| Author | Message | ||
     Alfau |
1Ti 4:1-5. but in particular :3 talking about you. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
Blake, "I've not posted an opinion about anyone here, male, female, homosexual or normal. You've apparently invented one for me." false "Homosexual men are prohibited from donating blood. " "There are other reasons such as the fact that it is a disease-ridden lifestyle, motivated mostly by unchecked male sex drive." that is why I ask what you feel about homosexual women, who don't have the 'unchecked sex drive' and aren't banned from giving blood. The funny thing is none of us have tried to 'distract' from the conversation...but you bring that up a lot, feels like youre running out of steam and just got to pull that out as, well, a distraction. Odd dude, you were doing so good during this - civil and making legit points. | ||
| Sifo |
Hybrid, Putting aside for a moment the Constitutional issues that are involved, what are you trying to propose here? Gay marriage for females only, but still ban it for men with their unchecked sex drive and disease-ridden lifestyle? I really don't think that's what you are proposing, so what's the point of trying to separate the male lifestyle from the female lifestyle? Are not both groups going to be lumped together under the same law? If not, perhaps this will lead to marrying your cat is bad, but marrying a dog is OK because they tend to be very loyal. | ||
| Blake |
Hybrid Owens says... >>> Blake - overall I am very surprised by your (sic) during this. You haven't resorted to name-calling or anything over the top. >>> "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. >>> 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. >>> The funny thing is none of us have tried to 'distract' from the conversation...but you bring that up a lot, feels like you're running out of steam and just got to pull that out as, well, a distraction. Odd dude, you were doing so good during this - civil and making legit points. As usual Owens, rather than sticking to the issue of discussion you'd rather comment on me and pretend to be some kind of authority on how others should behave here when they disagree with you. It is a diversion that I am weary of and do not appreciate. >>> that is why I ask what you feel about homosexual women... I've not stated how I "feel" about anyone. Period. I've shared information and commented on particular behavior. If I say that incest is harmful and not the same as marriage, I'm not stating how I feel about anyone. I'm commenting on a behavior. It may be a difficult concept to grasp, that a person or group is not the same as a behavior. Give it your best effort. If you you'd rather talk about me, then start another topic for that. Are you clear on that? Those statements that you call "opinion" are well-known facts (truths) concerning blood donation prohibitions and the well-documented promiscuous behavior of male homosexuals in general. They are not my opinion, nor do they communicate how I "feel" about anyone. Freely admitting when one is wrong is one telltale mark of good character. Refusing to do so is a telltale mark of poor character. Now back to the actual topic. Any further diversion will be removed. You didn't answer my question, you answered your own reframed version of it. Alinsky would be proud. You do know that the erosion/marginalization of strong Christian faith in America and the family in America were two of the primary goals of Soviet subversion. Wise up people. You've been misled by liars and deceivers intent upon the weakening of our nation. G_d help us. | ||
| Crackhead |
all I am reading is blaaaa blaa blaa, If you are a true conservative, then you want LESS government not MORE government. Less government would be to remove the government ENTIRELY from any religious practices. If you still want the government in the bedroom then you are another pos religious group masquerading as a conservative. | ||
| Xb9er |
AKA the tea party? Which put a bad taste in my conservative mouth and in the long run distanced me from the republican side. Fundamentalism is not productive. It's time to look ahead and prepare for the future......like Iran and the bad Korea | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
" Freely admitting when one is wrong is one telltale mark of good character. Refusing to do so is a telltale mark of poor character. " and I've never seen you admit when youre wrong.... And its funny you call me out on it and don't mention a word about the guy who said the quote within my quote. But we're both distracting from the argument now, back on topic - homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated the same and neither discriminated against for who they love. "the well-documented promiscuous behavior of male homosexuals in general. " Yeah cause heterosexual men aren't ever documented as promiscuous. Sifo - "Putting aside for a moment the Constitutional issues that are involved, what are you trying to propose here? Gay marriage for females only, but still ban it for men with their unchecked sex drive and disease-ridden lifestyle? I really don't think that's what you are proposing, so what's the point of trying to separate the male lifestyle from the female lifestyle? Are not both groups going to be lumped together under the same law? " I do not feel they should be separated, I asked about females since some repeatedly mentioned men and not women. Youre right, I wasn't proposing that at all, I think homosexual women should have the same rights as homosexual men....and those should be the same rights as heterosexual men and women. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
AKA the tea party? Which put a bad taste in my conservative mouth and in the long run distanced me from the republican side." agreed! | ||
| 99savage |
Hybridmomentspass homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated the same and neither discriminated against for who they love Keep asking - When did love become a governmental concern? Say one thing for my little friends in the homosexual community, the word "love" now makes me gag. - | ||
| Sifo |
all I am reading is blaaaa blaa blaa, That may be what you are reading, but it isn't what's written. It only says something about you. I do not feel they should be separated, I asked about females since some repeatedly mentioned men and not women. Youre right, I wasn't proposing that at all, I think homosexual women should have the same rights as homosexual men....and those should be the same rights as heterosexual men and women. So it was a pointless question then. (Message edited by SIFO on April 01, 2013) | ||
| Blake |
Except for the homosexual males being prohibited from donating blood, all Americans currently do have the same rights. That they do not is the lie you've been sold. Everyone has the right to marriage, marriage being the union of man and woman. Marriage is a naturally physically complimentary, and potentially procreative committed joining of male and female, thenceforth called "husband" and "wife". It is a mutually agreed commitment that is consumated through natural physical joining of man and woman. It is the one and only type of union of two human beings that has the inherent capacity for procreation. Homosexuality has none. Comprised of a mother (female), a father (male), and their children; such a family is by far the optimum basis for raising up successful, happy, healthy Americans. Homosexuality is not. It is thus the bedrock foundation of successful productive society. Homosexuality is not. It is unique compared to all other types of unions. Given all the above with its exceptionally unique naturally complimentary traits and vital procreative potential, its inherent characteristic of being optimum for raising up future generations of successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought the union of man and woman, of husband and wife, not be shown special respect in the form of reserving for it and it only the legal description of "marriage"? Why not? No one here has answered that question. Those who have pretended to only reframe it to their liking. Should a man be able to "marry" his grandfather? None of the misled (all that matters is that they love each other types) dare answer that one. I'm not opposed to states facilitating civil partnerships. If the govt forces everyone to accept that homosexual partnership is the same as and equal in all respects to the union of husband and wife, then they will be stomping on the 1st amendment rights of Americans. | ||
| Vtpeg |
The premise of your question is flawed. You have staged the question so it can never be answered. Gay couples can and do raise happy and healthy families. The lack recognition of their families often lead to real life hardships. As for your red herrings: No one is arguing that people should be allowed to marry their house, dog, toaster or father- there is no slippery slope there, it is a tired argument, time to move on. Gay men do have and continue to get HIV/AIDS at a rate higher then the general population. So do black people, we should probably not let them get married any longer. In the near future there will probably not be a blanket prohibition against gay men donating blood, and a more rational policy in place. Gay marriage won't affect 1st amendment rights either, no one is looking to force the church to sanction gay weddings. The more pertinent question is wouldn't allowing gay couples to marry foster more stable families, or even just more stable gay DINK couples? | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Why not? How about because a growing percentage of Americans now support gay marriage? Some polls (Reuters for one) even claim its a majority. Opinions and positions are changing. Shouldn't the laws of those Americans reflect that? You can discount a poll as biased or inaccurate but anyone can see support continues to increase. Although I've never seen a poll on it, I doubt there is any significant support for a man marrying his grandfather, a father his biological son/daughter, etc. Apples and oranges. The opinion that the term of "marriage" should be reserved for a committed heterosexual couple is just that, an opinion. And it seems it is not shared by the majority of Americans. At least not for long. A bit of a tangent, but just curious. As this thread has grown over the days, is there anyone here who has read something that's been logical or compelling enough to change their position ? Specifically is there anyone who didn't previously support gay marriage who now opposes it, or who opposed it and now supports it? Did anyone here expect their argument would result in someone else changing their opinion? It's ironic how someone can tout the 1st amendment has a well-established MO (now isn't that ironic too) of belittling, attacking or just plain bouncing someone out of here when he can't counter or successfully evade a valid point that exposes his rhetoric as, well, rhetoric. But we've seen it all before. Or as a friend of mine says, same soup, different bowl. Funny how I don't see this type of stuff on other Buell-based forums. Hmmm. What's the one thing that BadWeb has that the other's don't. Here's a hint: it rhymes with "Snake" | ||
| Reindog |
Please don't stoop down to trolling. I was planning on staying as far away from this thread until your little ditty. Your anger is showing and it is unacceptable. (Message edited by reindog on April 01, 2013) | ||
| Blake |
Tom, He's a troll from way back, banned many times. Not worth our time. Thanks though.. Sure do appreciate you helping to look out for the old BadWeB.  | ||
| Blake |
VT, >>> The premise of your question is flawed. You have staged the question so it can never be answered. Gay couples can and do raise happy and healthy families. Nothing in my question is flawed, nor has it been staged so it cannot be answered, nor does it state that homosexuals cannot raise happy and healthy families. >>> No one is arguing that people should be allowed to marry their house, dog, toaster or father- there is no slippery slope there, it is a tired argument, time to move on Nor did I ask any such question. I asked if a man should be able to marry his grandfather. It's just two homosexuals who love each other and want to be happy. Or are you saying that only certain homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Please clarify. Your answer seems to be that out of respect we shouldn't reserve a unique name for the union of husband and wife because... It might help homosexuals be more stable as couples? Should a man be able to marry his sister? Why do we prohibit that? | ||
| Blake |
>>> There's no slippery slope. We were told the same thing about civil unions. But i agree, it's not a slippery slope; it's a towering precipice of logic and reason, a chasm leading from what is most good and wholesome in this world towards the opposite, hedonism, depravity, and selfishness. How is it ok to trample on the 1st amendment rights of Americans? FYI, California voted. The homosexual activists LOST. Not good enough, the homosexual judges declared the will of the California people null and void out of whole cloth. They invented their own constitutional right for any and all to marry. Thus the case, one of them, instigating this topic. If it comes to a popular vote, clearly, marriage wins. | ||
| Blake |
If the govt forces everyone to accept that homosexual partnership is the same as and equal in all respects to the union of husband and wife, then they will be stomping on the 1st amendment rights of Americans. How is that okay? Answer: The Progressives (marxists) see it as a two for one, subvert both family AND religion at the same time. | ||
| Blake |
Owens, >>> homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated the same Under the law, they are. >>> and neither discriminated against for who they love. Neither are. Anyone is free to love whoever they like, no one is stopping them. We just only promote one specific loving committed union, the one that is proven by far most beneficial to society and future generations of Americans. We give that one most beneficial type of union a specific name, "marriage." Why is that a problem??? >>> Yeah cause heterosexual men aren't ever documented as promiscuous. The difference being that the sex drive of normal heterosexual men is in large part checked by the typically discerning and selective sex drive of women. Not so for homosexual men. Educate yourself. Why the &$@! do you think homosexual men continue to contract AIDS at a rate 8,000% greater than the population at large??? Ought that dirty secret inform the discussion??? | ||
| Sifo |
As for your red herrings: No one is arguing that people should be allowed to marry their house, dog, toaster or father- there is no slippery slope there, it is a tired argument, time to move on. Actually that's exactly the type of question that was raised in the Supreme Court hearings just held, by of all people Justice Sotomayor, one of the recent Obama appointees. Gay marriage won't affect 1st amendment rights either, no one is looking to force the church to sanction gay weddings. Re-framing the objection on first amendment rights, doesn't make you right. It does make you either dishonest or ignorant of how the question was phrased. You can fix any ignorance issues by going back and reading the objection again. (Message edited by SIFO on April 02, 2013) | ||
| Blake |
It is astounding how cavalierly some are willing to treat the view of the traditional family in America, THE core institution and backbone of society. No thought whatsoever is given to the possible unintended consequences of a radical wholesale redefinition of marriage. No, it's full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes. | ||
| Blake |
Pretty sure that Sifo meant "re-framing" . | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
Blake: here is where youre wrong, and this is what the thread boils down to "Except for the homosexual males being prohibited from donating blood, all Americans currently do have the same rights" Not all Americans have the same rights. That's why there is still this debate going on in America. I agree, yes, homosexual men have a MUCH larger chance of STDs, this is true. Youre right (whoa, I just said that!?). But you cant base your whole argument on that, and you keep pushing that part of things. Not all homosexual men are promiscuous...like the ones that want to get married lol "Funny how I don't see this type of stuff on other Buell-based forums. Hmmm. What's the one thing that BadWeb has that the other's don't. Here's a hint: it rhymes with "Snake"" Is it cake? Cause I've been offered none if it is, that's BS!!!! Is it Drake? That singer rapper whatever guy? Im not a fan. Is it Bake? Like a bake sale? I always support a bake sale (refer above to cake) | ||
| Sifo |
Yes I did Blake. Edit done. | ||
| Blake |
Nice argument their Owens. Can you make a case in reasoned logic why we ought not continue to define "marriage" as the union of husband and wife? Can you make a compelling reasoned logical argument that we out to radically redefine the meaning of marriage? Can you offer a reasoned logical argument showing that homosexual partnership is the same as the marriage of man and woman? Can you show why those who disagree with you ought to be forced to not only accept, but support your point of view in direct violation of their long held millennia old mainstream Christian religious beliefs? Do you even understand the consequences of such a radical legal redefinition of marriage? What form of human partnership would by law be unacceptable if homosexual partnerships are deemed equivalent to marriage. How can the two be equivalent when they are so very different in their nature, their inherent capabilities, and in their benefits to society? Your argument seems to be that my view is wrong because you disagree with it. That's not a well reasoned logical argument. You need to show why my argument and that of the federal govt and a majority of state governments and a majority of American voters are wrong. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
Blake, "Can you make a case in reasoned logic why we ought not continue to define "marriage" as the union of husband and wife?" why not? There is no real reason why it has to be limited to a man and woman, mostly based on tradition, otherwise there is no reason it should be limited to that. "Can you offer a reasoned logical argument showing that homosexual partnership is the same as the marriage of man and woman? " my argument is that there is no difference in the commitment between the two relationships. Both get married because they are deeply in love with each other and devoted to spend the rest of their lives together, so why must we limit that to just heterosexuals? "but support your point of view in direct violation of their long held millennia old mainstream Christian religious beliefs? " Ah yes, thank you, there is the magic word - Christian. We do not live in a Christian nation. Sure, its likely Christianity which is the largest religion here, but it isn't our official religion etc. One reason so many of our ancestors came to America was to escape religious oppression, so why do that now? (not saying you are, just open question). Not everyone is Christian or believes that if youre Christian you can only believe in heterosexual marriages. "How can the two be equivalent when they are so very different in their nature, their inherent capabilities, and in their benefits to society? " in my opinion, and please correct me where I am wrong, but they are not different in their benefits to society. And yes, they are different, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Even in heterosexual marriages, there are many differences in the relationships, so its really not that much different than a homosexual relationship. So they cant have sex and produce a child from it - many hetero couples don't have kids, and is that the worst thing to not have a child? But like heteros, they can still adopt and they can still devote their love and care to that child. Heterosexuals relationships do this all of the time and it works, why cant it work (it does, by the way) with homosexual folks? Heck, there are so many out there that are raising a child that isn't theirs - maybe the parents split up or the father died etc - yet no one objects to that, "whoa! you cant raise that child! you didn't create it, you cant raise it!" No, that's silly. I am interested, Blake, in hearing what benefits you see that Heterosexual couples bring to the table that homosexuals can not. I do think youre wrong, but not because we don't agree, but because you seem very closeminded on this subject. But everyone is different and that's fine, we don't all have to get along. Its just that I feel that all are created equal, and people shouldn't be restricted on getting married just because they are gay. The government would make extra money More kids, likely, adopted due to it And it'd make a few extra American citizens really happy. And youre right, some would get divorced, same as Heteros, but at least give them a chance. | ||
| Crackhead |
all I am reading is blaaaa blaa blaa, That may be what you are reading, but it isn't what's written. It only says something about you. Yep, I can see thru the BS to see who is for freedom and who is for oppressing others with their religion. Whats next? Everyone has to go to confession or we have to carry our prayer rugs or every man has to be circumcised?} | ||
| Cityxslicker |
There is a long line of things the government does not belong in doing, and are only there to collect their revenue, tax, and exert their bureaucratic control ie it is ILLEGAL to birth a kid in the US out of the approved health care system ..... why is prostitution illegal ?.... because (with one notable exception of Nevada) it cannot control the means of production, the delivery of service, nor transfer of cash for said interlude - if it cannot be regulated - it is ILLEGAL. Apply that as you see fit. On this issue. If there is one true god, and he hates gays - there is no law that man can do to change the will of god - ask any Muslim..... So the only reason that the government is in this argument is 1) to stir dissent 2) to distract from their other agendas 3) to exert control into new contracts 4) collect revenue the 'sanctity' of marriage was gone long ago - when the failure rate essentially became a binary function with a 50% failure rate, and a no fault escape clause. | ||
| Sifo |
I agree, yes, homosexual men have a MUCH larger chance of STDs, this is true. Youre right (whoa, I just said that!?). But you cant base your whole argument on that, and you keep pushing that part of things. Not all homosexual men are promiscuous...like the ones that want to get married lol Here's the problem with this line of reasoning. We are looking at statistical probabilities. Government is never going to look at two individuals and try to determine if they will make a stable family environment that they wish to promote. They have decided (be it right or wrong) to look at probabilities and promote a life style choice that has a higher probability of providing stability. BTW, I don't know if you've every really had a gay guy discuss this with you openly. I've had that experience with someone that I worked with for 5 years. He was in a committed relationship for a long time. What he described certainly isn't what most people would consider a normal relationship though. In fact their relationship was a bit beyond what would be described as "open". His idea of a vacation seemed to revolve around traveling to areas where gays were prevalent and looking to hook up with others to do the group thing. I have no idea how "normal" this is in the gay community, but he made it sound not that uncommon. why not? Because the way you want to go about it violates peoples first amendment rights. When the government provides benefits to people for engaging in a choice that goes against other people's religious beliefs, there is a Constitutional problem. It's frightening how people are so willing to violate other peoples Constitutional rights to get their way. Please address this issue. Here's a hint, there's a way to do it without violating the Constitution. It just isn't what's on the table. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"Here's the problem with this line of reasoning. We are looking at statistical probabilities. Government is never going to look at two individuals and try to determine if they will make a stable family environment that they wish to promote. They have decided (be it right or wrong) to look at probabilities and promote a life style choice that has a higher probability of providing stability. BTW, I don't know if you've every really had a gay guy discuss this with you openly. I've had that experience with someone that I worked with for 5 years. He was in a committed relationship for a long time. What he described certainly isn't what most people would consider a normal relationship though. In fact their relationship was a bit beyond what would be described as "open". His idea of a vacation seemed to revolve around traveling to areas where gays were prevalent and looking to hook up with others to do the group thing. I have no idea how "normal" this is in the gay community, but he made it sound not that uncommon. why not? Because the way you want to go about it violates peoples first amendment rights. When the government provides benefits to people for engaging in a choice that goes against other people's religious beliefs, there is a Constitutional problem. It's frightening how people are so willing to violate other peoples Constitutional rights to get their way. Please address this issue. Here's a hint, there's a way to do it without violating the Constitution. It just isn't what's on the table." To your first part about gay guys vacations - ever hear of swingers clubs/parties/groups/whatever they call themselves? Here are hetero people swapping out partners and just having crazy sex with people who ARENT their wives or husbands.....so whats your point? Yes, there are promiscuous gay people in committed relationships, but there are also promiscuous straight people in committed relationships. As for the first amendment - why aren't Christians fighting against benefits being received by Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics etc? Are those not against Christian beliefs? But wait theres more - what if those groups start petitioning against Christians receiving benefits, that just blew your mind, huh? It goes both ways Sifo You cant look at this from a Christian point of view, the Constitution isn't about that. |
