|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 24, 2022 14:19:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Mar 24, 2022 15:08:06 GMT
Christians are obsessed with gays. And it's not because they think homosexuality is a sin. It's because they're consumed with hate. Christians aren't actually concerned with most sins. Just a few sins they really hate.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 24, 2022 16:10:50 GMT
Christians are obsessed with gays. And it's not because they think homosexuality is a sin. It's because they're consumed with hate. Christians aren't actually concerned with most sins. Just a few sins they really hate. What did this person say that was so hateful?
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 24, 2022 17:15:55 GMT
Christians are obsessed with gays. And it's not because they think homosexuality is a sin. It's because they're consumed with hate. Christians aren't actually concerned with most sins. Just a few sins they really hate. What did this person say that was so hateful? The speaker COULD have offered his view of sexual orientation as something separate from the issue of whether the state should treat same sex couples equally under the law to opposite sex couples (by granting them legal marriage). But he didn't. Instead, he offered his view as a rationale (and a false one) to deny same sex couples equal treatment under the law.In short, he was advocating for a hateful government policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 24, 2022 19:51:31 GMT
What did this person say that was so hateful? The speaker COULD have offered his view of sexual orientation as something separate from the issue of whether the state should treat same sex couples equally under the law to opposite sex couples (by granting them legal marriage). But he didn't. Instead, he offered his view as a rationale (and a false one) to deny same sex couples equal treatment under the law.In short, he was advocating for a hateful government policy. Where in his post did he argue that gay/lesbian couples should be executed or imprisoned??? Did he argue that they deserved to be beaten up??? Nope. Just because you disagree with someone else's views, does not mean that their views are hateful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 24, 2022 20:10:30 GMT
The speaker COULD have offered his view of sexual orientation as something separate from the issue of whether the state should treat same sex couples equally under the law to opposite sex couples (by granting them legal marriage). But he didn't. Instead, he offered his view as a rationale (and a false one) to deny same sex couples equal treatment under the law.In short, he was advocating for a hateful government policy. Where in his post did he argue that gay/lesbian couples should be executed or imprisoned??? Did he argue that they deserved to be beaten up??? Nope. Just because you disagree with someone else's views, does not mean that their views are hateful. Are you drunk? Only a person who has had a few too many could be imagining that your words are attempting to address what I said.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 24, 2022 20:31:31 GMT
Where in his post did he argue that gay/lesbian couples should be executed or imprisoned??? Did he argue that they deserved to be beaten up??? Nope. Just because you disagree with someone else's views, does not mean that their views are hateful. Are you drunk? Only a person who has had a few too many could be imagining that your words are attempting to address what I said. No, I am 100% sober. There are very VERY few alcoholic drinks that I even like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 25, 2022 10:15:08 GMT
The speaker COULD have offered his view of sexual orientation as something separate from the issue of whether the state should treat same sex couples equally under the law to opposite sex couples (by granting them legal marriage). But he didn't. Instead, he offered his view as a rationale (and a false one) to deny same sex couples equal treatment under the law.In short, he was advocating for a hateful government policy. First, his whole basis for his views is absurd, that somehow heterosexuality is the only legitimate and "natural" sexuality because penises fit in vaginas. (And that is exactly what this idiot is saying). My penis fits perfectly inside the rectum of every man I've ever met.
He's correct that sexual orientation is not an identity. It's not even an orientation. Sex is an act. And every human being is capable of both homosexual and heterosexual acts.
I agree with him that homosexual marriage is farcical though. Equality is not sameness. Homosexuality and heterosexuality have different attributes. And it makes perfect since for heterosexual couples to marry based on their reproductive sexuality. It makes no sense for homosexual couples to marry. There's nothing "hateful" about the government acknowledging that.
That's ridiculous. There are heterosexuals couples that marry even with the intention of not having kids. There is something wrong with government deciding that two consenting adults cannot marry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 25, 2022 12:55:41 GMT
And it makes perfect since for heterosexual couples to marry based on their reproductive sexuality. It makes no sense for homosexual couples to marry. There's nothing "hateful" about the government acknowledging that.
Your perpetual and apparently unshakable obtuseness on this point is well established. But (just to keep in practice), I'll shoot you down again. There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples -- from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits. www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.htmlThere is no valid reason to exclude same sex couples from access to this legal status. And advocating that they should be excluded is to advocate enshrining hate into law. (Or perhaps in your case a desire to make gay people into martyrs.)
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 25, 2022 13:55:04 GMT
Sorry, but that sounded like word salad to me. I think he's putting us on. If it's not malarkey, please someone tell me what he said in a few sentences using your own words.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 25, 2022 14:27:18 GMT
Sorry, but that sounded like word salad to me. I think he's putting us on. If it's not malarkey, please someone tell me what he said in a few sentences using your own words. Just don't expect the person who posted it to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Mar 25, 2022 14:46:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 25, 2022 15:57:55 GMT
with the glaring exception that this 'new' orientation isn't anything new at all.
and what also isn't new are these endless mouthpieces from a sprit father figure deity who have been raped repeatedly by the concept of there being a god and can't get it through their ever-expanding bung holes that i as a homosexual could truly care less how they are feeling at this present moment in time.
why are the religious so put off by homosexuals in the first place? why this never-ending stream of their attempts to kill us with their kindness?
knowing the future, even christ couldn't hang around for more than seventy-two hours. it was the smartest thing he ever did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 25, 2022 20:01:15 GMT
Your perpetual and apparently unshakable obtuseness on this point is well established. But (just to keep in practice), I'll shoot you down again. There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples -- from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits. www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.htmlThere is no valid reason to exclude same sex couples from access to this legal status. And advocating that they should be excluded is to advocate enshrining hate into law. (Or perhaps in your case a desire to make gay people into martyrs.) Rights apply to individuals in relation to their government. They do not apply to groups of two, ten or 500 people independent of the rights of the individual.
Contrary to your ignorant assumption, the right of same sex couples to marry does not rest on some notion of "group rights". It rests on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.This same fallacious reasoning could have been used in defending bans on interracial marriage: "Any adult can marry within their race. What individual was deprived of a right before the government began trying to marry whites with blacks"?I couldn't care less about your monogamy or your promiscuity, and have never said anything to suggest otherwise.My position doesn't butt into your life at all. Live as you like. It is YOUR position that would interfere with the lives of same sex couples who want legal marriage. You would try to take that choice from them. You are the one who needs to be told to butt out.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 25, 2022 21:53:56 GMT
Sorry, but that sounded like word salad to me. I think he's putting us on. If it's not malarkey, please someone tell me what he said in a few sentences using your own words. We are male and female for a specific reason: To procreate. Not just us humans but all other living things as well, both animals & plants alike (even if there is homosexuals among the former).
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Mar 25, 2022 22:22:37 GMT
Sorry, but that sounded like word salad to me. I think he's putting us on. If it's not malarkey, please someone tell me what he said in a few sentences using your own words. We are male and female for a specific reason: To procreate. Not just us humans but all other living things as well, both animals & plants alike (even if there is homosexuals among the former). Sexual orientation does not prevent procreation from occurring. It just means that not all human sexual activity leads to procreation. And sometimes humans don’t procreate because they have either taken a vow of celibacy, don’t want to have children, have medical problems or simply fail to attract a member of the opposite sex. 
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 25, 2022 22:33:09 GMT
Christians are obsessed with gays. And it's not because they think homosexuality is a sin. It's because they're consumed with hate. Christians aren't actually concerned with most sins. Just a few sins they really hate. What did this person say that was so hateful? he's regurgitating centuries of the same horse shit that had my brothers skewered alive. how dare he even assume that he has some kind of magical-thinking power to define me or any other person for that matter. christians are experts at killing people with kindness all in the name of some wannabe spirit god whose supposedly pulling the strings of the planet as everyone dutifully falls in line.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 26, 2022 0:58:06 GMT
What did this person say that was so hateful? he's regurgitating centuries of the same horse shit that had my brothers skewered alive. how dare he even assume that he has some kind of magical-thinking power to define me or any other person for that matter. christians are experts at killing people with kindness all in the name of some wannabe spirit god whose supposedly pulling the strings of the planet as everyone dutifully falls in line. Nobody is promoting killing or assaulting people with gay/lesbian orientation. Just simply stating the purpose of sexual intercourse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 26, 2022 8:33:24 GMT
Contrary to your ignorant assumption, the right of same sex couples to marry does not rest on some notion of "group rights". It rests on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.This same fallacious reasoning could have been used in defending bans on interracial marriage: "Any adult can marry within their race. What individual was deprived of a right before the government began trying to marry whites with blacks"?I couldn't care less about your monogamy or your promiscuity, and have never said anything to suggest otherwise.My position doesn't butt into your life at all. Live as you like. It is YOUR position that would interfere with the lives of same sex couples who want legal marriage. You would try to take that choice from them. You are the one who needs to be told to butt out. You purposely miss the point. I am not referring to "group rights" as in black, gays, women etc. I am telling you two people do not have a right that one person does not have. And one person has the right to marry, so the right to marry is not being denied to anyone. And 4 of 9 justices agreed with me that the state has no right to change marriage under the 14th Amendment. You want the government to change marriage. This has nothing to do with the rights of an individual to marry.
And no, interracial marriage is not comparable. That would be racial discrimination against one individual.
Andrew Sullivan, the leading proponent for same-sex marriage, said 30 years ago that the intent was to monogamize gay people and reduce promiscuity. So don't tell me what conservatives in the gay community have been trying to do for 30 years.
Sorry, but when the government tries to create new institutions in my community, I will not butt out.
When you state "Any adult could marry the opposite sex" you are confusing the basic right (to marry) with a restriction placed upon that right (as long as it's the opposite sex). All rights come with restrictions, but they must be shown as valid restrictions or be discarded. There was no valid reason to uphold a racial restriction on marriage, and so it was rightly discarded. And likewise, no valid reason could be shown to restrict a spouse to the opposite sex. And it too, rightly fell. (And impure motives of conservatives or anyone else for espousing any policy have no bearing on the rightness of that policy.) And legalizing gay marriage does not take away any choices that you have in how you live. But you would take away choices from others. That's why it is indeed you who ought to butt out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Mar 26, 2022 9:36:11 GMT
You purposely miss the point. I am not referring to "group rights" as in black, gays, women etc. I am telling you two people do not have a right that one person does not have. And one person has the right to marry, so the right to marry is not being denied to anyone. And 4 of 9 justices agreed with me that the state has no right to change marriage under the 14th Amendment. You want the government to change marriage. This has nothing to do with the rights of an individual to marry.
And no, interracial marriage is not comparable. That would be racial discrimination against one individual.
Andrew Sullivan, the leading proponent for same-sex marriage, said 30 years ago that the intent was to monogamize gay people and reduce promiscuity. So don't tell me what conservatives in the gay community have been trying to do for 30 years.
Sorry, but when the government tries to create new institutions in my community, I will not butt out.
When you state "Any adult could marry the opposite sex" you are confusing the basic right (to marry) with a restriction placed upon that right (as long as it's the opposite sex). All rights come with restrictions, but they must be shown as valid restrictions or be discarded. There was no valid reason to uphold a racial restriction on marriage, and so it was rightly discarded. And likewise, no valid reason could be shown to restrict a spouse to the opposite sex. And it too, rightly fell. (And impure motives of conservatives or anyone else for espousing any policy have no bearing on the rightness of that policy.) And legalizing gay marriage does not take away any choices that you have in how you live. But you would take away choices from others. That's why it is indeed you who ought to butt out. People have a variety of different reason for wanting something to happen and if you are against that something you focus on the negative reasons. I was listening to the recent Hardcore History episode about the Atlantic slave trade and apparently one of the reasons given for wanting it stopped was because there were already too many Africans in America. Therefore wanting the Atlantic slave trade abolished was racist. 
|
|
