Political Crossfire Forums

wscreate · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject:

Skeptical Mystic wrote: 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 that is something I don't understand.

And why people can't get that making an issue of one's sexuality seems a bit selfish (for lack of a better word), is beyond me. There are many more important issues than who one chooses to sleep with. I don't support or condemn those that are gay or those that are straight. To me, it is not an issue. I could care less. One's sexuality is so low on the totem poll of human behaviors, I just don't see why it deserves some special attention in our society. My $0.02.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: You don't like, take it up with God. His rules, not mine.
Score. You want us to live according your religious beliefs.

So much for the First Amendment.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject:

wscreate wrote: And why people can't get that making an issue of one's sexuality seems a bit selfish (for lack of a better word), is beyond me.
If protecting my rights (and quite frankly those of others) makes me selfish, then so be it.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: 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'.
mar·riage-1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. That's what marriage is. So technically, we can't have a marriage that doesn't consist of that.
BS. That's only one definition of marriage. Why do I have to accept your definition of marriage for my life?

Creamxec · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:59 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?

what is so unstable about having gay parents?

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: They don't have to get married. In fact since they can't procreate, I don't see why getting married matters anyways.
Then why should any heterosexual couple be allowed to marry if they aren't going to produce children? I think we need to start requiring fertility tests and a signed affirmation of the intent to reproduce. The government shall have the right to revoke the marriage license if the couple fails to meet their procreation obligations.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: I'm not. Marriage is: the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Thats what a marriage IS. A man and a man is not: the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
You ARE. If the legal definition were to change, would you just shrug and say, 'okay, I guess now that it's legal there's nothing left to say"?

Do you support the right of gay people in Massachussetts to marry? After all, it's 'legal' there.

logictellsus · Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 126

soldierofchrist wrote: logictellsus wrote: 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.
In fact they did in 13 states. And then the ACLU sued to thwart the will of the people. So do you support such action in the name "equality?" By the way, gays are treated as equal. They have the right to marry any member of the opposite sex whom they are not related to.

The will of the people? How about the will of a few theocratic senators in the state legislature passed these measures. Furthermore, that leaves 37 states that did NOT ban gay marriage. Talk about the will of the people. And yes, I support gay marriage in the name of equality. The freedom to choose to marry a member of the opposite sex is a right that we all have, the Constitution still delegates any unregulated activity, like gay marriage to exist via the Tenth Amendment. At issue here, in states where it's not banned, is whether or not the government can define marriage as between a man and a woman and offer them economic incentives, while consenting, lifetime partners of the same sex can't enjoy such rewards of union.

wscreate · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject:

Skeptical Mystic wrote: wscreate wrote: And why people can't get that making an issue of one's sexuality seems a bit selfish (for lack of a better word), is beyond me.
If protecting my rights (and quite frankly those of others) makes me selfish, then so be it.

Then so be it.

Creamxec · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject:

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.

Whats so not normal about a kid having gay parents?! "times they are a changin" im pretty sure a couple of decades ago people were debating about how its not normal for dads to stay home and moms to work

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4541

One might argue that enjoying broccoli is a choice, or that it is a genetic tendancy.

Who cares

I suppose those who think homosexuality is genetic and that God wants them to put a stop to it, would believe they'd have no choice but to kill all the homosexuals. Maybe that's what they're trying to avoid. They're hoping beyond hope that they can talk people out of being gay so they don't have to kill them.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: I'm not. Marriage is: the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Thats what a marriage IS. A man and a man is not: the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
You ARE. If the legal definition were to change, would you just shrug and say, 'okay, I guess now that it's legal there's nothing left to say"?

Do you support the right of gay people in Massachussetts to marry? After all, it's 'legal' there.
No because they are going against the definition of marriage. One state cannot change the whole definition of marriage.
Sure they can - it's a power reserved to the states, not the federal government. Show me where in the Constitution it says the federal government has the last say on marriage regulation.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject:

The whole point is that we disagree that the whole 'one man/one woman' thing represents a valid definition of marriage. If you're going to argue to the contrary, then the onus is on you to show how straight couples differ from gay couples in a way that is so significant one group should get marriage recognition while the other is left with nothing.

So far, no one has given me an irrefutable argument in support of the gender restriction.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject:

Eduffy80911 wrote: They're hoping beyond hope that they can talk people out of being gay so they don't have to kill them.
Time for them to give it up. If they want to step the culture war up a notch and start killing gay people in defiance of our laws, I hope they're ready for the kind of fallout that's going to generate nationally and globally.

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4541

Skeptical Mystic wrote: The whole point is that we disagree that the whole 'one man/one woman' thing represents a valid definition of marriage. If you're going to argue to the contrary, then the onus is on you to show how straight couples differ from gay couples in a way that is so significant one group should get marriage recognition while the other is left with nothing.

So far, no one has given me an irrefutable argument in support of the gender restriction.

I don't think there's a good argument for marriage restriction although an argument may be made for adoption preference. If you can show that children fare better in homes with male/female parents you could justify giving preference to a heterosexual couple, all other things being equal.

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

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?
I don't see why getting married matters anyways. Exactly my point! Why should it matter to anyone accept the two people getting married. It's none of our business!

Creamxec · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject:

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.

we all know u are conservative and conservatives believe in tradition...but have in mind NOT EVERY1 IS f***ing CONSERVATIVE

kang · Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 1421

Most homophobia springs from a repressed sense of personal homosexuality, the repression of which tends to morph into self-hate. Left unchecked, this self-hate will morph into outwardly expressed anger at the group who openly flaunt the repressed desires that homophobes so love to hate.

There are exceptions to the rule, of course. But, generally, the exceptions don't go to the trouble of posting on message boards.

/hetero

Creamxec · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: 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'.
mar·riage-1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. That's what marriage is. So technically, we can't have a marriage that doesn't consist of that.

fine then...we'll just have to make up a new word for gays being "Married"

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject:

Eduffy80911 wrote: I don't think there's a good argument for marriage restriction although an argument may be made for adoption preference. If you can show that children fare better in homes with male/female parents you could justify giving preference to a heterosexual couple, all other things being equal.
Except that 'all other things' are rarely 'equal'. Why give preference to a heterosexual couple merely on the basis of their sexual orientation? And it's not about giving preference to heterosexual couples, anyway - it's about banning homosexual couples from adoption completely, even though there aren't enough heterosexual couples coming forward to adopt.