open

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?

You "choose" to be heterosexual? Meaning you are sexually drawn to men but you choose women out of respect for your religion?

That is the only reason someone would "choose" to be heterosexual.

quite an honest statement.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: I choose to be heterosexual

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.
Classic. Claiming an imposition upon your personal morality where there is none in order to justify the imposition of your personal morality on others.

How does allowing gay couples to marry force anything upon you, personally? Is it because you would have to accept the fact that they form familial units and the government's recognition of that fact? That's not forcing our morals upon you - that's you having to deal with reality.

George W Bush · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject: Re: I choose to be heterosexual

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?
:roll:
You are such a drama-queen "soldier".
There is no logic in such paranoid delusions.
In fact, they've nothing to do with homosexuality and marriage.

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15851 Location: In The Open

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?

Two.....consenting.....adults.

those 3 words completely irradicate your fears on the plane of reality.

logictellsus · Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 126

soldierofchrist wrote: Onevote wrote: 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.
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.

The only way he's claiming gay marriage "would constitute a moral society" is if he wanted normal marriage outlawed and only gay marriage to be moral. He's not claiming that at all. He's not forcing anything, you are soldier. You're trying to force your narrow, ultratheistic views upon other citizens and their marriages. Fact is, its not your right to determine what others can and can't do, only the government can pass laws that outlaw activities.

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15851 Location: In The Open

soldierofchrist wrote: callous wrote: 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?

Two.....consenting.....adults.

those 3 words completely irradicate your fears on the plane of reality.
Or 4......consenting adults......perhaps 9...........no make it 37 husbands/wives. I can't wait to see all this "progress."

Focus....

two....consenting adults.

two....consenting adults.

there is nothing wishy washy or questionable about the proliferation of that concept.

You need to stop trying to inhibit other peoples rights to a happy life based on your unwillingness to admit that there is nothing risky about two non-sexually specific people to marry. It opens no doors,....it allows no bizarre taboos...

Stop imagining that it does.

TexasPiker · Joined: 13 Dec 2005 Posts: 158

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?

I agree.

However, it's hard to understand how much str8 sexuality is pushed in every direction when it shouldn't be. We're only going to notice what's different around us, not what we consider normal.

Children don't have hate. They don't need to be taught how to respect others ith different life styles. IMO

This issue has many complexities that can change the thinking dramaticaly.

One problem that needs to be talked about is the abuse of the words prejudice and racism. People are becoming what they say they are fighting against.

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15851 Location: In The Open

soldierofchrist wrote: callous wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: callous wrote: 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?

Two.....consenting.....adults.

those 3 words completely irradicate your fears on the plane of reality.
Or 4......consenting adults......perhaps 9...........no make it 37 husbands/wives. I can't wait to see all this "progress."

Focus....

two....consenting adults.

two....consenting adults.

there is nothing wishy washy or questionable about the proliferation of that concept.

You need to stop trying to inhibit other peoples rights to a happy life based on your unwillingness to admit that there is nothing risky about two non-sexually specific people to marry. It opens no doors,....it allows no bizarre taboos...

Stop imagining that it does.
That in itself doesn't. But the precedent it sets does. We have a line, once you cross it, there is no line. After the ACLU plays the courts to impose gay marriage on society, they will continue upon the path to polygamy, brothers marrying sisters, man and horse, man and boy, etc.

The line can be drawn so that two people who love each other in a mature and consentual way and don't harm anyone else doing it,.... can have the life that they wish to live.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject:

To Soldier of Christ:

I'll repeat the question:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

(beginning to think I must be on somenoe's ignore list since I'm not getting any responses)

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject:

Or let me put it another way:

Is it fair or moral to deny marriage recognition to gay couples?

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject:

And again:

How does allowing gay couples to marry force anything upon you, personally? Is it because you would have to accept the fact that they form familial units and the government's recognition of that fact?

wscreate · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject:

This thread is a perfect example of the passions that people have on either side of the heterosexual/homosexual line. The jist of my comment is "it's sexuality, who the f... cares what your choice is". And yet, there are those that continue to want to push the issue as if it is somehow the most important issue of the day. It isn't.

It's a sexual choice. A sexuality choice. Ultimately, how important is that in the whole scheme of things? It has minimal importance at best, yet people push the sexuality issue as if it is critical. To them.... sure. To the rest of the world who could careless about sexuality as an important issue.... not important at all.

I am heterosexual. Should I make an issue of this meaningless fact about myself?
Should anyone make an issue of their sexuality?

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15851 Location: In The Open

soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: To Soldier of Christ:

I'll repeat the question:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

(beginning to think I must be on somenoe's ignore list since I'm not getting any responses)
Sorry. :lol: It's just a lot of the time I just look at the first few response, and the last few. Why? Because those at the standards, they have equal rights. You have the same rights I do. You can marry an of age, female, whom you're not related to, just like I can. If they don't like, they don't need to be married. Someone on here said "marriage isn't that big of deal" so be it.

the status quo is not a defendable reason.

Please attempt a response that includes treating naturally born gay people fairly.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: To Soldier of Christ:

I'll repeat the question:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

(beginning to think I must be on somenoe's ignore list since I'm not getting any responses)
Sorry. :lol: It's just a lot of the time I just look at the first few response, and the last few. Why? Because those at the standards, they have equal rights. You have the same rights I do. You can marry an of age, female, whom you're not related to, just like I can. If they don't like, they don't need to be married. Someone on here said "marriage isn't that big of deal" so be it.
That doesn't answer the question I asked you. Try again:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15851 Location: In The Open

soldierofchrist wrote: callous wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: To Soldier of Christ:

I'll repeat the question:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

(beginning to think I must be on somenoe's ignore list since I'm not getting any responses)
Sorry. :lol: It's just a lot of the time I just look at the first few response, and the last few. Why? Because those at the standards, they have equal rights. You have the same rights I do. You can marry an of age, female, whom you're not related to, just like I can. If they don't like, they don't need to be married. Someone on here said "marriage isn't that big of deal" so be it.

the status quo is not a defendable reason.

Please attempt a response that includes treating naturally born gay people fairly.
They are treated fairly. They have the same rights I do. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't invaildate it.

So marrying someone is a frivolous gift granted by the government?

Interesting perspective.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject:

wscreate wrote: Should anyone make an issue of their sexuality?
When someone else uses it as the means to restrict our right? We're not making an issue of our sexuality - it's bringing attention to the unfair treatment we receive because of the difference in our sexuality. Why people can't get the difference between those two actions is something I don't understand.

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15851 Location: In The Open

soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: To Soldier of Christ:

I'll repeat the question:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

(beginning to think I must be on somenoe's ignore list since I'm not getting any responses)
Sorry. :lol: It's just a lot of the time I just look at the first few response, and the last few. Why? Because those at the standards, they have equal rights. You have the same rights I do. You can marry an of age, female, whom you're not related to, just like I can. If they don't like, they don't need to be married. Someone on here said "marriage isn't that big of deal" so be it.
That doesn't answer the question I asked you. Try again:

Why force them to marry on your terms?
Those are the terms that have existed since...well since the begining of time. They don't have to get married. In fact since they can't procreate, I don't see why getting married matters anyways.

Its not your business to decide whether getting married matters. Its theirs.

Amazing how religion eventually becomes authoritarian.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: They are treated fairly. They have the same rights I do.
Not quite. You have the 'right' to marry someone of your choosing to whom you are attracted as a matter of your sexual orientation. We don't, thanks to you forcing us to marry on your terms, according to your 'morality'.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: No, to me, it's a God-ordained institution that was created for 1 man, and 1 woman. But not everyone shares those same religious beliefs.
Why force us to marry according to the dictates of your religious beliefs?