DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The only "dolls" I had were those 2" high green army guys. Did those excite you?
Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
No. I was always innately attracted to woman, unlike you, the bi.
Yeah, you did. That is the implication of your argument that homosexuality is determined by environment.
Yeah I undertand your point, you could be doing odd things if your society reinforced the bahavior, like saying no to a blow job or giving one.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It can mean just what it says. We can still discriminate based on sexual deviancy, there is no law prohibiting it yet. That's a true statement, is it not? We obviously don't put homosexual deviants on the same level as pedophile deviants, do we?
It says, that you believe that it is permissible to discriminate against homosexuals in marriage.
It is not a true statement. The highest law of the land prohibits such discrimination, i.e., the 14th amendment. Lawrence v Texas found that laws attempting to discriminate against homosexuality were unconstitutional.
As has been pointed out numerous times, statutory rape is not illegal because it is sexually deviant. It is illegal because a minor cannot consent.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, I said queer was reinforced by environment. Can you tell the difference?
Dogma is the proscribed doctrine of a religion, it has no place in legislation. And individual wishes are not allowed if they want to establish their religious doctrine as the law of the land. And, lastly, Dixie only wades into the "moniker" mocking when he is losing an argument. You did it often in the 1/3 argument as well. In the future you may want to avoid it, because it is a tell.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I believe it permissible to discriminate against sexual deviants in perverting marriage to fit their sexual lifestyle, yes! I think we have that right, and we utilize it all the time. It's illegal to fuck kids, it's illegal to fuck animals... it's not denying their "rights" it's blatant discrimination based on sexual deviancy, and it is allowed and not restricted by the Constitution in any way.
The 14th Amendment is exactly WHY we can't legalize Gay Marriage, you idiot! Once we've established that your sexual perversion of choice, is the basis for changing and altering what "marriage" is, then we HAVE TO extend this "right" to any and all sexual perverts who want to have it! We've made that the goddamn law! I don't know what part of the Equal Protection Clause you are having trouble with, but that is precisely what it says and what it was intended to do. You can't 'legitimize' homosexuality through law, and then discriminate against other sexually deviant behavior, the 14th Amendment makes it impossible to do so. It gives all those other deviants the legitimate argument for equal protection, and you can't deny it to them unless you can show compelling reason why it would flagrantly violate the fundamental rights of others to do so. You keep harping on "consent" but "consent" is an arbitrary establishment that we created! There is nothing written in stone that it has to remain defined as "age 18" or any other age, we can 'redefine' what the word "consent" means, and make it become whatever the other party presumes to be consent, just like you're doing with the word "marriage" now!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, you are either ignorantly or blatantly misusing terminology to fit your argument, and I have to call you on that. Sorry.
DOGMA is the prescribed doctrine of a religion, it has no place in legislation, not even logically... it is the prescribed doctrine of religious followers! No one has ever proposed making the DOGMA the law of the land. An example would be, if some Congressman wanted to form the 10 Commandments into a Bill and pass it! That hasn't EVER happened in America! The DOGMA is specific to religion and religious followers, it is not EVER implemented as a law.
That said, our various religious dogmas DO shape our personal viewpoints and opinions, and this can not be helped, that's just the nature of things. We are (for the most part) a very spiritually-based society, and our ideals and values are rooted fundamentally in what we believe religiously. How can we separate those things from each other, when we focus on establishing our laws? We CAN'T! It's part of who we are! It's the reason for our views!
Then why did you deny that?
It is discrimination based on a criminal act that victimizes others. It is not based on sexual deviancy. You can have your adult gf/wife dress up in a school girl outfit, horse costume or do whatever weird shit you like and no law can make such acts illegal where "normal sex" is not.
Again, why hasn't Lawrence v Texas led to overturning laws concerning stat rape or bestiality? All the rest of your bullshit is exposed by your continued evasion of this point.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Individual rights is a form of morality damo.
Yes. Then, you must be arguing that it is mostly innate.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Because THAT wasn't what was accused. We do, as a society, discriminate based on sexual deviancy, if we didn't, homosexuality would be illegal, and it's not.
No, our laws against certain sexual deviant behavior is because we don't consider all sexual deviants the same. "Victim" is just another word that can be redefined like "marriage" ....so it has no basis in your argument. At some point, some "moral" people decided it wasn't good for adults to be fucking kids... even though the Greeks practiced this for centuries. It was actually considered a fundamental part of their culture, a 'right of passage' into adulthood, and most young Greek boys were molested by an adult counterpart... it was how life was, it was accepted and condoned, and thought to be "healthy" to do this. Because we don't have laws protecting the right to be a sexual pervert, we were able to pass laws restricting adults from having sex with children. But you want to change all of that!
What???
You are delusional. Homosexuality is the only "sexual devaince" we do discriminate against on the basis of it being "sexually deviant."
Outlawing rape is not based on the right to prohibit sexual deviancy, dumbfuck. It is based on the individuals right to freedom of choice, something you wish to deny for homosexuals.
Read the Lawrence decision, it spells out clearly that homosexuality may not be prohibited where "normal sex" isn't, because it is consensual. Victim does have a basis in the argument because the state has a valid interest in protecting people from crime.
And you still ignore the fact that that the Lawrence decision did not lead to legalization of rape or bestiality. This proves, conclusively, that you are wrong concerning your slippery slope.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What do you mean, WHAT? Am I supposed to repeat the post or post a quote for you to read what I posted again? Are you THAT stupid these days, Stringy? I haven't ever advocated discrimination against people who are homosexual, in all my entire life, that has never been a tenant I personally believed in, and that was what I was accused of. It was based on a gross misunderstanding of a quote, taken entirely out of context, as you idiots normally do with my quotes. Nothing I said indicated what I was accused of.
No, I am sorry, we don't. Whether you wish to acknowledge biological facts or not, human homosexual behavior does deviate from the norm, and is uncommon in the species. Therefore, it is clinically termed as "deviating" behavior, or "deviant" behavior. There are also many other "deviant" sexual behaviors, and none of them are codified into law as being legitimately acceptable behaviors, including homosexuality. Society has eased many of the social constraints on homosexuals in recent years, getting rid of sodomy laws, etc. We have come to accept the homosexual deviant as part of our society, and while we may not condone their personal choices, we don't deny them the same freedoms and liberties enjoyed by the rest of society.
Well I am sorry Stringy, but no one has the unfettered freedom of choice, it isn't found anywhere in the Constitution. We can't simply DO whatever we please, no matter how much your stupid little brain thinks that possible. I didn't mention rape, because rape is not a sexual crime, it is based on a need to dominate and control another person, not sexual deviancy. It's a completely different thing altogether. A good example would be indecent exposure laws... Why can't someone go to the Wal-mart and sit in the parking lot, watching the hot 14-year-olds parading in and out, and masturbate themselves? It's not hurting anyone, it's a victimless crime, no one is having any right violated by that... why is that illegal? You want a marriage analogy.... What IF I were engaged to my hot virgin girlfriend, and the night before our wedding, she fell and broke her cute little neck? Why should you and your silly morality prohibit me from marrying her dead corpse and making sweet passionate love to her all night? She consented... we were all set to do it... we even had the marriage license! Why can't I fuck the brains out of my dead girlfriend? Why am I denied my Constitutional rights???
This has nothing to do with whether homosexual unions constitute marriage, or have the right to redefine the word to fit their purpose. The State issues marriage licenses to any male and female of legal age, who aren't closely related, homosexuals, to my knowledge, are not being banned from this.
No, it proves you don't understand the context of anything we're arguing about here. Marriage, is the union of a man and woman. Homosexual partnerships are a form of Domestic Partnership, not Marriage. Sex is not the basis for any law, as far as I know, and it certainly isn't a basis for marriage. Homosexuality is not being banned in any state, and no one I know of has ever advocated it. Sexually deviant behaviors are not legitimized into law because the Constitution does not grant the equal rights of all deviants. Some deviant behaviors are accepted by society, while others are rejected. Society bases such decisions on a variety of things, including religious faith and beliefs taught through their religions.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Besides the simple fact that you are an asshole, what other reason do you have for constantly trying to misrepresent my position?
Southern Woman
Banned
Must you use that sort of language? That's the kind of talk libbies use.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So you finally admit that it's "DISCRIMINATION"!!
Good for you.
Now Dixtard try to wiggle out of what you said.
The tryped the word and now it appears that you're trying to hide it, by stuffing it up your ass.
Come on Dixtard explain how you didn't say it and just think; you complained about me not being able to read, comprehend, or digest anything.
You said it, now suck on it.
You seem to be avoiding my question of; do you refer to your homosexual friends as deviants, to their face??
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Ergo; you admitted that it is DISCRIMINATION.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything! In fact, I'll repeat it again for your stupid ass... We can still discriminate based on sexual deviancy, there is no law prohibiting it yet. Do you know of a law? Got one for us, Skippy? Point me out the part of the Constitution that says; All Sexual Deviants are Created Equal and Endowed with Equal Rights! You can't find it because it's not in there, we don't have a law prohibiting the discrimination of sexual deviant behavior, and we certainly DO discriminate against sexual deviant behaviors all the time.
I didn't say anything to admit it was discrimination to deny homosexuals the right to hijack traditional marriage. You made an illogical leap, like you often do, because you are retarded and unable to comprehend context.
You seem to be avoiding my question of; do you refer to your homosexual friends as deviants, to their face??
Yes, I tell them they are sick twisted freaks all the time, they laugh. What has my personal relationship with homosexuals got to do with a discussion of what society can and can't do regarding legalization of gay marriage? Here's something that might jump clean over your empty pinhead... My political views often differ from my personal views. This is a good example! I would love nothing more than to make all the gay people happy and give them what they want, and IF I WAS KING, perhaps I would grant them their wish! But I understand WE live in a free SOCIETY, where everyone gets a say in what we do, everyone has a voice and opinion, and everyone deserves to have their voice heard on this. An overwhelming majority does not agree with your idea of Gay Marriage, and have made that clear as a bell in initiative after initiative across America. Some oppose it from a legal standpoint, some oppose it from a moral standpoint, some oppose it from a religious standpoint. It's their right to oppose it as much as it's your right to support it, and traditionally, we settle it by casting a vote!
You want to try and manipulate my position into a 'homophobic anti-gay' viewpoint, because it disagrees with your view, which you see as 'pro-gay'. But I am not homophobic at all, I have no problem with homosexuals, I have friends who are gay, I have relatives who are gay, and because of my close association with a lot of gay friends and family, I have been mistakenly presumed to be gay myself before! This is NOT about whether I like gay people! This is about changing the definition of a word to fit your desires, and I reject that concept on that basis alone! Furthermore, it is about the consequences to the rule of law and how the 14th Amendment might apply to such a decision. You've not thought past the end of your queer little dick about that, you don't care, you are an emotive nitwit who just wants to bash people you don't know and call them horrible names because they disagree with your politics.
I presented an idea for comprehensive civil union contracts, and doing away with government sanction of marriage. That would give all these gay people you feel so sorry for, every goddamn right and benefit they ever wanted! At the same time, it gives religious people what they want, it gives those concerned about the legality precedent issues, and ethical and moral concerns, exactly what they want as well. But that isn't good enough for you! Nooo... You have to keep bashing Dixie and calling him a homophobic bigot, because THAT is what this issue is about for YOU!