| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
So if someone marries a building, does that mean that no one else can marry the building until the first one dies? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-woman -marries-building-protest-demolition-224250710.htm l | ||
| 01x1buell |
blake for once i agree with you all the way , i am very against this whole gay situation. | ||
| Vtpeg |
"With its exceptionally unique traits and vital procreative potential, and its inherent characteristic of being optimum for raising up future generations of successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought it not be afforded special recognition? Just a simple answer?" Simple answer is hetro marriage traits are neither exceptional or unique. Procreative potential is not vital. Gay or straight, single or in a union, loving parents result in successful, healthy, happy Americans. | ||
| Blake |
Black is the same as white, and up is also down. Hey I can write complete nonsense too! | ||
| Jim_cullen |
But to say that other types of partnerships are the same as marriage is a lie, period. It all depends upon how you define marriage - or rather, which definition of marriage you choose to use. I know you don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. Trust me, we'll see DOMA struck down and more and more states recognizing homosexual marriage. I'll call it progress, you'll have a different term. But it's coming and I'm truly sorry it seems to disturb you so much jc | ||
| Blake |
It didn't disturb many Romans in their time either. Why are homosexual men prohibited from donating blood? | ||
| J2blue |
" and I'm truly sorry it seems to disturb you so much" And that my friends is what you call a lie. Giddy with anticipation, maybe, but not truly sorry. You can spot the true believers by statements just like that. No point in wasting time talking to them, they are talking from a different room in the house where everything is just a little bit distorted. There is no common basis to come to any agreement. | ||
| Blake |
>>> It all depends upon how you define marriage - or rather, which definition of marriage you choose to use. If Progressives have their way, I'll no longer have that choice. I'll be forced not only to agree with the radical redefinition of marriage, but also to support it. >>> I know you don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. Nor does majority support or the decision of a judge make it right. Words have meaning. The homosexuals should get their own word for their partnerships. Why not leave the word and institution of "marriage" alone to show respect for the very unique and vital union of man and woman? It deserves its own word and institution. Why doesn't it? Cause it makes homos feel bad? >>> Trust me, we'll see DOMA struck down and more and more states recognizing homosexual marriage. It won't astound me. But that won't make it right. Our nation has literally been going to hell for the last fifty years. We are in no way "one nation under God". We are a nation being progressively destroyed by deceivers, fornicators, and hedonists. >>> I'll call it progress, you'll have a different term. But it's coming and I'm truly sorry it seems to disturb you so much Indeed, we are diametrically opposed. The misled and the brainwashed may not recognize the obvious consequences of reckless govt policy. That doesn't make it any less reckless. Why are homosexual men prohibited from donating blood? | ||
| Alfau |
Acts 15:29 says not to use blood so I guess you are trumped.lol | ||
| Aesquire |
Meanwhile, as Homeland Security uses drones to see who is against homosexuals marrying, the Ammo companies are at full production making illegal to use on the enemy ammo, for assault teams for every agency, the First 2 amendments to the Constitution are annulled and the rest of it ignored as the Imperial Presidency decides who lives & dies....... So looks like the CHOICE is... Create a legal definition for Civil Partnerships. Open to all. leave marriage, the word, out of it to mollify the social conservatives. They're going to use the word anyway. Or pull all support and legal influence the givernment has on the concept of marriage, ( golly, That will teach them ) and prepare to lose any privilige that may have been for het married couples....just out of spite at sharing that with anyone else... ( which WILL be the argument used to condemn you ) Don't care what your choice is, neither will the Supremes, it's probably going to go further than my first option, ( which will be complained about ) and further clamp the grip of the Holy State on every aspect of your lives. So, gays will marry. You won't have guns, because you blew any influence on the rest of society by bitching about the above. then they take your 401k, pension, and bank account. to pay for free stuff for people that bribe them. AND, the whole procreation business will be determined by the eugenics board of the Dept of Health and Inhuman services, because more people is bad for the Earth, and having children is a privilege, not a right. You will need to go before the Global Warming board to plead to have a child, and abortions will be mandatory ( like in China ) for unregistered births. By Drone if need be. Doesn't say anything about children in the Constitution. Enforced by a better armed and funded "civilian" armed service then the Military, answerable only to the President. Suckers. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
First of all, I really am sorry for anyone who seems so deeply disturbed. But I see this chat going the same way it usually does. Neither side's going to change their opinion, frustration builds and some take the low road and start the name-calling with "Lies", "brainwashed" and the like. But I like to see the bright side in everything and I do get a kick when the vaunted BadWeb code of conduct is conveniently ignored and abused by certain users. I've always said, what good's power if you can't abuse it? Homosexual men can't donate blood because of a higher incidence of HIV. Nor can anyone who is an IV drug abusers, those who have been to certain foreign countries, below a certain body weight, has a cold, recently had a piercing, a tattoo, take certain medications or have certain medical conditions. With more reliable testing, I suspect we'll see the prohibition on gay men donating blood going away in coming years. It's already being discussed in the UK and here on the Hill. But that's a distraction from the point. No heterosexuals with the same blood-donating exclusions are prevented from a legal marriage. So no homosexuals with or without those conditions should be prevented either. Looks like its going to be a great day - I'm going for a ride | ||
| Blake |
The prohibitions against donating blood that you note apply to... EVERYONE. So why are homosexual men singled out as the only specific sexual orientation prohibited from donating blood? Why after spending billions of dollars trying to educated the homosexual community are homosexual men in America 8,000% more likely to be infected with AIDS? Should a man be allowed to "marry" his father? Should a mother be able to marry he son? According to the emotional pleadings and logic of the Progressives, they sure ought to be. Alfau, You need to educate yourself on the meaning of scripture, context is vital to good understanding. You're missing it. For instance what "use of blood" was being addressed? Medical or frivolous pagan bloodletting? | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"I've always said, what good's power if you can't abuse it? " which is why Im surprised Blake hasn't started the name calling, he's usually quick to it for anyone that doesn't agree with him. | ||
| Kenm123t |
hybrid your just being a troll this morning We see who is the name caller Typical blame another for your actions Looking to brand Blake with something he hasn't done. Intellectually dishonesty on display ! | ||
| Sifo |
With more reliable testing, I suspect we'll see the prohibition on gay men donating blood going away in coming years. It's already being discussed in the UK and here on the Hill. But that's a distraction from the point. No heterosexuals with the same blood-donating exclusions are prevented from a legal marriage. So no homosexuals with or without those conditions should be prevented either. With better testing, all of those exclusions can be relaxed. The point of this discussion isn't about donating blood though. That was simply brought up to point out that homosexuality is a high risk lifestyle choice. Either you don't have the capacity to understand the point, or your rebuttal is intentionally dishonest. Better screening for diseased blood does nothing to change the fact that homosexuality is a high risk lifestyle choice however. The point is that as a society, we shouldn't promote that choice. Or pull all support and legal influence the givernment has on the concept of marriage, ( golly, That will teach them ) and prepare to lose any privilige that may have been for het married couples....just out of spite at sharing that with anyone else... ( which WILL be the argument used to condemn you ) Spite? I hope that wasn't aimed at my comments on the subject. I'm simply pointing out the choices that have lead us to this point. Government intrusion is a lot like erosion of a mountain. It is unrelenting. On major difference though. Government intrusion, can in theory at least, be undone. However, it's only slightly easier than undoing the erosion of a mountain. Actually in my view, it would be up to homosexuals complaining about unequal treatment under the law, if unable to get equality in marriage under governmental legislation to undo traditional marriage under the law. I don't think this is the spite that you refer to though. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Had a great ride. You guys still here? One of Blake's last questions was why can't homosexual men donate blood, so I thought I'd answer that. And I absolutely agree it has nothing to do the marriage issue, which is what I went on to argue. Sorry if you couldn't keep up. And they are not excluded because of their sexual orientation, but because of a statistically supported consequence of that orientation in a segment of the population. There's a difference, but you already know that. It just doesn't support your argument. Then again, there really is no support for your argument. And I'd say calling someone else "brainwashed" constitutes name-calling - it's just a timid attempt to stay in the gray area. But I'm not surprised you can't make the distinction. If this goes anything like past discussions, pretty soon somebody drop the big, bad, "B" word. Too bad I won't see it. Going to go celebrate the true meaning of Easter and eat some chocolate eggs. Out here. | ||
| Blake |
It is continually amazing to see how some are utterly incapable of reasonable discussion. Thanks for your sentiments Ken. I think Owens is helping to point out the fact that one side has repeatedly presented reason where the other looks to divert discussion. I sure don't know any better word than " brainwashed" to describe those who believe that sodomy is the same as natural procreative relations. Black is white and up is down; there is no truth, no good or bad, it's all just relative. Welcome to the Progressive way. It's been operating full steam for decades now, and many impressionable minds have fallen victim to it. I yearn for righteousness and pray for wisdom. For all. | ||
| Alfau |
what "use of blood" was being addressed? Medical or frivolous pagan bloodletting? Where exactly does it say this ? Not forgetting Re 22:18 which warns not to add or take away from the scriptures. | ||
| Aesquire |
homosexuality is a high risk lifestyle choice. Yes, true. So is motorcycling. I have no idea if the MOA inhibitor chemical levels in the brain have anything to do with homosexuality, but they sure do for Biking. Or Hang Gliding ( where I was in a study of risk sports vs. golf & the like ) I bet, without a proper study or first hand knowledge, that there are influences in life to make risky choices, as well as genetic variability. If you were brought up in a biking family, I'd think you more likely to ride, if only because Mom let you. But that has nothing to do with "gay marriage". Sifo, the suggestion that marriage be disconnected from government was in the article posted, not your comments, and I'm not picking on you, but the author. And, as previously stated, the Libertarian side of me thinks getting government out of nearly every aspect of our lives is probably a good thing. The more practical side wonders if marriage has a place as a government institution, and the sarcastic side thinks that removing alleged benefits for "normal married" folk so "abnormal married folk" can't have them is selfish and childish. I'm not SURE that's the point the author was trying to make, or his motivation, but it could be, in which case, nyaa, nyaa. Black is white and up is down; there is no truth, no good or bad, it's all just relative. Welcome to the Progressive way. It's been operating full steam for decades now, and many impressionable minds have fallen victim to it. got a good point there. Don't forget the sterilizations, the mercy killings ( soon to be coming to a Death Panel near you! .... actually it'a a computer program ) and the support for mass murder in foreign lands, like the New York Times high praise for Stalin and it's deliberate lies about the Ukrainian massacre. | ||
| Blake |
Alfau, Read the entire chapter, then consider other related scripture, then tell me what that particular verse is addressing. http://bible.cc/acts/15-29.htm | ||
| Blake |
So, if govt figures marriage ought be radically redefined, then where does that definition cease its inclusiveness? What happens to the 1st amendment rights of those who unequivocally oppose such a redefinition being forced upon them? What about their rights? No one has answered, at least honestly, my original question that I've seen. Maybe we'll have better luck with these.. I'm not hopeful, but the responses at least provide some insight into the minds of Progressives. They'll make an unending fuss about a so-called "right" concocted under the pretense of protecting the feelings of a tiny minority (homosexuals who want to redefine marriage) while orchestrating nothing less than mass wholesale trampling of the actual unalienable rights of a huge plurality of Americans, if not a majority. I don't know which is worse, that some don't even see how their agenda tramples the rights of so many fellow Americans, or that some do see it but truly don't care. I guess the malicious type are worse. | ||
| Aesquire |
It can be hard to tell. Al Gore, after warning of a 33 foot rise in se levels, bought a Malibu beachfront home. So we now know that even HE knows he's a liar, and not a fool. ( ok, both, but he's a fool that's made over $200.000.000 on the scam ) There are certainly some in the push for legalizing gay marriage that are doing so for deliberate destructive reasons. Others, because they are gay and want what others have, a recognized partnership and an end to "this is Steve, my partner". Although how you decide to introduce your Significant other may still be problematical. I'll have to ask how they decide, and I don't know if it's by top/bottom or what. Some gay folk don't like the idea of gay marriage either, but they don't have any more say than you or I, it's up to the Court. Others pushing for gay marriage have political agendas, NOT related to the Soviet Destruction Of Western Civilization. ( or the Illuminati, Masonic plot, what ever... We have proof, however of the Soviet's actions in multiple facets, like the Greens, Anti Nuke movement, Anti-war movement, racial supremists, etc. ) Those people, mostly, but not all, are D's that are using the social conservatives to push their other agendas, like taxes, loss of freedoms of speech & defense, etc. By pushing the illusion that their political opponents are mean, evil, selfish rich guys, the mean evil selfish rich guys on their side not only get a pass but gain power and best of all! the re-election towards the true goal of Most in DC. Permanent power and unlimited bribes... For that reason alone, I could see letting a tiny number of folk have their way on marriage or partnerships, to save the possibility I can walk the street and call a politician, a religious zealot, or a TV talking head a liar or a threat to us. The Governor of my state wants to confiscate all guns in citizens hands, and tax us into oblivion while he lies to us about both. He's a big gay marriage booster. Why? He cares nothing about the gays, or anyone else, except in how much power and money they give him. By being for the popular trend of the moment, gun control, fracking, gay marriage, he solidifies at least temporarily his power. He's really looking like the successor to Obama, ( assuming the paranoid fantasy about Barry going for Emperor isn't so. It wasn't for Bill, or George, So I'm not THAT worried ) So expect the leftism of Barry, the poll savvy of Bill, the dishonesty that would shame both, and Nanny Bloomberg's 'Mess with every part of your life'.............for your own good, of course. So I think you are all falling for a distraction so that they can &^*) up the ^%% while you're looking the wrong way. Like pickpockets at the hangings... | ||
| Sifo |
Yes, true. So is motorcycling. True enough. However if the government decided to give special benefits to riders, I doubt that it would violate any constitutional rights of non-riders. That in itself isn't enough for me to think that government involvement (more than we already have) would likely be a good thing. There ain't no free lunch. Sifo, the suggestion that marriage be disconnected from government was in the article posted, not your comments, and I'm not picking on you, but the author. Well that article (assuming it's the one I posted) was posted for a single stated purpose, to provide a source for when government got involved in marriage, which happened sometime after the civil war. Not very long ago. Refuting other ideas in the article is refuting ideas that haven't been brought into the conversation. That's fine, but confusing. One of Blake's last questions was why can't homosexual men donate blood, so I thought I'd answer that. And I absolutely agree it has nothing to do the marriage issue, which is what I went on to argue. Sorry if you couldn't keep up. And they are not excluded because of their sexual orientation, but because of a statistically supported consequence of that orientation in a segment of the population. There's a difference, but you already know that. It just doesn't support your argument. Then again, there really is no support for your argument. And I'd say calling someone else "brainwashed" constitutes name-calling - it's just a timid attempt to stay in the gray area. But I'm not surprised you can't make the distinction. I fully believe you to be smart enough to understand that Blake was expanding on why the government would want to encourage traditional marriage for it's positive attributes, but that there are serious negative attributes that come into play when the extend that to homosexual marriage. That kind of makes your comments about HIV, etc. not excluding one from marriage kind of a dishonest tack in this conversation. Of course you preceded it with a warning about calling people liars. Good thing to do when turning to dishonest conversation. Typical progressive tactic. Alinsky would be so proud! Thanks for the insult about my not being able to keep up. Tied to the blood donor thing, it's a dishonest insult. Good to see that you take take the code of conduct so seriously.  | ||
| Sifo |
The Governor of my state wants to confiscate all guns in citizens hands, and tax us into oblivion while he lies to us about both. He's a big gay marriage booster. Here's the problem. Both have Constitutional issues. If you are only willing to stand for what's right on one of those issues, do you really expect others to stand with you on the issue that you support? | ||
| Aesquire |
Got a bunch a points there. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
blake - say what you will, you know you do it often in these types of debates. Im not trying to divert attention or anything else, and you know that. I've made nothing but valid comments, answered your mega question, and replied in a civil manner. But it is what it is, and you often resort to name calling after so long. But answer me this (posted earlier) - do you feel any different about homosexual women? I posted before about this, you (and others) keep commenting on homosexual men and their high risk for STDs/HIV, but nothing said about the females. | ||
| Blake |
I've not posted an opinion about anyone here, male, female, homosexual or normal. You've apparently invented one for me. And you're again diverting the discussion. You sure didn't answer my question, at least not as it was intended. Thank you Tom. | ||
| Slaughter |
I still don't plan to marry a man OR woman. That makes me nearly as deviant as a priest. | ||
| Blake |
As to the wildly disproportionate disease issue... It's not a problem with female homosexuals as far as I know. The core issue is that neither a partnership of two females nor of two males is fundamentally the same as the marriage of man and women. Marriage has inherent procreative potential; the others do not. Marriage provides the proven optimum family environment of mother & father for raising successful, happy, and healthy future generations of Americans. One other is rife with disease and premature death due to wildly reckless behavior, it's practitioners banned from donating blood due to its wildly promiscuous reckless culture and wildly disproportionate disease infection rate. Which one ought we honor and revere and promote? Which one deserves a measure of respect and to keep intact its own specific name as it has been understood for millennia. | ||
| Blake |
Steve, It doesn't make you sexually deviant, and under CA law, you are as good as married, no? And, you're not demanding that your particular behavior be equated to another that is fundamentally different. Loretta. Patrick, We're not distracted. We're concerned for the soul of our nation on all counts. My take is that it will either be lost for good, or the Democrats will lose huge in 2014 and the homosexual nonsense will continue. Next will be the push to redefine "truth" as any communication that someone originates. After all, people just want to feel good about their opinions just like those who avoid falsehood. Who are we to say what is better communication? What matters is that people are happy. |
