Bush vs Gay Rights

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
I already provided proof for that 'gem'. The American Psychiatric Society removed homosexuality from the list of diseases over 30 years ago.

The extreme degree of your flawed logic is disturbing. Tell me then, if it is a learned behavior, how did the first gay person ever come about? If no one was ever gay, how did anyone else become gay? Perhaps they were BORN that way? Unless your going to tell me one person was born gay and the rest learned...

If it is a learned behavior how are children living with heterosexual parents and being gay as well? Sure you could banter about how society exposes them to it, but does that make sense? What about children never exposed to this, how do they become gay? If it is so easy to become gay then why are so few people homosexual? By your logic at least 50% of the population should be homosexual by now.


Pardon me, but unless you have not noticed, the APS is as wrong as two boys screwing (interesting how that little saying is fitting) and psychiatry is anything but a hard science, and is controlled by those in it than facts. Yes, I remember when the hijacked official psychiatric line to tow was that homosexuality was no longer to be considered a flaw. And most of the shrinks I've met were soup sandwiches, so I put little to no faith in their opinion on such matters. Feel free to do so, if you like. Who knows what you'll be told is the norm 50 years from now when those pushing agendas use the APS.

Learned behavior? The reality of it is much deeper than merely a learned behavior. You haven't the desire to understand so I wouldn't try and explain it.
The point of the matter is not whether or not homosexuality is learned, but whether or not it is a constitutionally protected reason for two to be recognized in marriage. The longstanding and clear answer is no.




posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   


Yes, you got it right. It is not the place of judges to write law, but rather to enforce and interpret existing law. That is their function.


Part of "defining law" is re-writing what's been written for the advancement and protection of society. At least in theory... I'm not going to go into the thousdays upon thousands of cases in which this occured. This case is no different than any other... It will be scrutinized and then, with any luck changed (for the better).

If the legal system never re-wrote any laws slavery would still be legal.



Bush is not defining marriage. Marriage has been deffined for thousands of years, and Bush is not attempting to redefine it.


You're absolutely right. Bush isn't defining marriage. He's using religion to determine what is right and wrong. If gay marriage is such a horrible insult to the historical instution of marriage why do seemingly so few people have a problem with the rampant divorce rate in this country? How can it be immoral to marry two homosexuals and moral to divorce/marry a million times?

And don't try to defend yourself by saying this is apples in oranges because it's not. You obviously are basing your agument on a moral stance that finds it's root in religion.



Don't try and play cute. Your strategery is shallow.


Really? Then why do you have such a volitile reaction?




[Edited on 20-2-2004 by tacitblue]



posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Shouldn't the main goal of humanity be to reproduce? The goal of any species should be to keep it's kind on earth.

The natural way for this to happen is for there to be one man and one woman having sex.

Of course there are tons of children to adopt but that is another topic in itself. That gets into how people need to make better choices when bringing a person into the world. Family also needs to step up and help out their sons and daughters more. Try to keep children in a true family. There are always exceptions though.

There is also the issue of overpopulation. Once again, people need to make the right choice. If you can afford to provide a good life for a child then have one. If you fear the life of that child will be one of only suffering then try to get in a better situation (location) to better prepare for your child for the trials of life.

Just because we have sexual urges that are against the norm doesn't mean we can always do so. Being gay is a little different however, because two people are happy with this sexual act that goes against the norm. This means it would not be like rape or anything where only one of the two people want the act to happen.

I personally think it is wrong, against nature. It keeps our species from bringing children into the world. You may say we have enough people already but what if we fall one short? What if we could have brought that one person into the world that would have made all the difference. Could have cured some desease, solved the problem in the Middle East, etc. WE have to give ourselves as many chances as we can. Time is running out and we need to bring more problem solvers into the world cause so much is going so wrong. I don't think that a persons sexual urge or desire should come over a species.

I am not scared by homosexuality. I guess I have no real problem with it. It just doesn't seem natural. It doesn't bother me on a personal level one bit. It's just that when you look at the big picture there is so much that can be lost. I think that this may be why people have a problem with it. Plus, every society in the past has wanted to multiply as quickly as they could. This would supply people to work the fields or defend nations. We may be growing out of this old mind set and that could be the reason why being gay is ok for many. I don't know that I fully believe in my argument for why people may not like homosexuality. Personally, I could care less in how people have sex. From mankinds point of view it just doesn't get the job done.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Maybe it's time to start thinking in terms of mankind and not ourselves. Rights are great to have but darn, the only thing people think about any more are having their rights and cramming their rights down everyone elses throats. Gays can have sex and do all that stuff but now everyone else has to be proud of them for it. They have to be able to marry when you know darn well that our government wants for nature to take its course and produce more people. Homosexual marriage does not give the government what they want so they don't want it to be. Life is all about keeping it coming. Trying to create a child who will not only make us happy, but have an effect on the world. I don't know. I'm just hearing too much about this entire mess and it's late so I'll shut up. People can do what they wantbut I think our species may be in deep (C) in the near future. I wish more people would try and think of what's good for mankind. Then again, maybe excepting homosexuality is important for us to develop spiritually? Learning to be ok with people who we do not agree with. Love the sinner, hate the sin type of deal. OK, I'm talking myself in circles. AHHHHHH, do what you want people. As long as you're happy and not hurting others.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tacitblue


Yes, you got it right. It is not the place of judges to write law, but rather to enforce and interpret existing law. That is their function.


Part of "defining law" is re-writing what's been written for the advancement and protection of society. At least in theory... I'm not going to go into the thousdays upon thousands of cases in which this occured. This case is no different than any other... It will be scrutinized and then, with any luck changed (for the better).

If the legal system never re-wrote any laws slavery would still be legal.



Bush is not defining marriage. Marriage has been deffined for thousands of years, and Bush is not attempting to redefine it.


You're absolutely right. Bush isn't defining marriage. He's using religion to determine what is right and wrong. If gay marriage is such a horrible insult to the historical instution of marriage why do seemingly so few people have a problem with the rampant divorce rate in this country? How can it be immoral to marry two homosexuals and moral to divorce/marry a million times?

And don't try to defend yourself by saying this is apples in oranges because it's not. You obviously are basing your agument on a moral stance that finds it's root in religion.



Don't try and play cute. Your strategery is shallow.


Really? Then why do you have such a volitile reaction?




[Edited on 20-2-2004 by tacitblue]


Statement #1. No, the judicial system does not rewrite law. They do not redefine law. Not IAW the constitution. I can give you numerous examples of where they've done it as well, but that does not make their judicial activism correct. It means they are acting as if they were both the legislative branch, and in some cases, the executive. They have taken the will of the people out of the loop. This has occured because the left realized a long time ago that in order to push their agenda past the American people, they would have to circumvent the American people. You are wrong about what the court system should do and you should be ashamed that you do not know your government's duties and responsibilities any better than that.

#2. Again, spend a few years actually studying the early history of this government and you'll learn that this nation is founded upon Christianity, our moral foundation as well as the government. Even before then; read the Preamble to the Declaration of Independance. And, as you probably have noticed, the united states of America is not the only nation such as this, that a system of belief was its moral foundation. That's a good thing, you see. If it is based upon man's moral code, it will change with the wind and with the whims of the ruler.
I have not denied that the stance is as moral as it is legal. I have stated numerous times that this is how our nation was designed. I have also stated that if one does not like it, there is a good possibility that you can find another nation whose moral foundation is more to your liking. Leave ours alone. This nation is too important to destroy be screwing up its foundation.

#3. It is your perception that my reaction to baseless and ignorant statements is volatile, but I do have little patience for them.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
You can't rule other peoples lives with your own beliefs, it's wrong. It's your choice to be a christian, not theirs.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Well, first, not gay. Second, someone hit it on the head, this debate is over rights, legal rights, not religon.

Yeah, me. Hence my reluctance to go indepth about religion.

So, if you are going to argue, leave all mighty powerful insivable people out of it.

Ass, do you read? I have been trying to keep it on the issue and not religion. Making the point that there are a vast majority of people in this country that are religious does not mean I am turning the debate to religion or even the validity of it.

And I haven't seen to many poor black jewish gay republicans, so I assume most republicans are rich white christian republicans.

Wrong on the rich part. I don't know what you consider rich, but a lot more white people than not are not rich than are. Hell, there are more white people below the poverty line than anyone else, but let's try to stay on topic for once.

Anyways, again, can't use religon, the whole seperation of church and state. And no, I don't have ADD, but good way of dodging the question you can't answer without bsing or lieing.

Name the BS or the lie. The side step was not due to your questions, but to keep things on track. If you really want an answer, ask away, but I am trying to keep you nutbags on topic.

So, without religon, any legal excuse? Hell legally they can, Article 4, have to treat citizens equally!

No, legally it is a state issue since nothing is said about marriage specifically in the Constitution. Although states are not required to accept from other states what is in direct violation of their state Constitution.

I guess rich white heterosexual christian males are above the law.

Oh brother, look, these are some of the things not given to gay folks.

Spousal and child support.
Joint tax benefits.
Joint property ownership.
Medical and bereavement leave
Right to inherit a spouse's pension etc.

These should be given since the Constitution gives equal RIGHTS not equal priviledge.




posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
You can't rule other peoples lives with your own beliefs, it's wrong. It's your choice to be a christian, not theirs.


Is it hard to understand that some, not all, seek only to save America from corrosion from within?

Look, although I am Christian, I do not use that in almost any of my arguments.

That being said, I'd like to point out that there is growing sentiment for 3 or 4 parent families to be recognized by the government due to the gay marriage debacle including two cases for polygamy in Texas.

Once granted married statues to one "alternative" lifestyle, we would have to give it to others, and I am not even all that far to the opposing side of this argument.

Do we deny NAMBLA next for fear of being ageist?

Could very well happen.


[Edited on 21-2-2004 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
You can't rule other peoples lives with your own beliefs, it's wrong. It's your choice to be a christian, not theirs.


Again, follow the tour. If one does not like the standards, ethics and morals upon which this nation was based, they may find another society which embraces their beliefs which is seen by the majority and the value system as immoral and wrong. They have no right to force what is considered wrong down our throats, in our faces, and into the faces of our young. I never said they have to become a Christian. I have told you this before. I do not believe you read. However, they must abide by the morals, ethics and laws of this nation, of our culture.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Jesus chrispies.. The liberals will be the death of this country. Trust me.

Have you folks lost your minds? Do we need to have everyone strip to see that man+man or woman+woman is not anatomically correct and not meant to be? These gays who are breaking the law out in San Fran are being selfish at best. They are not concerned with society, values and morals in America. And some of these couples want the same adoption and foster home rights are NORMAL married couples. So stop and think about how having two dads (one who acts like a woman) can psychologically affect a child. Not to mention that domestic abuse ranks higher in gay homes than in NORMAL married couple's homes. And I've read about studies that show the negative impacts that gay couples have on children. In some cases, gay parenting inadvertantly breeds gay children.

This is a major problem y'all, and if the conservatives don't step up to the plate on this one, we're going to witness a blow to America that's more severe than the 9/11 attacks... Only with a delayed reaction....



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Before I write anything, I want to say that in essence I am on your side.


Originally posted by kramtronix
Jesus chrispies.. The liberals will be the death of this country. Trust me.

Have you folks lost your minds? Do we need to have everyone strip to see that man+man or woman+woman is not anatomically correct and not meant to be?

Yeah but so what. This is a dead end point.

These gays who are breaking the law out in San Fran are being selfish at best.

Well, to be honest with you, I can't really blame them. If a bank teller was giving out free money, I would go get some. The bank teller and I are both doing something illegal, but the teller is at fault.

They are not concerned with society, values and morals in America. And some of these couples want the same adoption and foster home rights are NORMAL married couples.

A good portion of them are concerned, they are mostly no different, except the extremely flaming ones. Gay couples are already readily adopting kids as we speak.

So stop and think about how having two dads (one who acts like a woman) can psychologically affect a child.

I agree, but there are so many screwed up kids now from straight homes that the arguement is almost moot.

Not to mention that domestic abuse ranks higher in gay homes than in NORMAL married couple's homes.

Please back this up with something concrete. I have a hard time believing that.

And I've read about studies that show the negative impacts that gay couples have on children. In some cases, gay parenting inadvertantly breeds gay children.

In some cases they breed straight kids, again, a moot point.

This is a major problem y'all, and if the conservatives don't step up to the plate on this one, we're going to witness a blow to America that's more severe than the 9/11 attacks... Only with a delayed reaction....





posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
So, selfish to get married? So, if you want to get married, then you are selfish? Doesn't seem to make sense. Also, adopting kids, so what? Straight couples don't adopt them, and instead of having them live in a foster home for the rest of their lives, they try to help them, give them love and support. Also, wouldn't need to be adopted if straight couples didn't have kids they didn't want. Just remember that, all but 2% of kids in foster homes are there because the straight couples didn't want them.

Also, have mentioned it, some others have to, straights get married all the time, hell, they have drive through marriges in Las Vegas for straight couples, but more then half end in divorce. Straight couples seem to screw up marrige, so why not let homosexuals give it a shot? And if they divorce, no custody battles, no emotional or psychological damage on kids, none of that, cause, well, they can't have kids.

Let's see, it not natural, explain that to several species of monkey and ape. In an all female group, or male group, homosexual activity happens. Hell, man's best freind has several homosexuals in them. The dogs were born gay, just like humans.


And with the lie, me and someone else asked why you used some parts of the bible, followed them, yet the rest you don't. You again dodge that question. I have asked 3 times, the other guy asked once, yet you have answered it 0 times.

And hell, if they love each other, why not let them marry? Legally they should/can. Religously they can't, but guess what? This is the law, not dogma or all powerful invisable people.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
The reason is that you are quoting from the old testiment which pertains to Mosaic law. Mosaic law was issued to the Jews friend until the covenent was ended by the birth of the Christ.

The purpose of Christ is to take that blame of sins from us onto himself.

Anything else?



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The reason is that you are quoting from the old testiment which pertains to Mosaic law. Mosaic law was issued to the Jews friend until the covenent was ended by the birth of the Christ.

The purpose of Christ is to take that blame of sins from us onto himself.

Anything else?


Alright, fine. Line Christ take the blame for homosexual marriage...kidding.

For the others, I'm sure the priest and other members of NAMBLA love the children too. Should they marry?

The only thing on love in all of this is that we are not defining marriage with love in it. It is being defined as a soulless union between a man and a woman. It bothers me that loe is not mentioned! BTW, I still disagree with gay marriage.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Here's a solution to the whole problem and it will also force those who claim not to have a problem with "civil unions" they just don't want to allow "gay marriage" to admit their hypocrisy.

Ready? How about we do away with the government's recognition of heterosexual marriage? How about admitting that "marriage" is a spiritual decision and the legal rights granted to a married couple, since the government shall make no laws regarding religion, should be granted for "civil unions" only. Civil unions would be any legally recognized contract between the state and 2 consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. The status of marriage would be a personal vow of commitment made between 2 people in accordance with their personal beliefs, and have no bearing on their legal status. If 2 wiccans/hindus/christians/etc. want to marry in a wiccan/hindu/christian/etc. ceremony, they are married, but only in the sense that they pledged their love to each other. If 2 people want the legal status of a civil union, for example, a man and woman want to marry for the financial benefits but do not love each other, they can apply for recognition as a civil union. Then they don't have to lie and make fools of themselves by pretending to be in love, unless they are.

This would eliminate the need for a legal definition of marriage, which is religious by nature, by the government. It would make everyone equal under the law and place the decision to be married back in the hands of the people where it belongs.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
That is not an option however tempting it might be.

If there is no legal basis, it will be harder to limit inappropriate relationships, more so than now.

Inappropriate meaning NAMBLA and other such types, not gay specifically



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
That is not an option however tempting it might be.

If there is no legal basis, it will be harder to limit inappropriate relationships, more so than now.

Inappropriate meaning NAMBLA and other such types, not gay specifically


NAMBLA is a group that supports pedophilia. There is no logical reason to assume that the laws governing civil unions would allow marriages between children and adults. Well, except for the ones that let a 42year old woman marry a 14 year old boy a couple years ago, but that was a legal marriage approved by the state. This is what I am talking about.

If you separate the legalities of marriage from the ideal of marriage, you can more easily avoid this type of thing.

Say the woman and boy I mentioned wanted to get married, but the legal system said that it would not recognize the union unless the 2 people being married were of a certain age and had been in an established partnership for, say, 6 months. They could still follow the tenants of their faith and be married, if they wanted, but in doing so they would not be entitled to the governmental benefits of a legal union, until he was of legal age.

Here's another scenario, a old or unattractive man wants to marry a young piece of arm-candy. In exchange for her company and affections the young woman will recieve the financial benefits of being in a legal union with him. As it is now, right or wrong, the couple has to take a vow of matrimony that they both know to be a lie. However, if they could form a legally protected union, without having to insult the bonds of marriage, maybe they would not be considered so disposable. If taking a marriage vow was done out of love, rather than the need for legal recognition, it would stop being seen as such a frivolous thing. The promise to love, honor, and cherish someone would not be just words said as a means to an end, they would actually have meaning again.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I disagree with hetrosexual people getting married underage, especially when one of those folks is greatly NOT underage.

Keeping with the parental consent laws, minor boys would then be able to marry older men, need I say the acronym again?

Anyway, the point is is the distruction of barriers, which has been a point of contention for decades now.

I'm sure you can agree that most empires fall from corrosion from within before they fall victim to outside forces. Are we any less?



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Actually, the solution is to start locking mofos up and charging them with crimes. The state of California is already a handcuffed state where police can't do their job without being labeled "profilers" or "racists." Let's not let this go any further. Mr. Newsome needs to resign, and the activist judges need to be kicked off the bench. That is the solution, and THE LAW.

I'd love to post the article I read on the affects gay parents have on children; however that was like 4 years ago and I have no reference. It wasn't an online article. Sorry.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro I agree, but there are so many screwed up kids now from straight homes that the arguement is almost moot.


a) Two wrongs do not make a right.

Trying to dismiss a claim by pointing out another negative is intellectually unbalanced.

b) The study showed that in COMPARISON, homosexual households produced a larger amount of children with "issues" than that of the same number of heterosexual households.

Moot it is not.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join