On May 30 2009 11:43 travis wrote: that's because he very very clearly chooses the posts that will be easy for him to respond to, and doesn't respond to the other stuff.
this has been pointed out over and over, in other threads than this one as well.
Oh man This is one of the disadvantages internet debate has over irl debate
Another disadvantage is that I can't rebuttal with hard proven facts and make people stutter, or relinquish the arguement at hand. Though, with debates on opinions, this normally isn't the case. However, if it was IRL I would have pushed the nuclear family part further.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.
While you're using it to mean: Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.
No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy. Is pedophilia normal? Is murder, normal? Extremes, but it drives the point down, that at such huge minority, it cannot be constituted as something that is normal.
The problem with this example is that pedophilia and murder are damaging to other people. Homosexuality affects nobody except the two people involved, who in my opinion are entitled to decide what is right for them as long as it is not affecting others. You can make the argument that gay marriage affects others by giving them tax benefits or whatnot, but as long as straight couples are entitled to those benefits then the state should not be able to deny homosexual couples those same benefits. As I said in my first post, the state sanctioned institution of marriage should not exist. Have a system of unions that allows for rights such as visitation, custody, etc and be done with it. But as long as the governmental institution of marriage exists it needs to be equal for everyone regardless of their sexual affiliation.
While I agree, as long as there is state derived benefits, there should be civil unions, and marriage. To me, its a social and cultural battle as well, but I agree that they should be entitled to the same benefits, however, calling it marriage, no.
I'm just wondering how far you are going to push this. What about NAMBLA? What about Polygamy? What about pedophilia? As long as you aren't calling marriage a right, and it is indeed a benefit, then the state and ultimately the populace (voters), can decide who can, and who cannot receive that benefit. It is called a democratic notion. The will of the voters has been done.
I'd push it as far as consenting adults can decide what they do together. Pedophilia is not between consenting adults,it is an adult taking advantage of a person who does not understand the consequences of their actions, or is being forced into something they don't want to do. Polygamy should be nobody's business except those involved as long as its between adults capable of making their own decisions.
And no, the state cannot decide who can benefit from an institution such as marriage. That's called discrimination and there are laws specifically to prevent it. Accepting one type of discrimination as okay while others are not is hypocritical.
Ok, so I don't know if this has been addressed because I've only read up to page five, but I have been so disgusted with Aegraen and others that I had to post. Marriage as a religious institution is fine, but if you want it to exist as something "sacred" then it shouldn't also be something civil. EVERYTHING recognized by the state should be a "civil union" because we are supposed to be secular.
Also, can straight people get a civil union? I can't imagine why they should be discriminated against, there would be no argument. But then, gay people can't get a marriage so its not equal.
Last point: when the laws that govern the benefits of marriage inevitably change, civil unions (being different) might not automatically change with them. Separate but equal is not equal.
To those that use "its not natural/normal" argument, your computer certainly isn't natural, nor is your house, nor is anything that has been used/created since the dawn of time.
In addition, animals engaging in homosexual relationships is well documented, and more to the point, if two people love each other enough to make the commitment, then who are we to argue as outside observers that they can't just because they can't reproduce the species that way.
Just give them the civil rights of conventional couples, call it whatever you like.
Also to the guy above me, "separate but equal is not equal"
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
Fucking means copulation. Two non-human females cannot fuck. I guess you fell for it.
Fucking is slang, you can't even try to fucking give it a definite definition.
The animal world is incredibly homosexual at times. Early civilisation had homosexuality. What you mean by "normal" is what is currently accepted by society. But society can be improved.
The only reasons for not letting gays marry are bigoted and cruel.
Ah, there goes the bigot and cruel pejoratives. You realize, this is hurting the movement, not strengthening it correct? Anyways, the population can decide who receives benefits and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't infringe on any rights. A right being those granted under the Bill of Rights and US Constitution, not whatever conjured rights you make up.
Secondly, look up fuck in the merriam-webster dictionary.
Fuck is used too frequently by people who didn't look it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary for me to take Merriam seriously on this one. But that's just spitting hairs.
Just because most of the population decide that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry doesn't mean that it's not cruel and bigoted. It's bigoted because it's justified on the most ignorant grounds - 'Gay is unnatural' 'They want to make my children gay' 'They want to force churches to marry them' 'Gays are violent protesters' - and because it feeds on the bigoted anti-gay sentiment that exists. It's cruel because it punishes a segment of the population simply for their choice of sex.
Very loaded wording haha. I think most/all people will agree it's not fair to label it as 'choice.'
On May 30 2009 11:39 s_side wrote: It seems to me that there are MANY more important things we should be worrying about. I could give a shit about what you stick your dick in as long as it's of age and not retarded.
You left out the 'consenting' part lol
Haha. Indeed I did.
That issue aside, it seems to me like you have to be a pretty insecure individual to feel that your marriage is threatened by someone else's marriage to someone of the same sex.
Ah, there goes the bigot and cruel pejoratives. You realize, this is hurting the movement, not strengthening it correct? Anyways, the population can decide who receives benefits and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't infringe on any rights.
I'm trying to not get banned after my first post so I'm going to keep this extra nice. "The population can decide who receives benefits and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't infringe of any rights." This, then, means that slavery was fine? Imagine if we tried to tell all black people that they are allowed to have civil unions but that they are barred from marriage because that isn't "normal" - even thinking that would get you labeled a racist. You, instead of being racist, are homophobic.
A right being those granted under the Bill of Rights and US Constitution, not whatever conjured rights you make up.
The constitution was written with the goal that the majority would never be able to take away the rights of the minority. The fact that you don't consider marriage a right for gays is laughable. Again, imagine if you tried to say that blacks should only get civil unions to 'preserve marriage'. There is absolutely no justification for saying "we have x, but they shouldn't get it because they're black/gay/insert-physical-characteristic-here." I really wish you could be gay (or any minority) for a day so that you could see the real consequences of your discrimination.
Actually funny you should bring that up since whether a slave was allowed to get married was determined by his master. Now this was traditional, done since the begining of time. It was still wrong.
On May 30 2009 11:43 travis wrote: that's because he very very clearly chooses the posts that will be easy for him to respond to, and doesn't respond to the other stuff.
this has been pointed out over and over, in other threads than this one as well.
Oh man This is one of the disadvantages internet debate has over irl debate
Another disadvantage is that I can't rebuttal with hard proven facts.
Once again. Earthworms are hermaphrodites. Not female.
Edit: The point I was trying to make, is that nature didn't create females to fuck each other. Nor, did they create males to fuck each other, just so happens they have an orifice that it fits into.
Wait wait wait. You are aware homosexual relations A) have happened all throughout human history, and B) happen in non-humans?
On May 30 2009 11:49 Idle wrote: Pedophilia is not between consenting adults,it is an adult taking advantage of a person who does not understand the consequences of their actions, or is being forced into something they don't want to do.
Be careful. I know you mean no harm, but you are making a mistake that is rather dangerous when perpetuated.
Pedophilia is not rape, or anything like that. It is a sexual preference and/or psychological disorder/state. Pedophilia is a particular case of Paraphilia, which is "powerful and persistent sexual interest other than in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners." quoth wikipedia
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.
While you're using it to mean: Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.
No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy.
How statistically prevalent does something need to be before it can be "normalized"?
You still haven't answered this Aegraen :/
Thats for each person to answer, and generally for society to decide. My personal opinion on the matter, at least 15%.
Damn, women who's had sex during their lifetime with other women is at 11% according to a study. So close and yet so far. Nice dodge
Well anyways what culture considers as normal is obviously not a binary. I would still like to see homosexual relationships considered normal, because of the reasons I initially gave. Hopefully more states will embrace gay marriage, which will help homosexual relationships be considered more normal than they are now.
But yeah, if you consider anything below 15% to be abnormal, and you believe that it's wrong to try and force abnormal things into the cultural norm, then I'll never be able to convince you that you should vote against proposition 8 G_G
Ah, there goes the bigot and cruel pejoratives. You realize, this is hurting the movement, not strengthening it correct? Anyways, the population can decide who receives benefits and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't infringe on any rights.
I'm trying to not get banned after my first post so I'm going to keep this extra nice. "The population can decide who receives benefits and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't infringe of any rights." This, then, means that slavery was fine? Imagine if we tried to tell all black people that they are allowed to have civil unions but that they are barred from marriage because that isn't "normal" - even thinking that would get you labeled a racist. You, instead of being racist, are homophobic.
A right being those granted under the Bill of Rights and US Constitution, not whatever conjured rights you make up.
The constitution was written with the goal that the majority would never be able to take away the rights of the minority. The fact that you don't consider marriage a right for gays is laughable. Again, imagine if you tried to say that blacks should only get civil unions to 'preserve marriage'. There is absolutely no justification for saying "we have x, but they shouldn't get it because they're black/gay/insert-physical-characteristic-here." I really wish you could be gay (or any minority) for a day so that you could see the real consequences of your discrimination.
Slavery took away the rights of blacks. That's why there was a Civil Rights movement. Oh, I guess I'm homophobic, even though I don't care who they hell they fuck. I don't care if they even hit on me, I just tell them I'm not gay and thats that, if it continues then I can press charges for being harassed. Couple that with, I don't mind being friends, with, or if I have family members that are gay (as my last GF had a gay brother and I couldn't have cared less). Anyways, if it makes you feel your arguement is any better by labeling the opposition as 'racist' or 'homophobic', then so be it. Whatever makes you feel you hold the moral high ground. You're so infallible.
Oh, I'm glad you think it's laughable even though, the Bill of Rights and US Constitution clearly expresses that marriage is not a right. If you believe it is a right, then you agree with NAMBLA, pedophilia, polygamy, etc. You can't just extend rights to one group, or a few groups, a right is specific to all groups. Think this through before you start down the road of 'marriage is a right, not a benefit'
I don't really think the issue of insecurity is a driving force behind this. I think the concept was more aligned around the family benefits concept of marriage. Children are a significant economic burden on parents, so it makes sense for the state to somewhat lay off of people who are coupled with the assumed intention of having children. In civil law, at least, the books on family law were formulated initially with such assumptions in mind.
I think there going to be a point where legal arguments start to break down and a new classification of childrearing couples vs. non-childrearing couples will become a greater concern than homo/heterosexual issues, and government will back out of the marriage business entirely and simply enforce marriage as a subsection of contractual obligations.
There's a LOT of work to be done in the western world to produce a sustainable policy on family law which is gender equitable, accurate, and fair. Homosexual rights are just the tip of the iceberg.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.
While you're using it to mean: Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.
No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy. Is pedophilia normal? Is murder, normal? Extremes, but it drives the point down, that at such huge minority, it cannot be constituted as something that is normal.
The problem with this example is that pedophilia and murder are damaging to other people. Homosexuality affects nobody except the two people involved, who in my opinion are entitled to decide what is right for them as long as it is not affecting others. You can make the argument that gay marriage affects others by giving them tax benefits or whatnot, but as long as straight couples are entitled to those benefits then the state should not be able to deny homosexual couples those same benefits. As I said in my first post, the state sanctioned institution of marriage should not exist. Have a system of unions that allows for rights such as visitation, custody, etc and be done with it. But as long as the governmental institution of marriage exists it needs to be equal for everyone regardless of their sexual affiliation.
While I agree, as long as there is state derived benefits, there should be civil unions, and marriage. To me, its a social and cultural battle as well, but I agree that they should be entitled to the same benefits, however, calling it marriage, no.
I'm just wondering how far you are going to push this. What about NAMBLA? What about Polygamy? What about pedophilia? As long as you aren't calling marriage a right, and it is indeed a benefit, then the state and ultimately the populace (voters), can decide who can, and who cannot receive that benefit. It is called a democratic notion. The will of the voters has been done.
I'd push it as far as consenting adults can decide what they do together. Pedophilia is not between consenting adults,it is an adult taking advantage of a person who does not understand the consequences of their actions, or is being forced into something they don't want to do. Polygamy should be nobody's business except those involved as long as its between adults capable of making their own decisions.
And no, the state cannot decide who can benefit from an institution such as marriage. That's called discrimination and there are laws specifically to prevent it. Accepting one type of discrimination as okay while others are not is hypocritical.
The government is in the business of discrimination. Ever heard of Affirmative Action?
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
Fucking means copulation. Two non-human females cannot fuck. I guess you fell for it.
Fucking is slang, you can't even try to fucking give it a definite definition.
The animal world is incredibly homosexual at times. Early civilisation had homosexuality. What you mean by "normal" is what is currently accepted by society. But society can be improved.
The only reasons for not letting gays marry are bigoted and cruel.
Ah, there goes the bigot and cruel pejoratives. You realize, this is hurting the movement, not strengthening it correct? Anyways, the population can decide who receives benefits and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't infringe on any rights. A right being those granted under the Bill of Rights and US Constitution, not whatever conjured rights you make up.
Secondly, look up fuck in the merriam-webster dictionary.
Fuck is used too frequently by people who didn't look it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary for me to take Merriam seriously on this one. But that's just spitting hairs.
Just because most of the population decide that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry doesn't mean that it's not cruel and bigoted. It's bigoted because it's justified on the most ignorant grounds - 'Gay is unnatural' 'They want to make my children gay' 'They want to force churches to marry them' 'Gays are violent protesters' - and because it feeds on the bigoted anti-gay sentiment that exists. It's cruel because it punishes a segment of the population simply for their choice of sex.
Very loaded wording haha. I think most/all people will agree it's not fair to label it as 'choice.'
I didn't realise that when I wrote it.
It is a choice in that it's a conscious choice of who you have sex with, but I agree that one cannot choose who or what one is attracted to. If that were the case tubbies wouldn't be so lonely
Anyways, if it makes you feel your arguement is any better by labeling the opposition as 'racist' or 'homophobic', then so be it. Whatever makes you feel you hold the moral high ground. You're so infallible
Don't be a hypocrite, this is your favorite argument which you use in every thread.
On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.
While you're using it to mean: Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.
No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy. Is pedophilia normal? Is murder, normal? Extremes, but it drives the point down, that at such huge minority, it cannot be constituted as something that is normal.
The problem with this example is that pedophilia and murder are damaging to other people. Homosexuality affects nobody except the two people involved, who in my opinion are entitled to decide what is right for them as long as it is not affecting others. You can make the argument that gay marriage affects others by giving them tax benefits or whatnot, but as long as straight couples are entitled to those benefits then the state should not be able to deny homosexual couples those same benefits. As I said in my first post, the state sanctioned institution of marriage should not exist. Have a system of unions that allows for rights such as visitation, custody, etc and be done with it. But as long as the governmental institution of marriage exists it needs to be equal for everyone regardless of their sexual affiliation.
While I agree, as long as there is state derived benefits, there should be civil unions, and marriage. To me, its a social and cultural battle as well, but I agree that they should be entitled to the same benefits, however, calling it marriage, no.
I'm just wondering how far you are going to push this. What about NAMBLA? What about Polygamy? What about pedophilia? As long as you aren't calling marriage a right, and it is indeed a benefit, then the state and ultimately the populace (voters), can decide who can, and who cannot receive that benefit. It is called a democratic notion. The will of the voters has been done.
I'd push it as far as consenting adults can decide what they do together. Pedophilia is not between consenting adults,it is an adult taking advantage of a person who does not understand the consequences of their actions, or is being forced into something they don't want to do. Polygamy should be nobody's business except those involved as long as its between adults capable of making their own decisions.
And no, the state cannot decide who can benefit from an institution such as marriage. That's called discrimination and there are laws specifically to prevent it. Accepting one type of discrimination as okay while others are not is hypocritical.
The government is in the business of discrimination. Ever heard of Affirmative Action?
Affirmative action only exists because America was dominated by a long period of discrimination. Affirmative action promotes equality, like always you're ignoring historical context. Turns out it's a little harder for ethnic minorities / women to get a job, even in this day and age. Stop looking at everything through your own eyes.
Ah, there goes the bigot and cruel pejoratives. You realize, this is hurting the movement, not strengthening it correct? Anyways, the population can decide who receives benefits and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't infringe on any rights.
I'm trying to not get banned after my first post so I'm going to keep this extra nice. "The population can decide who receives benefits and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't infringe of any rights." This, then, means that slavery was fine? Imagine if we tried to tell all black people that they are allowed to have civil unions but that they are barred from marriage because that isn't "normal" - even thinking that would get you labeled a racist. You, instead of being racist, are homophobic.
A right being those granted under the Bill of Rights and US Constitution, not whatever conjured rights you make up.
The constitution was written with the goal that the majority would never be able to take away the rights of the minority. The fact that you don't consider marriage a right for gays is laughable. Again, imagine if you tried to say that blacks should only get civil unions to 'preserve marriage'. There is absolutely no justification for saying "we have x, but they shouldn't get it because they're black/gay/insert-physical-characteristic-here." I really wish you could be gay (or any minority) for a day so that you could see the real consequences of your discrimination.
Slavery took away the rights of blacks. That's why there was a Civil Rights movement. Oh, I guess I'm homophobic, even though I don't care who they hell they fuck. I don't care if they even hit on me, I just tell them I'm not gay and thats that, if it continues then I can press charges for being harassed. Couple that with, I don't mind being friends, with, or if I have family members that are gay (as my last GF had a gay brother and I couldn't have cared less). Anyways, if it makes you feel your arguement is any better by labeling the opposition as 'racist' or 'homophobic', then so be it. Whatever makes you feel you hold the moral high ground. You're so infallible.
Oh, I'm glad you think it's laughable even though, the Bill of Rights and US Constitution clearly expresses that marriage is not a right. If you believe it is a right, then you agree with NAMBLA, pedophilia, polygamy, etc. You can't just extend rights to one group, or a few groups, a right is specific to all groups. Think this through before you start down the road of 'marriage is a right, not a benefit'
You know what else isn't a right? The right to vote. The right to citizenry. If your following the same logic as saying marriage isn't a right. It's a right in the sense that we shouldn't discriminate based on arbitrary moral standards, such as gender. Age is NOT morally arbitrary (and one could argue polygamy is or isn't).
On May 30 2009 11:49 Idle wrote: Pedophilia is not between consenting adults,it is an adult taking advantage of a person who does not understand the consequences of their actions, or is being forced into something they don't want to do.
Be careful. I know you mean no harm, but you are making a mistake that is rather dangerous when perpetuated.
Pedophilia is not rape, or anything like that. It is a sexual preference and/or psychological disorder/state. Pedophilia is a particular case of Paraphilia, which is "powerful and persistent sexual interest other than in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners." quoth wikipedia
Thank you, let me try to clarify my position better. I have no problems with the condition of pedophilia. while I find it to be unsettling, I also see that it is a condition that the person has no control over. Where it crosses the line is acting upon your compulsion. the people a pedophile has a preference of having sexual relations with (children) are not capable of having a consenting sexual relationship. They aren't capable of understanding the consequences and are not emotionally prepared for such acts. It is the act of having sex with a person not capable of consenting that I have a problem with, not the preference itself.
Once again. Earthworms are hermaphrodites. Not female.
Edit: The point I was trying to make, is that nature didn't create females to fuck each other. Nor, did they create males to fuck each other, just so happens they have an orifice that it fits into.
Wait wait wait. You are aware homosexual relations A) have happened all throughout human history, and B) happen in non-humans?
It is impossible, for two non-human females to fuck each other. You have to have a penis (Not necessarily, in the human sense, since dildo's fill the niche of sexual intercourse), to fuck, this is called copulation, or sexual intercourse. What is so hard to comprehend.
EPT
