CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Alias said:
Because there is no scientific evidence they were born that way. Many homosexuals have become straight. Those of you who support the gay agenda can't accept that.
Click to expand...

Just like there is no scientific evidence that heterosexuals were born that way. Many "heteroseuxals" have become (like they weren't already) gay. Those of you who support the straight agenda can't accept that.
 
Alias said:
No, they don't. Sexual intercourse is a vagina and a penis. A penis and an anus is not sexual intercourse. Please tell me you're not that stupid.
Click to expand...

Then what about a hand and a vagina?
or
A hand and a penis?
or
A mouth and a viagina?
or
A mouth and a penis?

Are those examples of sex or not?
 
Alias said:
You said they think they were born that way. So which is it?
Click to expand...

I said that tens of thousands swear that they were born that way. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, why do you dismiss all those people saying they were never attracted to the opposite gender?
 
Alias said:
No, they don't. Sexual intercourse is a vagina and a penis. A penis and an anus is not sexual intercourse. Please tell me you're not that stupid.
Click to expand...

Didn't the right (and everyone else) laugh at Clinton when he said he did not have sex with that woman? Wasn't him getting a blowjob having sex with her?
 
Who cares how people were born?

Why would you care if its a choice or if its the way people are born? Are people not free to CHOOSE if its a choice and are people not free to live there natural life if its the way one is born?

Hey, its not for you, I get that and thats fine. It might work well for someone else and thats fine too. Live and let live!

If my neighbor enjoys bathing with chickens, I am okay with that, his choice. If he chooses not to marry and likes to masterbate while looking in the mirror... Its really none of my business.

People should be free to live there lives in the way they choose untill it materially affects others in a negative way!

If Newt wants to have three different marriages in his life, thats his choice.
 
WinterBorn said:
Uh, that is what he is advocating. Marriage being a loving relationship (as established by the gov't when they will dissolve a marriage for lack of sex), he is advocating for people to marry who they choose. Since they can already marry someone of the opposite gender, the only ones disciminated against are those who love someone of the same gender. .
Click to expand...

Nope, I am restricted from marrying my brother, but not because of my sexual orientation. He only wants the special treatment reserved for homosexuals, otherwise, it would cease to be special treatment.

Southern Chicken said:
. The fact that a gay man is required by law to ignore his sexual orientation if he wishes to choose someone to marry, means that the restriction is based upon sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
 
Jarod said:
Those abusing there wives are not perverting the institution?
Drunks getting married on a whim in Vegas are not perverting your sacred institution?
Gold diggers getting married for money to men 50 years older than them are not preverting your sacred institution?

All of these things are happening, yet you focus on couples who are truely in love who want to sanctify there relationship?
Click to expand...

Well, individuals are free to pervert the institution but some of us have issues when it is the government doing it.
 
WinterBorn said:
So the institution of marriage is fine now, and the gay couple down the street has been living together for 5 years.

But if they get married, it will somehow effect the rest of the marriages? Can you see how ridiculous that is??
Click to expand...

No where near as ridiculous as your insistance that the two gay guys who have been shacking up for 5 years, MUST be granted the benefits of marriage, while the single mother and grandmother, raising their 3 children/grandchildren for 8 years right next door, do not. Somehow related to the fact that the two guys bury each others boners deeply up their respective butts for sexual gratification while mom and grandma do not. Exce[pt I cant imagined what deeply buried boners has to do with ANYTHING here.
 
dixon76710 said:
Well, individuals are free to pervert the institution but some of us have issues when it is the government doing it.
Click to expand...

But its not the government doing anything but allowing freedom. What people do with that freedom is up to them. The government could ban spur of the moment marriages in Vegas, they could ban drunken marriages, they could ban marriages between people when the age difference is more than 50 years.

I would not be in support of these actions, but if you consider allowing homosexual marriage "the goverment doing it" you must also consider that the government is doing these other things.
 
WinterBorn said:
Didn't the right (and everyone else) laugh at Clinton when he said he did not have sex with that woman? Wasn't him getting a blowjob having sex with her?
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between a sexual act and sexual intercourse? Please tell me you're not that stupid.
 
dixon76710 said:
No where near as ridiculous as your insistance that the two gay guys who have been shacking up for 5 years, MUST be granted the benefits of marriage, while the single mother and grandmother, raising their 3 children/grandchildren for 8 years right next door, do not. Somehow related to the fact that the two guys bury each others boners deeply up their respective butts for sexual gratification while mom and grandma do not. Exce[pt I cant imagined what deeply buried boners has to do with ANYTHING here.
Click to expand...

The mother and grandmother in your example already enjoy a legally defined family relationship that allows them benefits based on that relationship. The two otherwise unrelated gay men do not. Additionally the mother and daughter are free to enter into contracts with eachother that would allow additional protections.
 
Damocles said:
Is a sexual act "having sex"? In my book it is.
Click to expand...

More importantly...who cares? It's just a distraction, because every other argument has failed.

Couples aren't required to have sexual "intercourse" - by whatever definition - in order to get married.
 
Jarod said:
The mother and grandmother in your example already enjoy a legally defined family relationship that allows them benefits based on that relationship. The two otherwise unrelated gay men do not. Additionally the mother and daughter are free to enter into contracts with eachother that would allow additional protections.
Click to expand...

The additionally part doesn't help your argument. Gay people are also allowed to enter into those same contractual agreements.
 
Damocles said:
Is a sexual act "having sex"? In my book it is.
Click to expand...

I hate to agree with Alias, but sexual intercorse is one of many types of sexual acts. Masterbating is a sexual act, yet its not what I would consider intercorse.
 
Jarod said:
I hate to agree with Alias, but sexual intercorse is one of many types of sexual acts. Masterbating is a sexual act, yet its not what I would consider intercorse.
Click to expand...

If I said it was "intercourse" I would be wrong. However, getting a blowjob is having sex. Let's say, if I forced somebody to do these things could I be busted for rape? If so, call it "sex"... It may be that I am busted for rape because of forced sodomy (happens all the time), but it was still sex. We can argue whether "is is"... Or we can admit that President Clinton was being deliberately and carefully disingenuous. What constitutes "legal" truth really isn't what most people think of as truth.
 
Damocles said:
The additionally part doesn't help your argument. Gay people are also allowed to enter into those same contractual agreements.
Click to expand...

True, but at least in the current state of the law, there are some things the gay couple cannot contract for... such as owning land as tenants by the entirity, and there are some insurance policies that automatically cover relatives (such as the grandmother, daughter or husband and wife) that the gay couple could never "Contract" themselves into.
 
Damocles said:
If I said it was "intercourse" I would be wrong. However, getting a blowjob is having sex. We can argue whether "is is"... Or we can admit that President Clinton was being deliberately and carefully disingenuous. What constitutes "legal" truth really isn't what most people think of as truth.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
 
In Florida, if you have auto insurance you automatically have "Personal Injury Protection" or PIP insurance. Its a modified no-fault system up to $10,000. The policy is standard and covers any relative who you live with. That would include your wife, your child, your grandmother.

Your PIP insurance would not cover your live in lover, your daughters boyfriend or your domestic partner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top