The REALITY of Marriage Equality

a reply to: Gryphon66

your belief is that an entire class of people is lesser than you or beneath you or "less natural' than you

Where did I say that?

Apparently your political beliefs are starting to bleed over here. Let me make a wild leap: You probably see all liberals, Democrats, and progressives (or really, anyone more moderate than your own extremism) as dangerous, anti-American and evil.

Not even close. Again, you have to lump me in with anyone that you see as unsavory so you can call me the same.

I don't follow party lines because its obvious that both parties are too screwed up to do any good for anyone.

I wasn't going to say it, but since you brought it up first, you are the one who is lying and you have been for a while. You refuse to accept my opinion and my right to have it unless you reserve the right to publicly insult me along with it. I don't publicly insult you for your beliefs. What makes you think its ok to insult me? You are the one who seems to think you deserve your own set of rules, like you are better than me. You aren't. You are special though... very very special...

a reply to: Rocker2013

I find it hard to believe that you would be prevented from filing unfair dismissal. That applies to everyone. If that is the case, then it needs to change. Anyone can be unfairly dismissed and anyone should have legal recourse afterwards.

originally posted by: Lightworth
I think marriage equality is the inevitable result of the staggering lack of PROOF that homosexuality (and bisexuality) is perversion, mental illness, criminal behavior, "an abomination in the eyes of the Lord" and whatnot. There's no proof because there's no verifiable TRUTH to the allegations! The detractors have only their beliefs, opinions, and yes, bigotry, not objective facts. A "mo" cannot go "strait" -- at least with any pleasure involved -- any more than vice versa. There's no science or REALITY behind the inexpressibly hypocritical double standard of legitimizing the natural aversion to the very thought of homosexual sex by heteros, but refusing the equal opposite for gays and lesbians. They're equally PEOPLE, what a concept.

Should we not say this about everything now? When people desire something no matter the age, number or type can we not apply your logic there too?

REAL perversions and criminality like pedophilia and bestiality is just SICK and completely unsubstantiated.

Doesn't this statement above make you a hypocrite? It seems society norms decide what is correct or "Sick" so this could mean as you suggest, or that homosexuality, or even anything other than the missionary position are sick too... As example, the fathers of morality/logic etc Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all practiced pederasty as a society norm, so what makes your views any different than the views you seem to be bashing on in your post?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Fortunately science such as developmental psychology has taught us amazingly more than was the "norm" in the time of ancient Greece. The standards of what constitutes criminality versus consensuality, competence and maturity are infinitely better.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Let's see what your actual words have to say for you, shall we? We'll let you testify on your own behalf.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Gryphon66
Go back to my first post. All I said was I disagree with being lumped in with extremist bigots because I simply disagree with gay marriage. I never said I wouldn't allow it or couldn't accept it. Only that I disagree with it. That's all. Nothing else.

Go back to your first post, eh? In which you are ONLY stating your disagreement with marriage equality?

Okay.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Lightworth

You have a lengthy paragraph about how "...bigots/homophobes tend to generalize all or most homosexuals".

You are generalizing all the people who disagree with homosexuality as bigots and homophobes. I am not a bigot and I am certainly not afraid. I simply do not believe that homosexuality is what was intended in the grand design. One look at the genetalia of the species makes it fairly clear what the intent, and outcome, of union should be. Just because two men or two women can do something together does not necessarily equate to the fact that they should.

Personally, I am tired of being branded a homophobe because I disagree with homosexuality.

You "disagree" with homosexuality? So, there's something "disagreeable" about homosexuals? What is that?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I think homosexuality is perverse by definition.

My goodness, it seems you're not just sharing your religious beliefs about marriage, but you're talking about homosexual people at large and calling them perverts?

But how do you really feel about homosexuals? I mean, you "disagree" but surely it's a natural characteristic, right?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Being born a certain way, with a certain disposition or inclination, does not in itself make that inclination right.

So, those with the "inclination" to prefer their own sex in love and romance is "wrong." Wrong how exactly?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Sorry, but in my opinion the grand design was not just a suggestion. There is a way the male and female genitalia are meant to work together and the result is procreation. That was not an accident, it was design.

Design? Just to be clear, who was the Designer again?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
God created the universe, the earth, and man. He gave man free will. From there it is man who makes the decisions and must accept the consequences of those decisions. If he invents a machine to help him travel, good for him. It takes a pretty low IQ to see that as an affront to God. If he decides to sleep with other men, that is something he will answer for. There are consequences.

So, homosexuality isn't an inclination, an inborn choice, an innate characteristic. It's a sin, it is "against god's design" and it is something that homosexuals will "answer for."

But you're only innocently stating your personal opinion regarding same-sex marriage here, right?

You're not saying anything about homosexual people themselves, or suggesting that they're perverse, abnormal and unnatural("against the plan"), or sinful and in danger of punishment from your god. Are you?

Turns out you are. Clearly. In your own words.

But okay, that's your religious belief. It shouldn't matter that you're in a public forum, and anyone who hears that they are perverse, unnatural, and sinful ... should just suck it up and let you be you, right?

You aren't setting yourself above these unnatural, perverse, individuals in any way, are you?

You're not clearly implying that you (in your assumed heterosexuality) are both naturally and spiritually superior to gays in every way.

It's not like you're comparing being homosexual to murderers, or sadists, or thieves ... are you?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Just because a thing can be done does not necessarily mean that it should. Many of the natural inclinations of people are discouraged, for a variety of reasons. If your logic is true, then shouldn't we respect any and all of these personal inclinations simply because that is the way these people were born? How do you justify respecting one birth inclination and not another? Do you only approve of the ones you agree with and deny the others? What makes you think your opinion should be the deciding factor? What of the person who is born with the inclination to kill indiscriminately? Do we respect his being born that way? Or the person who is born with the desire to inflict pain for his personal enjoyment? Do we respect his "right" to be himself? Or the person who claims whatever he sees as his own simply because he thinks he deserves it?

Right, why should we respect the natural inclination of people to love and be attracted to their own sex, since that's obviously similar if not equal to murderers, sadists and thieves?

Not merely opining about "marriage" here, now are you?

I could go on. As I said, almost every time you post, you fly your bigotry flag high. But, in the end, what's the point?

You're not going to change, and really, why should you? I don't care about your bigoted beliefs, and more than likely, no one else here does either. You certainly do have a right to be a bigot in America ... isn't our country great?!?

It would be just as easy to go through your posts and pull out the times you are nasty and insulting to others for no reason, as well as your very clear political extremism ... but again, why?

Everyone is either reading your posts or ignoring you at this point ... so either they know exactly what I'm talking about, or more likely, like me, they just don't care anymore.

Enjoy your long-winded rebuttal ... and making all the bigoted posts you want!

a reply to: Vroomfondel

...but I allow you or anyone else to do otherwise.

No you f#ing don't.

The Supreme Court ruled that it's a constitutional God given right...


This is not your personal allowance to the lowly serfdom perched on top of your high horse, in your Elysium fields, surrounding your ivory tower.

What a creepy proclamation...

"I allow you to"???



That's a god damned laugh...
If you had a say you've already said it would be a man and a woman...


So don't suggest that "you allowed" it to happen.

Your bigoted little brain didn't have a single say in the matter.
And never will!!!

originally posted by: Lightworth


Fortunately science such as developmental psychology has taught us amazingly more than was the "norm" in the time of ancient Greece. The standards of what constitutes criminality versus consensuality, competence and maturity are infinitely better.

I would say a range from 12 (parent consent) to 21 is a rather large scientific range to set criminality from state to state. One could also suggest that pedophilia is as natural as homosexuality and heterosexuality are. All three are incurable and part of the natural development in the womb. How do we say one is "sick" and the others are natural?

a reply to: Xtrozero

There is a big difference between what two consenting adults do, and the taking advantage of a naive child, and I'm sure you know that, unless you are advocating that a prepubescent child has the same cognitive ability to make sexual decisions as a mature adult does...

*Edit* also I don't know too many who would argue that pedophilia is developed from the womb - You want to know what most child molesters have in common? They were molested as young children.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Lightworth


Fortunately science such as developmental psychology has taught us amazingly more than was the "norm" in the time of ancient Greece. The standards of what constitutes criminality versus consensuality, competence and maturity are infinitely better.

I would say a range from 12 (parent consent) to 21 is a rather large scientific range to set criminality from state to state. One could also suggest that pedophilia is as natural as homosexuality and heterosexuality are. All three are incurable and part of the natural development in the womb. How do we say one is "sick" and the others are natural?

Are you really asking a question regarding mutual attraction and love between adults and child abuse?

I'm sorry if there's "no difference" in your mind; there is a vast difference in mine and for most people on the matter.

a reply to: SPECULUM

Well i wish someone would tell the Christian right that because they cant seem resist forcing thier beleifs on every tom, dick and harry.

I would also like to know where jesus stated Christians should use thier faith to deny groups of people because its my understanding he was not really into that...

a reply to: Seamrog

You know what else is a choice? Being a bigoted chrisian.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I said I allow it not in the sense that it requires my permission. And I think you knew that. I said I allow it meaning I can accept it or allow it to happen without trying to stop it. And that has been the core of my statements here. By simply disagreeing with it I am not a bigot. I simply disagree. If I were to take steps to stop it or interfere with it or take to the streets attacking people over it, that is the action of a bigot. But I don't do that. I can disagree with something without going to the extreme of bigotry. The LGBT side refuses to acknowledge that there is a difference between disagreement and bigotry. Its not that hard to understand, but you cant allow it. It seems as if acknowledging the difference between disagreeing and bigotry undermines your entire argument. Its as though you think anything less than 100% domination of anyone who disagrees with you weakens your position. Is it that fragile that you cant even accept the slightest disagreement with your agenda?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, I disagree with gay marriage. I have said that from the start. And it is very obvious looking at the two genders how they are meant to work together. I believe that was not coincidence. (here is where faith in God is necessary to understand this) If you do not believe in God, then this will make no sense to you. I am sorry if that is the case. I stated my belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and I stated my reason why. I cant help but believe that if I hadn't stated the reason why you would have attacked me anyway for having an "unjustified" objection. So whether I gave a reason or not, your reaction would most likely have been the same.

You need to understand that there are more than one definition for the word perverse. Yes, when most people use that word they are trying to describe something that is sexually unnatural, as that seems to be your favorite definition. However, it is also defined as "Having an effect opposite to what is intended or expected". There is nothing in that definition that suggests depravity, unnatural acts, etc. You keep asserting that as my belief but it is not. I use the language properly with full understanding that there is more than one definition for the word.

If I believe the purpose of sexual union is to procreate then union that cannot lead to procreation (physical injury or defect notwithstanding) then it is, by definition, perverse. That is not a sexual insult. It is just the truth. If you insist on using the most vile definition for the word just so you can be offended by it, fine. But don't assert that that is what I intended because it is not.

Whether homosexuals answer for their choices before God is not my call. Not my monkeys, not my circus. Take that issue up with your local church or wait til you are at the gate. Its your call and not my problem.

Another falsehood you continue to assert is that I set myself above homosexuals. No, I do not. My belief is that God created man and gave us free will. We are, in the end, the sum of our choices. If there is a judgement, I will be judged for my actions just like everyone else. I do not believe I am better or worse, only that I see things differently than you. Again, you are projecting this belief onto me and then blaming me for it. I do not believe I am better or worse than anyone else.

No, I am not comparing homosexuals to murderers, etc. I was using analogies that made more sense than the ones that have been used against me in this thread. In case you aren't aware of it, an analogy is a device used to demonstrate a concept of cause and effect. If for example you are trying to describe how metal rusts you could compare it to food that rots. In my world that would demonstrate that left untended over time objects can become unusable due to the effects of exposure. In your world it would mean that I think fruit is made of metal and metal is a food source. Do you see the difference there? You can twist the words all you want but MY meaning is still the same.

And you are still on your soap box. I have to completely abandon my beliefs or I will forever be a bigot in your eyes. Ok, lets try something. I will abandon my beliefs. But I don't want yours either. What belief can I have? You tell me, since that has been your goal from the very start. You insist that I shouldn't have my belief. What should I believe. Tell me. You seem to want to very badly. Tell me what to believe oh great one. Yours is the power and the glory. Tell us all what to believe so we can live in your favor.

Well...waiting...

Oh, and once again, I am clearly demonstrating the ability to accept your view even though I disagree with it and you are adamantly opposed to not only accepting my view, but allowing me to have it either. If that isn't the definition of a liberal...

You can object all you want. You can call me names all you want. I don't care. I know what I said and I know what I meant and it doesn't matter how many times you put words in my mouth, choose alternate meanings, or assert an agenda I do not support, those will always be your words and not mine. I can accept gay marriage even though I do not agree with it. I will not tell anyone they cant do that. I will not attack people for doing it. Those are the acts of a bigot. I do reserve the right to speak my mind and share my opinion. Even you don't get to say otherwise. If you disagree with me, well I guess you are a bigot and that is your problem, not mine. Reverse racism exists. Why not reverse bigotry? You could be their poster child.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Uh.....wow. Just thought I'd let you know that at least one member actually read that post.

First of all, we have enough PEOPLE, so procreation is no longer relevant at all. We're not an isolated tribe of Aboriginals living on a continent all by ourselves.

Second of all, we have enough duplicitous judgmental CHRISTIANS to last for another century or two. After all, they keep breeding. And breeding.

Someday you might, hopefully, look back on your essays here and feel the embarrassment that you "should."

Third of all, why do you care what they do? Their 'cooties' aren't contagious (well, the glitter is, a little bit, but it washes off easily). Neither is their grace or class contagious, unfortunately.

"Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy." H L Mencken

a reply to: Vroomfondel

What belief can I have? You tell me, since that has been your goal from the very start. You insist that I shouldn't have my belief. What should I believe. Tell me. You seem to want to very badly. Tell me what to believe oh great one. Yours is the power and the glory. Tell us all what to believe so we can live in your favor.

How about this?

Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.

H L Mencken again.

and this as well:

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.

edit on 7/5/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: untangle the format...lol

a reply to: Vroomfondel

No one wants you to give up your beliefs.

No one cares what you believe.

You're trying to excuse your bigoted statements about people by linking them with your beliefs; haven't you noticed yet that isn't working?

Heck, own your bigotry! As I said, multiple times, you've considered the situation and arrived at your beliefs. You're a bigot and your'e not going to change! Own that!

You can attempt to side-step all you want, but to use the words perverse, perverted and pervert all have commonly-accepted meanings in American English, and particularly in the context of discussing homosexuality. The arcane definition you're using STILL connotes unnatural outcomes, and thus, you're still, even in your semantic games, calling gay people unnatural.

And that's what you BELIEVE. You've made that fact CLEAR. Own it.

And again, I didn't decide you are a bigot; society did. Why don't you henceforth take it up with them?

originally posted by: Answer


The anti-gay religious people think there's a choice in the matter but everyone else knows they're wrong.

Why is it that so many people can control their sexual urges but homosexuals cannot?

Hmmmm.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I'm sorry if there's "no difference" in your mind; there is a vast difference in mine and for most people on the matter.

My point is there was a vast difference in other areas like gay marriage that would have received the same response as yours in not too distant past when it seems still wrong to rewrite the title to say age equality or multiple partner equality since we see only this area as a step forward in freedom for all.

Personally I do not care other than I find it amusing how the OP used rather venomous words towards other deviations not of the majority norm.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


And again, I didn't decide you are a bigot; society did. Why don't you henceforth take it up with them?

Bigot: Someone openly against someone with ideas or lifestyles different than their own'.


Seems everyone is a bigot in one way or another...hehe

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66


And again, I didn't decide you are a bigot; society did. Why don't you henceforth take it up with them?

Bigot: Someone openly against someone with ideas or lifestyles different than their own'.


Seems everyone is a bigot in one way or another...hehe

That's been noted a couple of times in the discussion.

And there are degrees of bigotry that most of us can recognize.

But bigotry is still bigotry; if one has the pride to state bigoted beliefs, then being called out on it should be assumed.