Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: hardgainerj on July 03, 2015, 07:13:24 PM
-
-
Ewwwwwwww........
Oh, he was on the show?...... Ok, then ;D
-
Yeah, 24 years ago.
-
Got to give him kudos. He came out at a time when it wasn't cool to do so.
-
Yeah, 24 years ago.
unaware
-
A helluva lotta chicks were hot for Paris in the 80's.
-
Got to give him kudos. He came out at a time when it wasn't cool to do so.
And I still wish it wasn't cool. Is it really necessary for everyone to put their public lives, their idiosyncrasies, and even perversions, out in public for the world to see?
There is something to be said for keeping private behavior private.
-
And I still wish it wasn't cool. Is it really necessary for everyone to put their public lives, their idiosyncrasies, and even perversions, out in public for the world to see?
There is something to be said for keeping private behavior private.
knowing that gay people exist makes you uncomfortable?
-
And I still wish it wasn't cool. Is it really necessary for everyone to put their public lives, their idiosyncrasies, and even perversions, out in public for the world to see?
There is something to be said for keeping private behavior private.
Well Said, Not Necessary 24 years ago...And I'm 48, so I lived through his era....J-O-T-O!!...
-
This would be like somebody back then saying he was on the Jack Benny show. Who?
-
Was Donaghue ever confirmed as phag himself?
-
And I still wish it wasn't cool. Is it really necessary for everyone to put their public lives, their idiosyncrasies, and even perversions, out in public for the world to see?
There is something to be said for keeping private behavior private.
Yep!
-
knowing that gay people exist makes you uncomfortable?
No. Just like realizing people take a shit, or don't like nigs, or like to dress up as a women, or puts a pink bow on it's German Shepard's head and wacks off while it sniffs around in the yard.
You missed my point. It's one thing not to be ashamed or hide certain proclivities; it's quit another to advertise and throw it up in everyone's face.
The line has been blurred between the personal and the private. Between fame and infamy. I don't think that is a good development.
-
No. Just like realizing people take a shit, or don't like nigs, or like to dress up as a women, or puts a pink bow on it's German Shepard's head and wacks off while it sniffs around in the yard.
You missed my point. It's one thing not to be ashamed or hide certain proclivities; it's quit another to advertise and throw it up in everyone's face.
The line has been blurred between the personal and the private. Between fame and infamy. I don't think that is a good development.
There's a huge difference in what your poorly trying to argue, unless your so backward that you think being gay is a choice you make? It takes a lot of courage to come out at that time, and why does it personally offend you so much?
I'm not a gay ( altho I love to see classic 90's bodybuilding pics, with daisy dukes, braces and work boots!!) , but I cant see why you all get so upset about it, how does it effect you in anyway....
-
There's a huge difference in what your poorly trying to argue, unless your so backward that you think being gay is a choice you make? It takes a lot of courage to come out at that time, and why does it personally offend you so much?
I'm not a gay ( altho I love to see classic 90's bodybuilding pics, with daisy dukes, braces and work boots!!) , but I cant see why you all get so upset about it, how does it effect you in anyway....
Really? What do you think I'm trying to argue? Going by your response and hostility, it seems that my argument is going over your head.
Again, spell it out for me. What do YOU think and perceive what I'm trying to "poorly" argue?
As far as your second question. How people behave in public effects the public ethos of our culture. The Zeitgeist as the German's say. There was a time when people were far more modest and reserved in their public behavior. Since the cultural revolution from the late sixties/early seventies you have this "let it all hang out", "I don't care what anybody thinks" attitude.
Some, as you seem to, consider this cultural progress. I don't. People are far more crass, rude and uncivil than at any time in our country's history. Hell, I remember a time when women/girls rarely, if ever swore, and even then only under extreme provocation. And when they do they stood out.
I mean, just look at the TV shows today versus just 20 years ago.
-
Yep ^. I never thought I'd be agreeing w/ television evengelists but I am on more & more issues. ???
-
No. Just like realizing people take a shit, or don't like nigs, or like to dress up as a women, or puts a pink bow on it's German Shepard's head and wacks off while it sniffs around in the yard.
You missed my point. It's one thing not to be ashamed or hide certain proclivities; it's quit another to advertise and throw it up in everyone's face.
The line has been blurred between the personal and the private. Between fame and infamy. I don't think that is a good development.
so in your mind publicly advocating for gay marriage is like taking a shit or being racist or what I can only guess is your personal bestiality fantasy.
those are are basically the same category as gay people wanting the right to get married?
-
I don't care if people want to be gay. Fine so be it, it effects me not. What I do mind is this notion that if I do not agree with their lifestyle then I am a homophobe and the crazy in compashionate one. This country of ours has slipped off the sanity track. Gay couple should never have the same marital rights as straight couples. They should not be allowed to adopt children. Gay couples are effectively after one thing and it's not marriAge nor raising a normAl heAlthy child. They simply want to force the rest of us with the rule of law to accept them and their need to raise a child is purely to brainwash a new generation. Gay people are not more compAssionate than the straights. In fact I argue the opposite. I believe them to be vulgar rude and at times hostil in their insistent approach for acceptance. They are also less compassionate when adopting a child, pulling it away from an otherwise possible normal couple all in the guise of parenting but brainwashing. Marriage was once a sacred bond, a union of man and women to procreation of a new generation. Last I checked there have yet been any pregnancies and or births through anal sex.
-
I don't care if people want to be gay. Fine so be it, it effects me not. What I do mind is this notion that if I do not agree with their lifestyle then I am a homophobe and the crazy in compashionate one. This country of ours has slipped off the sanity track. Gay couple should never have the same marital rights as straight couples. They should not be allowed to adopt children. Gay couples are effectively after one thing and it's not marriAge nor raising a normAl heAlthy child. They simply want to force the rest of us with the rule of law to accept them and their need to raise a child is purely to brainwash a new generation. Gay people are not more compAssionate than the straights. In fact I argue the opposite. I believe them to be vulgar rude and at times hostil in their insistent approach for acceptance. They are also less compassionate when adopting a child, pulling it away from an otherwise possible normal couple all in the guise of parenting but brainwashing. Marriage was once a sacred bond, a union of man and women to procreation of a new generation. Last I checked there have yet been any pregnancies and or births through anal sex.
so you believe that gay people don't really want to just be able to get married, raise children and basically just be treated equally.
All that is just nationwide (maybe global) gay conspiracy to "brainwash" a new generation.
Interesting conspiracy theory.
What is the end objective of their "brainwashing"
What is the goal of their conspiracy?
Since you seem to actually believe this then I guess you also believe all those gay marriages and families are just a facade to support the ultimate goal....the brainwashing.
-
so in your mind publicly advocating for gay marriage is like taking a shit or being racist or what I can only guess is your personal bestiality fantasy.
those are are basically the same category as gay people wanting the right to get married?
Ah, I see. That's a pretty typical example of shallow thinking. My point was, and forget specific examples as you can use any example you want, that there are some behaviors, feelings, desires, proclivities, that should remain private. Specifically in this case, if you're gay -- fine -- no need to shout it out and constantly put it out there. No need for parades. It makes one think that your sexual preferences is the main thing, maybe even the only thing, that defines you.
I'm sure when a Christian keeps bringing up that fact and is constantly preaching you would roll your eyes and think "shut up already."
But, in fairness, having watched part of the vid, I see it wasn't about celebrating and advocating their homosexuality but rather about same sex marriage. love and equal rights.
That is quite different but again an example how a position and/or argument can get so convoluted as same sex marriage has nothing to do with love and/or equal rights.
Gay people have the exact same rights as everybody else to get married.
-
How people behave in public effects the public ethos of our culture. The Zeitgeist as the German's say. There was a time when people were far more modest and reserved in their public behavior. Since the cultural revolution from the late sixties/early seventies you have this "let it all hang out", "I don't care what anybody thinks" attitude.
Some, as you seem to, consider this cultural progress. I don't. People are far more crass, rude and uncivil than at any time in our country's history. Hell, I remember a time when women/girls rarely, if ever swore, and even then only under extreme provocation. And when they do they stood out.
I mean, just look at the TV shows today versus just 20 years ago.
This!
Well said Pellius!
-
Since the subject has switched to Gay marriage, which in itself is a misnomer, I want to add to this conversation a recent discussion about the recent court ruling.
Gays have the same rights as everybody vis-a-vis marriage. No one, gay or straight, have the right to marry someone of the same sex and have it legally recognize. No one is preventing them from getting married in whatever church that will perform it and living as a married couple. They just don't have the right to have it legally recognized. As Arnold said when he was running for Governor, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a women."
Again, the homosexual community wants to redefine marriage and want to create new and special rights to accommodate their life style.
Maybe this should be done but it shouldn't be done by five unelected judges but through the legislative process.
-
I say let gays get married. Gay men are the most horny/promiscuous creatures ever created. Marriage doesn't work for 60% of straight people. You think gay men can remain monogamous?... no fucking way! Divorce lawyers who specialize is gay divorce are going to make a fortune.
-
This is part of the discussion regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing same sex marriage.
Of course there are some subtleties in these positions. I believe people can do whatever they want as long as they don't present a clear danger to others nor hurt or infringe on the rights of others. I don't have a problem with gay or same sex people getting married or living however they want. I remember a friend of mine showing me his invitation to Bob Paris' wedding. Didn't bother me.
What I am against is when others, such as the same sex marriage crowd, demand and require that others recognize, accept and even honor their life style. They want special rights. They want to change the law to accommodate them. Now if society decides they do want to change the law then so be it. It shouldn't be left to five unelected Judges to decide for the rest us. The powers of the Federal Government as stated in the Constitution is very limited and clearly defined. The rest is left up to the States and the People.
Look, for all practical purposes, Hugh Hefner lived his life as a Polygamous. But nobody gave a crap as he didn't impose his life style of others. He just did his thing and didn't bother anybody.
Again I want to be clear: People who support same sex marriage want special rights and not equal rights. They obfuscate the issue by calling it Gay Marriage. Gays have the same rights as everybody else to marry. As Arnold once said when he first ran for governor: "I support Gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a woman."
That's why I doubt that Gallop Poll. It doesn't take into account the subtleties of the issue. I think people get confused. I think the majority don't oppose and accept Gay relationships as oppose to supporting it. This matters. For example if I had a choice if my son would be born gay or straight I wouldn't just toss a coin. I would want my son to be straight. But if he wasn't I would accept that fact. But I won't lie to myself and say it doesn't matter that when he goes out on his first date it's hand and hand with a girl or hand and hand with a boy.
Not being opposed, or even supporting, Gay relationships, is quite different from passing a law that requires, under Government coercion; to support, honor and endorse it.
.
-
5000 years or so people are considering gay as unnatural and sick... doctors proved it as a complex mental issue... and now we have a bunch of gay people with enough money to pay media to call us sick for not accepting their sickness as something healthy?!?! gay people can be gay in their beds, not a problem, but forcing us to watch it on parades is very sick and forcing us to go against 5000 years of civilization to accept it as something normal is working against gay people...
-
Ah, I see. That's a pretty typical example of shallow thinking. My point was, and forget specific examples as you can use any example you want, that there are some behaviors, feelings, desires, proclivities, that should remain private. Specifically in this case, if you're gay -- fine -- no need to shout it out and constantly put it out there. No need for parades. It makes one think that your sexual preferences is the main thing, maybe even the only thing, that defines you.
I'm sure when a Christian keeps bringing up that fact and is constantly preaching you would roll your eyes and think "shut up already."
But, in fairness, having watched part of the vid, I see it wasn't about celebrating and advocating their homosexuality but rather about same sex marriage. love and equal rights.
That is quite different but again an example how a position and/or argument can get so convoluted as same sex marriage has nothing to do with love and/or equal rights.
Gay people have the exact same rights as everybody else to get married.
ok, so you're all for gay people being able to get married but you just don't want them to "shout it out"?
-
ok, so you're all for gay people being able to get married but you just don't want them to "shout it out"?
I do not support the legalization of same sex marriage. I made that abundantly clear. I believe anybody can do anything they what as long as they don't hurt or infringe on the rights of others. Gays want special and new rights. They want to change the definition of marriage as it has been recognized throughout the history of mankind. Something I also made abundantly clear.
If you're gay, straight, a tranny, cd, shemale or whatever no need to shout it out. Just live your life and don't bother anybody.
Please try to keep up.
-
I do not support the legalization of same sex marriage. I made that abundantly clear. I believe anybody can do anything they what as long as they don't hurt or infringe on the rights of others. Gays want special and new rights. They want to change the definition of marriage as it has been recognized throughout the history of mankind. Something I also made abundantly clear.
If you're gay, straight, a tranny, cd, shemale or whatever no need to shout it out. Just live your life and don't bother anybody.
Please try to keep up.
gotcha
how does gay marriage hurt or infringe upon the rights of others and
what "special" rights do they want again?
-
gotcha
how does gay marriage hurt or infringe upon the rights of others and
what "special" rights do they want again?
I just wrote a novel addressing this issue. I explained in detail both issues. Are you even paying attention?
I'm not going to say it again. It's in this thread. But you really do seem slow so I will do the unnecessary and quote myself to accommodate your lazy thinking and reasoning ability.
Since the subject has switched to Gay marriage, which in itself is a misnomer, I want to add to this conversation a recent discussion about the recent court ruling.
Gays have the same rights as everybody vis-a-vis marriage. No one, gay or straight, have the right to marry someone of the same sex and have it legally recognize. No one is preventing them from getting married in whatever church that will perform it and living as a married couple. They just don't have the right to have it legally recognized. As Arnold said when he was running for Governor, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a women."
Again, the homosexual community wants to redefine marriage and want to create new and special rights to accommodate their life style.
Again, I'll reiterate because you seem very dim. To be precise, we are not talking about gay marriage, we are talking about Same Sex marriage. Two people of the opposite sex getting married. Nobody is allowed to have that legally recognized, gay or straight. So it should obviously follow that if you want two people of the same sex to get legally married you are trying to create a new right. A special right for two members of the same sex to marry. You want to change the legal definition of marriage as it has been recognized throughout human history.
If a gay man and a lesbian want to get legally married they can. If a straight or gay man wants to marry another straight or gay man they are not legally allow to do so.
Same and equal rights for both gays and straight.
-
How does this infringe of another's rights. I won't explain it to you because at this point I really don't think you can grasp what I erroneously considered a simple concept so I will give you an example.
Say a gay couple wants to get married by a Catholic Priest. Now according to Catholicism homosexually is considered a sin. It's in the Bible and stated quite clearly. There's no interpretation or wiggle room regarding that issue. Does a Catholic Priest have the right to believe in the Bible and obey it's laws? Does a Catholic Priest, or anybody for that matter, have right to believe that homosexually is a sin? I say yes.
But if same sex marriage is a legal right a Catholic Priest can no longer refuse to perform a Gay/Same Sex wedding. The same sex law is preventing the right of someone to believe and follow the tenets of his religion.
-
I just wrote a novel addressing this issue. I explained in detail both issues. Are you even paying attention?
I'm not going to say it again. It's in this thread. But you really do seem slow so I will do the unnecessary and quote myself to accommodate your lazy thinking and reasoning ability.
Again, I'll reiterate because you seem very dim. To be precise, we are not talking about gay marriage, we are talking about Same Sex marriage. Two people of the opposite sex getting married. Nobody is allowed to have that legally recognized, gay or straight. So it should obviously follow that if you want two people of the same sex to get legally married you are trying to create a new right. A special right for two members of the same sex to marry. You want to change the legal definition of marriage as it has been recognized throughout human history.
If a gay man and a lesbian want to get legally married they can. If a straight or gay man wants to marry another straight or gay man they are not legally allow to do so.
Same and equal rights for both gays and straight.
a gay man can't marry a straight man?
are you sure
I asked you a SIMPLE question
what special rights do you think gay people now have?
All I see is that everyone now has the right to marry whomever they want
it applies to everyone so no one has any special rights
can we agree on that?
If so we can move to deciphering your other very queer views of the world
-
Paris should have been Mr. Olympia several times over. He would have been an excellent spokesman for bodybuilding. Handsome with a very aesthetic phyisque, articulate and a superb poser.
Today we just have poseurs.
-
a gay man can't marry a straight man?
are you sure
I asked you a SIMPLE question
what special rights do you think gay people now have?
All I see is that everyone now has the right to marry whomever they want
it applies to everyone so no one has any special rights
can we agree on that?
If so we can move to deciphering your other very queer views of the world
What a dishonest little shit you are.
This whole thread was predicated on the youtube vid of Bob Paris on Donahue and all the arguments and opinions here were based prior to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing Same Sex Marriage. Creating a new law, a new right, a SPECIAL right that has never existed before in our country's history. The LEGAL right for someone to marry a member of the same sex, whether gay or straight.
Now you change the very premise of the argument to suit your agenda and act like you've been talking about the state of affairs [/b]AFTER[/b] five unelected Judges ruled to over ride the legislative process and decide for the entire country.
Now you speak in terms of "[/B]NOW[/B] have" the right to marry...
You were never about seeking clarity or truth. Congratulations! You got me. Yes, now that the Supreme Court has created a new law, a new right, a special right, a right that has never existed in our history, i.e., the right that now someone has this new right to marry a member of the same sex and now everybody, including those whose religious beliefs forbid from doing so, must now accept and honor that position.
So congratulations. I take these matters sincerely as it impacts are culture and society considerably and spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain and discuss it with you. But you were never sincere or honest. You just wasted my time. So you got me. Good for you.
It's gay activists like you that ruin it for the vast majority of decent gays out there and foment the resentment and hostility by forcing your lifestyle down other people's throats instead of just living your lives. It's not enough that society tolerates and accepts a life style many consider immoral but now, under threat of government coercion, which is what all laws are, they have to accept, honor and embrace your lifestyle.
You're a dishonest little shit promoting your gay agenda (and don't even try to convince anybody you're not gay which is a common tactic use by homos like you to add to your credibility) and contributing, in your own small way, to bringing down our society and culture and doing everything and anything you can to destroy the traditional values that made our country great.
-
I do not support the legalization of same sex marriage. I made that abundantly clear. I believe anybody can do anything they what as long as they don't hurt or infringe on the rights of others. Gays want special and new rights. They want to change the definition of marriage as it has been recognized throughout the history of mankind. Something I also made abundantly clear.
If you're gay, straight, a tranny, cd, shemale or whatever no need to shout it out. Just live your life and don't bother anybody.
Please try to keep up.
Problem is theses ass. Pumper.s adopt children and warp their minds, it's is harmful.
-
Beyond Built.
-
What a dishonest little shit you are.
This whole thread was predicated on the youtube vid of Bob Paris on Donahue and all the arguments and opinions here were based prior to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing Same Sex Marriage. Creating a new law, a new right, a SPECIAL right that has never existed before in our country's history. The LEGAL right for someone to marry a member of the same sex, whether gay or straight.
Now you change the very premise of the argument to suit your agenda and act like you've been talking about the state of affairs [/b]AFTER[/b] five unelected Judges ruled to over ride the legislative process and decide for the entire country.
Now you speak in terms of "[/B]NOW[/B] have" the right to marry...
You were never about seeking clarity or truth. Congratulations! You got me. Yes, now that the Supreme Court has created a new law, a new right, a special right, a right that has never existed in our history, i.e., the right that now someone has this new right to marry a member of the same sex and now everybody, including those whose religious beliefs forbid from doing so, must now accept and honor that position.
So congratulations. I take these matters sincerely as it impacts are culture and society considerably and spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain and discuss it with you. But you were never sincere or honest. You just wasted my time. So you got me. Good for you.
It's gay activists like you that ruin it for the vast majority of decent gays out there and foment the resentment and hostility by forcing your lifestyle down other people's throats instead of just living your lives. It's not enough that society tolerates and accepts a life style many consider immoral but now, under threat of government coercion, which is what all laws are, they have to accept, honor and embrace your lifestyle.
You're a dishonest little shit promoting your gay agenda (and don't even try to convince anybody you're not gay which is a common tactic use by homos like you to add to your credibility) and contributing, in your own small way, to bringing down our society and culture and doing everything and anything you can to destroy the traditional values that made our country great.
LOL - you think I'm a gay activist?
the SCOTUS does not make laws
you knew that...right?
-
LOL - you think I'm a gay activist?
the SCOTUS does not make laws
you knew that...right?
Once again your dishonesty and gay agenda shines through. When did I say the Supreme Court wrote and made the same sex law? I said they legalized it.
"This whole thread was predicated on the youtube vid of Bob Paris on Donahue and all the arguments and opinions here were based prior to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing Same Sex Marriage."
And by legalizing same sex marriage a new law was created. A new right that has never existed is now in effect. This is much different than saying the Supreme Court wrote, made or created the law.
Once again you try to obfuscate the issue to promote your gay agenda. Once again you prove yourself a dishonest little shit.
Claim whatever you want. Your words and views speak for themselves. You are a gay activist. This is far different than just someone who is gay and wants to live their life in peace, the vast majority. A gay activist, you, is one who wants to cram your lifestyle down other people's lives. You claim you don't want government in your personal life. You don't want government in your bedroom. But that is just a lie. You want to force government to pass laws forcing others to embrace and honor your lifestyle.
If there is anybody reading this thread that believes "Strawman" is not a gay activist. Does not promote and defend the gay life style and demands, by means of laws, i.e., government coerce, that we all accept, embrace and honor his lifestyle even if it means you have to go against deeply held religious beliefs speak out now. Explain to me why this is not so.
-
Once again your dishonesty and gay agenda shines through. When did I say the Supreme Court wrote and made the same sex law? I said they legalized it.
"This whole thread was predicated on the youtube vid of Bob Paris on Donahue and all the arguments and opinions here were based prior to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing Same Sex Marriage."
And by legalizing same sex marriage a new law was created. A new right that has never existed is now in effect. This is much different than saying the Supreme Court wrote, made or created the law.
Once again you try to obfuscate the issue to promote your gay agenda. Once again you prove yourself a dishonest little shit.
Claim whatever you want. Your words and views speak for themselves. You are a gay activist. This is far different than just someone who is gay and wants to live their life in peace, the vast majority. A gay activist, you, is one who wants to cram your lifestyle down other people's lives. You claim you don't want government in your personal life. You don't want government in your bedroom. But that is just a lie. You want to force government to pass laws forcing others to embrace and honor your lifestyle.
If there is anybody reading this thread that believes "Strawman" is not a gay activist. Does not promote and defend the gay life style and demands, by means of laws, i.e., government coerce, that we all accept, embrace and honor his lifestyle even if it means you have to go against deeply held religious beliefs speak out now. Explain to me why this is not so.
you wrote that the SCOTUS "created a new law"
they did no such thing
you seem to have way more emotional investment in this topic than I do
try to calm down a bit if you can
-
you wrote that the SCOTUS "created a new law"
they did no such thing
you seem to have way more emotional investment in this topic than I do
try to calm down a bit if you can
Once again you lie. I said the Supreme Court LEGALIZED the right for same sex couples to get married. This in effect created a new law.
As I said just a few posts up:
"Supreme Court decision legalizing Same Sex Marriage. Creating a new law, a new right, a SPECIAL right that has never existed before in our country's history. The LEGAL right for someone to marry a member of the same sex, whether gay or straight."
A month ago this right and this law did not exist. Now it does. Anybody can see this and so can you. You want to deny it and obfuscate the issue to promote your gay agenda. I understand. That's what gay activists do.
I do have a huge investment in these issues because it determines the direction our culture and society moves. A direction I believe is
not going in a positive direction. It's because of people like you that what to cram your lifestyle and beliefs down other people's throats and are willing to lie about it.
I despise people like you because besmirch the reputation of the majority of decent gay people out there. You disproportionately misrepresent your people's position and breed resentment and hostility.
I'm not going to waste anymore time on you because it's pointless to discuss any issue with someone who is simply not an honest person. I will content myself knowing that you have been exposed as what you are. A gay activist that is willing to lie to promote your lifestyle and agenda and cram your beliefs and lifestyle down everybody throats and will use the force of government coercion when it suits your needs.
-
gayer than a heterosexual getting all worked up over gay marriage.
-
Once again you lie. I said the Supreme Court LEGALIZED the right for same sex couples to get married. This in effect created a new law.
As I said just a few posts up:
"Supreme Court decision legalizing Same Sex Marriage. Creating a new law, a new right, a SPECIAL right that has never existed before in our country's history. The LEGAL right for someone to marry a member of the same sex, whether gay or straight."
A month ago this right and this law did not exist. Now it does. Anybody can see this and so can you. You want to deny it and obfuscate the issue to promote your gay agenda. I understand. That's what gay activists do.
I do have a huge investment in these issues because it determines the direction our culture and society moves. A direction I believe is
not going in a positive direction. It's because of people like you that what to cram your lifestyle and beliefs down other people's throats and are willing to lie about it.
I despise people like you because besmirch the reputation of the majority of decent gay people out there. You disproportionately misrepresent your people's position and breed resentment and hostility.
I'm not going to waste anymore time on you because it's pointless to discuss any issue with someone who is simply not an honest person. I will content myself knowing that you have been exposed as what you are. A gay activist that is willing to lie to promote your lifestyle and agenda and cram your beliefs and lifestyle down everybody throats and will use the force of government coercion when it suits your needs.
they created nothing
they recognized a situation where equal protection under the law was being denied
I have no investment in this issue
why would you despise me when you don't even know me?
you seem to have a very emotional approach on this issue
why is that?
-
gayer than a heterosexual getting all worked up over gay marriage.
Because you're a sheep. You just do what you are told. You stand for nothing in life. Now that gays can marry a member of the same sex what's to prevent two straight male roommates from marrying so they can receive benefits paid for by tax payers? What's to prevent someone from marrying their brother, sister, mother, father, daughter, son, their cat or dog? What's to prevent having two, three, four... wives or husbands? What's to prevent having a man having two wives and two husbands?
But I don't worry about guys like you. You're way to self absorb and don't really follow the current issues of the day and can't be bothered to vote or get involved in anything other than your own shallow, self-absorbed life style. You just go where ever you and your kind are herded.
-
Once again you lie. I said the Supreme Court LEGALIZED the right for same sex couples to get married. This in effect created a new law.
As I said just a few posts up:
"Supreme Court decision legalizing Same Sex Marriage. Creating a new law, a new right, a SPECIAL right that has never existed before in our country's history. The LEGAL right for someone to marry a member of the same sex, whether gay or straight."
A month ago this right and this law did not exist. Now it does. Anybody can see this and so can you. You want to deny it and obfuscate the issue to promote your gay agenda. I understand. That's what gay activists do.
I do have a huge investment in these issues because it determines the direction our culture and society moves. A direction I believe is
not going in a positive direction. It's because of people like you that what to cram your lifestyle and beliefs down other people's throats and are willing to lie about it.
I despise people like you because besmirch the reputation of the majority of decent gay people out there. You disproportionately misrepresent your people's position and breed resentment and hostility.
I'm not going to waste anymore time on you because it's pointless to discuss any issue with someone who is simply not an honest person. I will content myself knowing that you have been exposed as what you are. A gay activist that is willing to lie to promote your lifestyle and agenda and cram your beliefs and lifestyle down everybody throats and will use the force of government coercion when it suits your needs.
the SCOTUS did not create a new law or a special right
they recognized that a right had been denied and is now legally available to anyone
you say you have a HUGE INVESTMENT and I've said I have no investment
other than your obvious panic (for whatever reason)
what is your huge investment?
-
the SCOTUS did not create a new law or a special right
they recognized that a right had been denied and is now legally available to anyone
you say you have a HUGE INVESTMENT and I've said I have no investment
other than your obvious panic (for whatever reason)
what is your huge investment?
pellius must be gay (and there's nothing wrong with that) but he's deeply ashamed about it and that's the reason for his panic and huge investment.
-
pellius must be gay (and there's nothing wrong with that) but he's deeply ashamed about it and that's the reason for his panic and huge investment.
could be
I don't know the guy
I have noticed that people like him love to use the imagery of having something crammed down their throat.
I've seen that often on this site and in the media too
I wonder if they even realize it?
Once again you lie. I said the Supreme Court LEGALIZED the right for same sex couples to get married. This in effect created a new law.
As I said just a few posts up:
"Supreme Court decision legalizing Same Sex Marriage. Creating a new law, a new right, a SPECIAL right that has never existed before in our country's history. The LEGAL right for someone to marry a member of the same sex, whether gay or straight."
A month ago this right and this law did not exist. Now it does. Anybody can see this and so can you. You want to deny it and obfuscate the issue to promote your gay agenda. I understand. That's what gay activists do.
I do have a huge investment in these issues because it determines the direction our culture and society moves. A direction I believe is
not going in a positive direction. It's because of people like you that what to cram your lifestyle and beliefs down other people's throats and are willing to lie about it.
I despise people like you because besmirch the reputation of the majority of decent gay people out there. You disproportionately misrepresent your people's position and breed resentment and hostility.
I'm not going to waste anymore time on you because it's pointless to discuss any issue with someone who is simply not an honest person. I will content myself knowing that you have been exposed as what you are. A gay activist that is willing to lie to promote your lifestyle and agenda and cram your beliefs and lifestyle down everybody throats and will use the force of government coercion when it suits your needs.
-
pellius must be gay (and there's nothing wrong with that) but he's deeply ashamed about it and that's the reason for his panic and huge investment.
So if you oppose the gay activist movement that means you're gay.
With every post you make you confirm my suspicion that you just are not an intelligent and educated person.
And there is a lot wrong with that.
-
could be
I don't know the guy
I have noticed that people like him love to use the imagery of having something crammed down their throat.
I've seen that often on this site and in the media too
I wonder if they even realize it?
What imagery is that?
-
...
Every argument you make was also made after 1967 Loving v Virginia, which overturned all miscegenation laws. Your arguments will have the same effect on future generations as theirs did on us.
-
Every argument you make was also made after 1967 Loving v Virginia, which overturned all miscegenation laws. Your arguments will have the same effect on future generations as theirs did on us.
Interracial marriage is quite different from same sex marriage. A race/ethnicity is a state of being. You are
born a certain race. Homosexuality is a behavior. You may argue correctly that a person's attraction to the same sex is innate but acting on that propensity or attraction is a chosen behavior. That is not to imply that in this case choosing to act on your inclinations or attractions is wrong, say like in the case where it's in one's nature to be sexually attracted to prepubescent children.
The issue is that no one had the right to marry a member of the same sex. Five unelected Judges changed that. It should have been left to the legislative process. It has been voted down every time it came up and the activist always over rides the will of the people and takes it to the judges.
This was a matter for the States. It's similar to Roe v Wade. Abortion was already legal in 13 States including my State of Hawaii. The 10th Amendment makes it crystal clear what powers the Federal Government had and it is very precise and limited.
This matter should have been left to the States.
-
to say that a person's attraction to the same sex is innate but acting on that propensity or attraction is a chosen behavior makes no sense. You're saying people can fall in love with anyone of any race because race is innate. But while sexual attraction is also innate, you're not allowed to fall in love who you're attracted to.
the majority does not get to define what rights to give the minority. that is what the constitution is for. the role of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution. They interpreted, just like the court in 1967 did, that the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law, applies to marriage.
(http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/5/56/marriage.png)
(chart needs to be updated)
Also, "states rights, states rights" for things one disagree with, such as abortion, same sex marriage, etc, but not for things you agree with, such as gun rights, corporation rights, election finance laws, etc
-
"to say that a person's attraction to the same sex is innate but acting on that propensity or attraction is a chosen behavior makes no sense."
Tim, you've always struck me as a reasonable person and never made any bones about being gay. I am surprised that you don't distinguish between what someone wants to do, has the urge to do, has the innate desire to do, and actually acting on it. Acting on it is a choice.
As I mentioned in the case of pedophilia, a person has an innate sexual attraction to prepubescent children. But that doesn't mean he can act on it.
A Priest can have an innate sexual attraction to either a man or a women or both but taking a vow of chasity forbids him from acting on it.
This doesn't just apply to sexual behavior. Hell, it is human nature to be selfish. To just take what you want than work for it. It is natural to eat like a dog than to use a knife and fork. To just shit and pee anywhere. Civil and decent behavior has to taught and much of a man's natural behavior and propensities has to be stifled and controlled.
Wanting to act or behave at certain way doesn't automatically mean you should.
Again this is not to imply that homosexuals are not allowed to act on their desires. Only to distinguish between a behavior, choosing to act on a behavior, and a state of being, i.e., race. You can't choose to be another race although this line is also being blurred. And I am not saying you are allowed to marry someone of a different race solely because it is innate. It's because there is inherently no difference (from a human point of view) between a Black or a White or an Indian or a Chinese, but there is a big difference between a man and a woman.
And if the majority doesn't get to decide then that implies you believe the minority should decide for the majority. Is that what you believe? And where in the Constitution does it even address the legal right to marry a member of the same sex? It has never been allowed in the history of our country or in the history of mankind. This is not to say that two people can't get married in whatever church will allow it. They can live together and give each other any rights to their property they want. It's when they force others to recognize, via government coercion, to honor their union even though it goes against their religion. What about their rights? The right to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim all who consider homosexuality a sin.
Like I said, Hugh Hefner for all practical purposes live his life as a polygamous but no one cared because he didn't impose his life style on anybody else. Didn't demand that the government get involved and demand that other people accept and honor his lifestyle. He just did his thing and didn't bother anybody else.
-
"Also, "states rights, states rights" for things one disagree with, such as abortion, same sex marriage, etc, but not for things you agree with, such as gun rights, corporation rights, election finance laws, etc"
I don't understand this statement. The decision regarding abortion, same sex marriage, specific gun rights should be left to the State. I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to in regard to corporations and election finance laws. And when I say specific gun rights it is taking into account the specific right of gun owners guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment which supersedes State law.
-
"to say that a person's attraction to the same sex is innate but acting on that propensity or attraction is a chosen behavior makes no sense."
Tim, you've always struck me as a reasonable person and never made any bones about being gay. I am surprised that you don't distinguish between what someone wants to do, has the urge to do, has the innate desire to do, and actually acting on it. Acting on it is a choice.
As I mentioned in the case of pedophilia, a person has an innate sexual attraction to prepubescent children. But that doesn't mean he can act on it.
A Priest can have an innate sexual attraction to either a man or a women or both but taking a vow of chasity forbids him from acting on it.
This doesn't just apply to sexual behavior. Hell, it is human nature to be selfish. To just take what you want than work for it. It is natural to eat like a dog than to use a knife and fork. To just shit and pee anywhere. Civil and decent behavior has to taught and much of a man's natural behavior and propensities has to be stifled and controlled.
Wanting to act or behave at certain way doesn't automatically mean you should.
Again this is not to imply that homosexuals are not allowed to act on their desires. Only to distinguish between a behavior, choosing to act on a behavior, and a state of being, i.e., race. You can't choose to be another race although this line is also being blurred. And I am not saying you are allowed to marry someone of a different race solely because it is innate. It's because there is inherently no difference (from a human point of view) between a Black or a White or an Indian or a Chinese, but there is a big difference between a man and a woman.
And if the majority doesn't get to decide then that implies you believe the minority should decide for the majority. Is that what you believe? And where in the Constitution does it even address the legal right to marry a member of the same sex? It has never been allowed in the history of our country or in the history of mankind. This is not to say that two people can't get married in whatever church will allow it. They can live together and give each other any rights to their property they want. It's when they force others to recognize, via government coercion, to honor their union even though it goes against their religion. What about their rights? The right to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim all who consider homosexuality a sin.
Like I said, Hugh Hefner for all practical purposes live his life as a polygamous but no one cared because he didn't impose his life style on anybody else. Didn't demand that the government get involved and demand that other people accept and honor his lifestyle. He just did his thing and didn't bother anybody else.
Good post...
-
the 2nd Amendment which supersedes State law.
The 14th Amendment also supersedes state law.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Marriage is a civil contract: You two agree to take care of each other, and we (society) agree to make it easier for you to do so. The courts have found that the 14th Amendment applies to same sex unions.
so why not siblings? because society has found that there is a high risk of genetic defects in siblings who have children. why not underage? because children are unable to give consent. Why not polygamy? Because society has found that there tends to be a lot of abuse, lesser wives get abused, children of lesser wives get neglected and abused. Despite the bigotry, society has not found any rational reason to ban same sex marriage.
while some religions feel homosexuality is a sin, that is not a reason for a secular government to ban it. Many religions are against second marriages, marriages between people of different religion and of different colors. The bible was the primary argument for miscegenation laws. Yet we do not have laws enforcing those church beliefs. And just as churches are not forced to marry people of different religions, they don't have to be involved in gay marriage.
-
So if you oppose the gay activist movement that means you're gay.
no, but you're more concerned about gay marriage than Pope Francis is.
so you clearly have a deep personal emotional stake in the issue.
pellius, it's ok to be gay.
God (if One exists) still loves you.
-
The 14th Amendment also supersedes state law.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sorry, I don't see how this limits the 10th Amendment or that Federal law supersedes State law or increases power of the Federal Government specifically outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It in a way restates and guarantees the rights of citizens so it was crystal clear during Reconstruction assuring Blacks have equal rights. I am not going to conflate and/or compare homosexuality with race
Marriage is a civil contract: You two agree to take care of each other, and we (society) agree to make it easier for you to do so. The courts have found that the 14th Amendment applies to same sex unions.
I know. Many disagree. That's why there is going to be a fight. That's why we are having this discussion.
so why not siblings? because society has found that there is a high risk of genetic defects in siblings who have children. why not underage? because children are unable to give consent. Why not polygamy? Because society has found that there tends to be a lot of abuse, lesser wives get abused, children of lesser wives get neglected and abused. Despite the bigotry, society has not found any rational reason to ban same sex marriage.
So the only reason you don't support siblings marrying is due to the chances that their children will have genetic defects? Meaning if science found a way to prevent that then you would support it? What if the husband gets his tubes cut or a man wants to marry his brother or father so as to ensure they can't have children? Is that OK? Is it the government's role to determine if your marriage is healthy? What if one or both spouse has a high propensity to pass on a genetic defect such as Down's syndrome they shouldn't be allowed to marry. And where on God's green earth did you get that notion that government outlaws polygamy because spouses or children may get neglected or abused. I am sure you realize that a large percentage of monogamous relationship often results in spouses and/or children getting abused.
And come on, Tim, these are important issues that determine which direction our society will take. Many of us take this quite seriously. It's not just an issue on homosexuality but what we as a cultural value and promote and how we define and practice our institutions. And its not always the case on what is being decided but who should decide. Don't think (especially as I already outlined some of the reasons) that I am a bigot because I disagree with your position. A this point, going by reading many posts you have made on this board on various subjects, I assume you are sincere in your beliefs. Why not grant me the same courtesy?
[/quote]
while some religions feel homosexuality is a sin, that is not a reason for a secular government to ban it. Many religions are against second marriages, marriages between people of different religion and of different colors. The bible was the primary argument for miscegenation laws. Yet we do not have laws enforcing those church beliefs. And just as churches are not forced to marry people of different religions, they don't have to be involved in gay marriage.
I never said or implied that anything should be banned because some group thinks it's a sin. I am very aware of the difference between morality and legality. I believe adultery is immoral but I would never want it to be illegal. And with the new laws it does now deprive the rights of individuals and institutions to adhere to their beliefs. There is a hospital in Torrance, Ca that I use to go to. Little Company of Mary. It is a private hospital funded by the Catholic church. They do not preform abortions because it is against their faith. They will no longer have that right.
-
no, but you're more concerned about gay marriage than Pope Francis is.
so you clearly have a deep personal emotional stake in the issue.
pellius, it's ok to be gay.
God (if One exists) still loves you.
STFU! Go back to the WYHI or the DLB threads where you belong. Adults are trying to talk here.
These are the times when I so wish to have this discussion with you in person when you don't have access to google. I love exposing just how ignorant your generation is.
Then I would beat the living shit out of you just out of pure pleasure.
-
STFU! Go back to the WYHI or the DLB threads where you belong. Adults are trying to talk here.
These are the times when I so wish to have this discussion with you in person when you don't have access to google. I love exposing just how ignorant your generation is.
Then I would beat the living shit out of you just out of pure pleasure.
you're not fooling anybody ... sounding like a "tough guy" doesn't change your sexual orientation.
and, again, it's ok to be gay.
-
you're not fooling anybody ... sounding like a "tough guy" doesn't change your sexual orientation.
and, again, it's ok to be gay.
Because nobody has to be fooled. And it's not so much whether I am such a tough guy but the fact that you
are a big pussy. I would wipe the floor with you and then piss on you, phaggot!
-
There is a hospital in Torrance, Ca that I use to go to. Little Company of Mary. It is a private hospital funded by the Catholic church. They do not preform abortions because it is against their faith. They will no longer have that right.
Citation please. I find nothing googling Providence Little Company of Mary Hospital abortion. If they're not accepting any government grants then they're not being forced to do things against their religious beliefs. If they apply for government funds then they're agreeing to follow the rules set forth in the grant.
-
Citation please. I find nothing googling Providence Little Company of Mary Hospital abortion. If they're not accepting any government grants then they're not being forced to do things against their religious beliefs. If they apply for government funds then they're agreeing to follow the rules set forth in the grant.
The citation is the law just passed. My sister works at The Little Company of Mary. Already businesses are being forced to cater to gays when it's against their beliefs. Remember the case about the photographer who didn't want to do a gay wedding or the Pizza place that didn't want to cater a gay wedding?
But I do want to get it on record that you don't support forcing people to engage in gay functions or activities for religious reasons or really for any reason?
-
STFU! Go back to the WYHI or the DLB threads where you belong. Adults are trying to talk here.
These are the times when I so wish to have this discussion with you in person when you don't have access to google. I love exposing just how ignorant your generation is.
Then I would beat the living shit out of you just out of pure pleasure.
Be careful Tom, discussion is code for ass fuck in pellius lingo
-
Because nobody has to be fooled. And it's not so much whether I am such a tough guy but the fact that you
are a big pussy. I would wipe the floor with you and then piss on you, phaggot!
ok, by using the insult "phaggot" you clearly cannot possibly be gay because why would a closeted gay man use that derogatory term?
-
Be careful Tom, discussion is code for ass fuck in pellius lingo
The mighty Hurricane Beef!
LMAO!
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=575714.0;attach=626939;image)
-
The citation is the law just passed. My sister works at The Little Company of Mary. Already businesses are being forced to cater to gays when it's against their beliefs. Remember the case about the photographer who didn't want to do a gay wedding or the Pizza place that didn't want to cater a gay wedding?
the photographer case and the bakery case were both in states with anti-discrimination laws where sexual orientation is a protected class. Just like a black bakery owner can't deny service to a white patron because they're white, a gay florist cannot deny service to a straight couple because they're straight. however, in most states, sexual orientation is not a protected class. In those states it is perfectly legal to post a sign in your business's window "No gays allowed".
the pizza place was in walkerton, Indiana, where it is perfectly ok to post a No Gays Allowed sign. The pizza place was barely making ends meet (how much pizza can you sell in a town of 2100 people?) before their story went viral. then all the religious right rubes gave them $800k (http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza) (tax free by the way) to protect their freedom to say stupid things which was more than they could ever had hoped to make selling 4-5 pizzas a day, so they closed up shop and lived happily ever after.
But I do want to get it on record that you don't support forcing people to engage in gay functions or activities for religious reasons or really for any reason?
yes, if you don't want to get gay married, then don't get gay married.
on the other hand, if you're a pharmacist but think it is wrong to dispense birth control to unmarried women, then perhaps you should find another occupation. the distinction is that to be a pharmacist requires a license from the state, so the state gets to set the rules.
the same with a business. a business is a legal entity created by the state as a way to protect the owners of the business from liability. your business gets sued, your personal assets are still safe. your product kills someone, the owners are not going to be charged with murder. but by incorporating, the business agrees to follow the rules of that state. If that state has anti-discrimination laws, then by incorporating you're agreeing to follow those rules.
-
ok, by using the insult "phaggot" you clearly cannot possibly be gay because why would a closeted gay man use that derogatory term?
What a brilliant phaggot you are.
-
Pellius,
I will make this very simple for you.
Let's pretend that every gay person chooses to be gay
so what?
makes no difference at all to the argument as whether they have a legal right to get married
regarding other kinds of marriage between consenting adults I say legalize it all
If siblings want to get married that is fine and if 3 or 4 people want to get married that's fine too
It's not like siblings can't have sex if they want to and I'm not aware of millions of siblings in this country already in committed relationships who want to get married so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
You yourself can choose whatever kind of marriage that you prefer and you can mind your own business as to what other people choose
I personally find your beliefs to be repugnant but you have the freedom to say whatever you want and I wouldn't whine that your speech needs to be hidden because it's akin to taking a shit or being racist or that personal dog fantasy that you mentioned earlier. Making that kind of comparison would just be stupid.
-
the photographer case and the bakery case were both in states with anti-discrimination laws where sexual orientation is a protected class. Just like a black bakery owner can't deny service to a white patron because they're white, a gay florist cannot deny service to a straight couple because they're straight. however, in most states, sexual orientation is not a protected class. In those states it is perfectly legal to post a sign in your business's window "No gays allowed".
the pizza place was in walkerton, Indiana, where it is perfectly ok to post a No Gays Allowed sign. The pizza place was barely making ends meet (how much pizza can you sell in a town of 2100 people?) before their story went viral. then all the religious right rubes gave them $800k (http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza) (tax free by the way) to protect their freedom to say stupid things which was more than they could ever had hoped to make selling 4-5 pizzas a day, so they closed up shop and lived happily ever after.
yes, if you don't want to get gay married, then don't get gay married.
on the other hand, if you're a pharmacist but think it is wrong to dispense birth control to unmarried women, then perhaps you should find another occupation. the distinction is that to be a pharmacist requires a license from the state, so the state gets to set the rules.
the same with a business. a business is a legal entity created by the state as a way to protect the owners of the business from liability. your business gets sued, your personal assets are still safe. your product kills someone, the owners are not going to be charged with murder. but by incorporating, the business agrees to follow the rules of that state. If that state has anti-discrimination laws, then by incorporating you're agreeing to follow those rules.
You make some good points that I would like to address but again I find myself in a position that so often happens when engage in a serious discussion. Someone, in this case you, presents their views and supporting arguments. And because I believe that you are a sincere person, more interested maybe not so much in changing my view but seeking clarity and truth and not engaging in a pissing match, I take you seriously. So I take the trouble and considerable time to address your arguments, often point by point, but then find it has just been ignored and you just move on to another issue or argument.
You implies that the 14th Amendment was about superseding State law. It was created follow Reconstruction guaranteeing Blacks equal rights. A war was already fought and won guaranteeing equal rights to everybody, specifically Blacks. The issue was, are Blacks equal.
But more importantly and pertinent to the issue at hand, is the reasons you gave why government, and presumably society, doesn't recognize other forms of marriage such a polygamy, siblings marrying... The implication being that government has a right to determine whether people can marry based on the predicted health of their children (though I've given examples where a couple is guaranteed not to have children) or whether a spouse or child may be neglected or abused.
With all due respect, not only is this simply not true I suspect you just made that up as it reflects your own personal beliefs.
You did address my last retort regarding the rights of those whose religion compels them to resist all attempts for supporting gay marriage as well as the gay lifestyle in general. And, again, just to be precise, I don't mean preventing gays from living their lives but being forced to support it.
But I would like you to address my previous rebuttals, especially your stated reason why, now that we have redefined marriage, that other forms such as polygamy, siblings, two straight roommates..., should not be allowed.
-
But I would like you to address my previous rebuttals, especially your stated reason why, now that we have redefined marriage, that other forms such as polygamy, siblings, two straight roommates..., should not be allowed.
My views on polygamy are not my own. Here are a couple of links
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal/polygamy-is-bad-for-women
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.html
In current and historic societies that polygamy was practiced, women didn't have much of a say in the matter. In addition, it creates a class of lost-boys who tend to be exiled from the community when they reach young adulthood. In a future non-patriarchal society they can readdress this issue if they want.
I have no problem with any two people not related marrying. Many straight people have marriages of convenience . that is they're not romantically in love, but they marry for other reasons. So two straight roommates want to get married, go for it. But remember that you can only be married to one person at a time, and divorce can be costly.
When debating "slippery slope" one has to consider how likely is it. There has always been millions of same sex couples living in committed relationships, many raising children. Same sex marriage simply recognizes those relationships and grants them the benefits that opposite sex families receive in marriage. There are not millions or even thousands of siblings living in committed relationships. There are some, but not many, people in polyamorous relationships, where all are in committed relationships with each other. Now if they want to make the case that their relationships should receive the benefits of marriage, I will listen with an open mind.
-
My views on polygamy are not my own. Here are a couple of links
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal/polygamy-is-bad-for-women
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.html
In current and historic societies that polygamy was practiced, women didn't have much of a say in the matter. In addition, it creates a class of lost-boys who tend to be exiled from the community when they reach young adulthood. In a future non-patriarchal society they can readdress this issue if they want.
I have no problem with any two people not related marrying. Many straight people have marriages of convenience . that is they're not romantically in love, but they marry for other reasons. So two straight roommates want to get married, go for it. But remember that you can only be married to one person at a time, and divorce can be costly.
When debating "slippery slope" one has to consider how likely is it. There has always been millions of same sex couples living in committed relationships, many raising children. Same sex marriage simply recognizes those relationships and grants them the benefits that opposite sex families receive in marriage. There are not millions or even thousands of siblings living in committed relationships. There are some, but not many, people in polyamorous relationships, where all are in committed relationships with each other. Now if they want to make the case that their relationships should receive the benefits of marriage, I will listen with an open mind.
gay people don't need to defend or justify any other forms of marriage in order to defend or suppor their own right to get married
-
Jarrod the Subway guy chose to watch kitty porn and society is going to knock him down and fuck him up. Because so many are mentally ill with being homo, and homos took over Hollywood/media, society can't knock them down and fuck their life up. They gained too much control. It's sucks that there aren't more homo's that come out(and are liberal) and say they're mentally ill and it needs to stop. Instead they jump in line and and go with the flow. Around every corner you will find a homo who is also an attention whore. It almost goes hand and hand. There should be thousands if not millions of homos out there that say that its a sick choice and they need help. But they are no where to be found. The media won't give them a platform. So they fall in line an accept their fate. Just like the freak Jarrod and his kitty porn, the homo's also have a choice. Yet they've gained power and now the majority isn't allowed to speak the truth. We are living in hell people. The truly mentally ill have taken over. We are not that far off before the Subway Jarrod's of the world take control and more and more mentally ill fall in line and be silent like the homo's did. Fuck up world we are living in...We are 20 to 30 years away from Jarrod the Subway guy being a hero. WTF!!!
-
Jarrod the Subway guy chose to watch kitty porn and society is going to knock him down and fuck him up. Because so many are mentally ill with being homo, and homos took over Hollywood/media, society can't knock them down and fuck their life up. They gained too much control. It's sucks that there aren't more homo's that come out(and are liberal) and say they're mentally ill and it needs to stop. Instead they jump in line and and go with the flow. Around every corner you will find a homo who is also an attention whore. It almost goes hand and hand. There should be thousands if not millions of homos out there that say that its a sick choice and they need help. But they are no where to be found. The media won't give them a platform. So they fall in line an accept their fate. Just like the freak Jarrod and his kitty porn, the homo's also have a choice. Yet they've gained power and now the majority isn't allowed to speak the truth. We are living in hell people. The truly mentally ill have taken over. We are not that far off before the Subway Jarrod's of the world take control and more and more mentally ill fall in line and be silent like the homo's did. Fuck up world we are living in...We are 20 to 30 years away from Jarrod the Subway guy being a hero. WTF!!!
1) Jarrod Fogle hasn't been arrested yet, let alone charged with anything, let alone convicted of anything
2) homosexuality was considered a mental illness for generations, and thousands of gays and lesbians sought treatment. and guess what. treatment didn't work, in fact it made things worse, and the scientific community figured out that homosexuality is just a normal variation of sexuality that occurs in both animals and humans.
-
Interracial marriage is quite different from same sex marriage. A race/ethnicity is a state of being. You are
born a certain race. Homosexuality is a behavior. You may argue correctly that a person's attraction to the same sex is innate but acting on that propensity or attraction is a chosen behavior. That is not to imply that in this case choosing to act on your inclinations or attractions is wrong, say like in the case where it's in one's nature to be sexually attracted to prepubescent children.
The issue is that no one had the right to marry a member of the same sex. Five unelected Judges changed that. It should have been left to the legislative process. It has been voted down every time it came up and the activist always over rides the will of the people and takes it to the judges.
This was a matter for the States. It's similar to Roe v Wade. Abortion was already legal in 13 States including my State of Hawaii. The 10th Amendment makes it crystal clear what powers the Federal Government had and it is very precise and limited.
This matter should have been left to the States.
Where is proof of this?
Should the issue of interracial marriage and slavery be left to the States as well?
-
How is gay marriage considered a "special right"?
Special rights are things that are allowed for certain groups but denied to others. Like a church not paying taxes. By the very instance of denying gays to marry, that would make heterosexual marriage a "special right".
-
My views on polygamy are not my own. Here are a couple of links
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal/polygamy-is-bad-for-women
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.html
In current and historic societies that polygamy was practiced, women didn't have much of a say in the matter. In addition, it creates a class of lost-boys who tend to be exiled from the community when they reach young adulthood. In a future non-patriarchal society they can readdress this issue if they want.
I have no problem with any two people not related marrying. Many straight people have marriages of convenience . that is they're not romantically in love, but they marry for other reasons. So two straight roommates want to get married, go for it. But remember that you can only be married to one person at a time, and divorce can be costly.
When debating "slippery slope" one has to consider how likely is it. There has always been millions of same sex couples living in committed relationships, many raising children. Same sex marriage simply recognizes those relationships and grants them the benefits that opposite sex families receive in marriage. There are not millions or even thousands of siblings living in committed relationships. There are some, but not many, people in polyamorous relationships, where all are in committed relationships with each other. Now if they want to make the case that their relationships should receive the benefits of marriage, I will listen with an open mind.
Will reply when I get more time.
-
How is gay marriage considered a "special right"?
Special rights are things that are allowed for certain groups but denied to others. Like a church not paying taxes. By the very instance of denying gays to marry, that would make heterosexual marriage a "special right".
I've already addressed this several times in this thread. I will again because most people don't fully understand and conflate the issue of gay marriage vis-a-vis same sex marriage and existing rights and new rights.
I've repeated this over and over and over and over again and I am truly astounded how anyone fails to comprehend this very simple concept. I will try again. And to clarify for those that are dishonest and change the very premise of the debate when they find themselves on the losing end I am speaking of before the recent Supreme Court decision
allowing for Same Sex marriage.
Now to answer your question:
First of all, it is a misnomer to talk about "Gay Marriage". We are talking about Same Sex marriage. This is an important distinction because prior to the Supreme Court decision (I'm going to have to keep adding this in deference to the dishonest), Gays had the same rights as everybody else regardless if they are Heterosexuals, Lesbians, Polygamous or what have you in today's world. That being the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, again regardless of their sexual preference. Again, I want (have) to repeat, EVERYONE HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. I like to quote Arnold on this when he was running for governor as it shows his wit and understanding of the issue, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a woman."
In the case of Same Sex marriage NO ONE had the legal right (to be endorse, recognized and protected by the government) to marry a member of the opposite sex. NO ONE, gay or straight. A new right was created. A right that has never existed in the history of this country or the world.
Prior to the recent Supreme Court decision.
NO ONE HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO MARRY A MEMBER OF THE SAME SEX.
EVERYONE HAD THE SAME RIGHT, AND EQUAL RIGHT, TO MARRY A MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITE SEX.
I simply can't make it any clearer than that and if you can't understand or comprehend this relatively simply concept then no debate is possible. The issue is not whether you agree or disagree with people marrying someone of the opposite sex but can you even grasp the concept of a practice and behavior that wasn't legally recognized as a right and to now do so constitutes a new right.
-
Where is proof of this?
Should the issue of interracial marriage and slavery be left to the States as well?
I've already address this issue and distinguished between someone's race and someone's sexuality. I am not going to do it again. Read what I wrote previously and I you want me to clarify something I will. If don't what to read what I wrote previously on this thread then no need to ask me the question again. My answer will not change in 24 hours.
And what do you mean by proof? Proof that we have a 10th Amendment? Proof that there are enumerated powers specifically stated and limited to the Federal Government in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution?
That's part of what the who debate is about. How we interpret these laws. Why the Civil War was fought. Was it only about slavery? You think nearly 600,000 from the North alone that were either killed, wounded, capture or missing fought in that war because they just wanted equal rights for Negroes? Even calling it a Civil War (like calling it Gay Marriage) is a misnomer as a Civil War is where a one group of the same nation seeks to overthrow the existing government and establish their own. No one wanted to overthrow Lincoln. The North wanted to secede from the South as was their right, the same right America used to secede from the British.
Calling it "The War Between the States", or better yet, "The War of Secession" would be more accurate as would be calling it the war between the "Confederates and Federals" instead of between the "South and North".
So to talk about "proof" is meaningless. It's about interpretation, what side you're on, and who wins the fight.
-
perhaps people are confused because you just referred to same sex marriage as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex...?
hope this helps
-
I've already address this issue and distinguished between someone's race and someone's sexuality.
Your argument is one of Immutable Characteristics vs. Chosen Behavior
1) race is a social construct. there are no genes that determine what race you belong to. nor can you name a single feature that solely determines what race you belong to. and the definition of race changes over time and place. Until very recently, white meant northern european.
2) sexual orientation is something you're born with. no behavior is required. My first sexual experience was when I was 20. I was not heterosexual the day before and homosexual the day after.
3) religion is something people choose, yet it is a protected class. Lots of special privileges given to religions. (don't pay taxes on income, employers have to give reasonable accommodation, for example time off on religious holidays, dress code, facial hair)
NO ONE HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO MARRY A MEMBER OF THE SAME SEX.
EVERYONE HAD THE SAME RIGHT, AND EQUAL RIGHT, TO MARRY A MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITE SEX.
No one had the legal right to marry someone of a different race. Everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race.
The issue is not whether you agree or disagree with people marrying someone of the opposite sex but can you even grasp the concept of a practice and behavior that wasn't legally recognized as a right and to now do so constitutes a new right.
Now everyone has the right to marry the one that they love. (as long as they are of legal age and not too closely related) #loveWins
-
perhaps people are confused because you just referred to same sex marriage as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex...?
hope this helps
Yes it does. Especially this particular issue where precise definitions are important.
In any debate, discussion or argument, I always want to leave open the possibility that I may be wrong. But whether right or wrong I also always want to be precise both in my language and reasoning.
The egregious and sloppy error has been corrected.
-
the scientific community figured out that homosexuality is just a normal variation of sexuality
Sure. In reality homosexuality is completely fucking filthy, abnormal, and carries along with it a host of severe health consequences.
-
Your argument is one of Immutable Characteristics vs. Chosen Behavior
1) race is a social construct. there are no genes that determine what race you belong to. nor can you name a single feature that solely determines what race you belong to. and the definition of race changes over time and place. Until very recently, white meant northern european.
You are not entirely inaccurate. Race isn't as cut and dried as people think. But there are certain biological traits and genetic markers that express themselves in varying frequencies among the human population. The obvious one being Black skin for Blacks yet there exists "Light Skinned" blacks. But this is what the goal is for the progressive. To blur or eliminate all distinctions. If you feel you are a woman you can be a woman and have to be treated as a woman. Or the recent case of a White woman, who has no history of any relative stemming from Africa, can call herself Black because she feels Black.
Many think this is a good thing. I don't. That's why we have these discussions. That why we have conflict in our society.
2) sexual orientation is something you're born with. no behavior is required. My first sexual experience was when I was 20. I was not heterosexual the day before and homosexual the day after.
Yes, I agree. Just like a heterosexual virgin or someone who takes the vow of chastity is still a heterosexual. Conversely, and this is something that most people can't understand; acting out a sexual behavior does necessarily mean you are of this bent. Specifically, for the sake of this discussion, engaging in gay behavior does not automatically make you gay as such. Again this is presuming that homosexuality is defined as being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. A definition I except. In certain segments of our culture, if not the majority of our culture, being bisexual is now seen as chic and hip and many engage in such behavior so as to be in the "In" or "Cool" crowd. Another example is the amount of homosexual behavior that goes on in prison. It's not like when you become a felon your innate sexual orientation changes. There are a myriad of factors that determine one's sexual behavior and practices other than just physical attraction.
3) religion is something people choose, yet it is a protected class. Lots of special privileges given to religions. (don't pay taxes on income, employers have to give reasonable accommodation, for example time off on religious holidays, dress code, facial hair)
Yes, and I am against the majority, if not all, of those accommodations. I don't believe an employer in most cases has a legal obligation to observe other people's beliefs or practices -- religious or otherwise. I don't even believe an employer has a legal obligation to pay for maternity leave. Having a child is a personal choice and no one else should be forced to finance that decision. If an employer chooses do it should be view as an employee BENEFIT and not an entitlement. And the idea that a woman should have a legal right to wear a burka if she wants to work at Hooters is just silly. You do give up some of your rights when you work for an employer
No one had the legal right to marry someone of a different race. Everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race.
Now everyone has the right to marry the one that they love. (as long as they are of legal age and not too closely related) #loveWins
"As long"? So there are limits. It's just that you want your limits to trump mine.
If love is a sufficient criteria to get married that leaves open endless possibilities. I can say with the utmost sincerity that I love my dog. But now that the definition of marriage has been redefined it now becomes an issue as to why other unions are nor permitted (legal age (marriage does not always imply or even include sexual relations and isn't "legal age" just another social construct?) or relatives (how close is too close?)).
But this is a discussion I want to pursue from your previous posts and reasons given. Understand, it's just me against the board defend my views and beliefs. Even though I believe I represent the majority once the arguments are understood and as reflected on elections and referendums it is the complacency of the majority that is causing them to lose. By varying estimate from a variety of groups and organization, the percentage of actual gay and lesbians are estimated to be between 2-5%. You would think it would be closer to 50% given their disproportional political clout. But when you are in the minority you are far more motivated to fight and be more active in your cause. You are the little guy that everyone wants to keep down. The majority, comfortable in their majority, are complacent. They only roused into action often when it's too late. There are many on this very board that agree with me. But they remain silent. They don't want to be bothered. They want to check out the Crossfit babes and make fun of Hurricane Beef. And it's not just because of the kind of board this is. They are like that in their everyday life. Just preoccupied doing their own thing and "will worry about it later".
Though it's a vastly different situation this is what has happened to Greece. Socialism is great. You live high on the hog at someone else's expense and beyond your means. It's a nice comfortable life -- until the money runs out. But there were only a few that were warning of this inevitability. But no cared because they were enjoying their constant vacations enjoying their wine and cheese.
-
If love is a sufficient criteria to get married that leaves open endless possibilities. I can say with the utmost sincerity that I love my dog.
Do you know how offensive it is for you compare the love that you have towards a dog to the love that I have for the person I want to spend the rest of my life with?
Have you ever been in love? Do you believe that same sex couples cannot feel the same intensity that opposite sex couples do?
The definition of marriage has changed. It is no longer a business transaction between a man and one or more fathers of girls. Now, most of the time anyway, it is about love.
-
Do you know how offensive it is for you compare the love that you have towards a dog to the love that I have for the person I want to spend the rest of my life with?
Have you ever been in love? Do you believe that same sex couples cannot feel the same intensity that opposite sex couples do?
The definition of marriage has changed. It is no longer a business transaction between a man and one or more fathers of girls. Now, most of the time anyway, it is about love.
Dont know, whats it like, can you describe it?
and most people have dogs longer than they are in relationships.
-
Someone trying to argue that gay marriage and same sex marriage is two different things really is having a hard time articulate his own thoughts, whatever they may be.
How can a gay marriage exist if it isn't a same sex marriage? ???
-
Dont know, whats it like, can you describe it?
and most people have dogs longer than they are in relationships.
I bet you know that Film "Animal Farm" donīt you?
-
As far as a physique goes Bob Paris was called the new Steve reeves... says it all.
-
Do you know how offensive it is for you compare the love that you have towards a dog to the love that I have for the person I want to spend the rest of my life with?
Have you ever been in love? Do you believe that same sex couples cannot feel the same intensity that opposite sex couples do?
The definition of marriage has changed. It is no longer a business transaction between a man and one or more fathers of girls. Now, most of the time anyway, it is about love.
No. No I don't know how offensive it is. Why is it so offensive? I love my dog and plan to spend the rest of our lives together. What makes your love better than mine? How do you know how I feel about my dog? Many people love their pets a lot more than they do people. Nobody will ever get such unconditional love from their dog than they will from a person. Even from their mother.
You said everyone has the right to marry the ones they love. Now it's everyone has the right to marry the ones they love as long as Tim approves. You didn't want people limiting your rights. Now you want to limit others. What makes you think your love for your partner is better than my love for, say, my sister, whom I want to marry? And she is no longer able to have children. What if I say "how dare you compare or equate my love for a woman for your love for a man?" You would call me a bigot (again) and a homophobe.
So now it's not about "love". It's about love subject to your limitations and approval.
You want to redefine marriage. OK, you got it. But now you want to put limitations on others based on your bias and beliefs. All the reasons you gave as to why siblings shouldn't marry or why we shouldn't have polygamy I have refuted. You have not come back to counter my argument. You post some links and say "these are not my ideas".l Well, lets start again. What are YOUR ideas as to why polygamy or sibling marriage shouldn't take place? None of those reason you gave are reasons the government doesn't recognize such unions. The reason is because marriage, prior to the recent Supreme Court decision, was clearly define. Polygamy did not fit the definition not because some of the partners or children would be neglected. Your links refer to polygamy as practiced in other countries where only a man can have multiple partners. Woman will be able to as well. And siblings can be in married relationships that guarantee they won't have children. But why should you or anybody else put limits on consenting adults as to whether or not they can have children? What business is it of yours to determine how healthy ones offspring should be before you allow them to procreate? As I mentioned before, do you want government to limit one's ability to marry based on what they perceive as whether or not they will have healthy offspring? Can a couple with Down's syndrome be allowed to marry? How about a couple where both have a family history of obesity and everyone in their family tree has been a drain on the health care system? You want to prevent them from marrying; as well as siblings, multiple partners or even their dog?
Even if they love each other.
-
No. No I don't know how offensive it is. Why is it so offensive? I love my dog and plan to spend the rest of our lives together. What makes your love better than mine? How do you know how I feel about my dog? Many people love their pets a lot more than they do people. Nobody will ever get such unconditional love from their dog than they will from a person. Even from their mother.
You said everyone has the right to marry the ones they love. Now it's everyone has the right to marry the ones they love as long as Tim approves. You didn't want people limiting your rights. Now you want to limit others. What makes you think your love for your partner is better than my love for, say, my sister, whom I want to marry? And she is no longer able to have children. What if I say "how dare you compare or equate my love for a woman for your love for a man?" You would call me a bigot (again) and a homophobe.
So now it's not about "love". It's about love subject to your limitations and approval.
You want to redefine marriage. OK, you got it. But now you want to put limitations on others based on your bias and beliefs. All the reasons you gave as to why siblings shouldn't marry or why we shouldn't have polygamy I have refuted. You have not come back to counter my argument. You post some links and say "these are not my ideas".l Well, lets start again. What are YOUR ideas as to why polygamy or sibling marriage shouldn't take place? None of those reason you gave are reasons the government doesn't recognize such unions. The reason is because marriage, prior to the recent Supreme Court decision, was clearly define. Polygamy did not fit the definition not because some of the partners or children would be neglected. Your links refer to polygamy as practiced in other countries where only a man can have multiple partners. Woman will be able to as well. And siblings can be in married relationships that guarantee they won't have children. But why should you or anybody else put limits on consenting adults as to whether or not they can have children? What business is it of yours to determine how healthy ones offspring should be before you allow them to procreate? As I mentioned before, do you want government to limit one's ability to marry based on what they perceive as whether or not they will have healthy offspring? Can a couple with Down's syndrome be allowed to marry? How about a couple where both have a family history of obesity and everyone in their family tree has been a drain on the health care system? You want to prevent them from marrying; as well as siblings, multiple partners or even their dog?
Even if they love each other.
solid post, awaiting retort