Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Southern Man said:
1. OK so you've reversed yourself. Please decide what position you'll take and state same.
Click to expand...
playing ping pong about what I posted vs. what you read is not in my future. either accept exactly what I wrote or remain in your ignorance. your call.

Southern Man said:
2. Awesome straw man dude! I say behavior, then you say race. Are you a TaiChiLiberal troll?
Click to expand...

it's neither, but you know this. let me know when you're done being obtuse.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, I am saying because the Japanese used saltwater which in and of istelf can cause death, but was still used; jumping on the stomache and inducing vomiting can cause death, but was still used; because not timing the use or measuring the amount of the water can cause death and or brain damage, but was still used; that this is not close or equal to the careful use of watreboarding by American interrogators where none of these techniques were applied...where death or brain damage was ever a possibility, that they are in fact NOT equal.

Are you saying they are? If so how so?

60 years ago the issue was the techniques the Japanese used.

The problem is that you cannot answer the question. Are the 3 men Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri terrorists? Have you or are you, planning on commiting acts of murder against civillians for political reasons?
Click to expand...

Freshwater can cause death also, so that's one more bullshit bogus argument gone by the wayside...how many more has ID got?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously it is abnormal.....though for a variety of strange reasons those on the left choose to ignore reality......and that's what this thread was about, wasn't it?......
Click to expand...

No, it is about whether or not it is reason enough to stop them from marrying.

If someone is born with one leg, blind, deaf, or whatever, they are still allowed to marry. That is far more abnormal than being gay.

So why is it that this one abnormality is the only one that prevents them from marrying?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then by all means, we should institutionalize all the retarded and autistic people in our country so we don't have to treat them equally.
Click to expand...
if the liberals were consistent, they would be passing laws that said IQ tests should be redefined to declare retarded persons to be geniuses.......

Same with liberals and greens because they damn sure aren't normal.
Click to expand...

....okay, even you are entitled to be right, once in a while....
 
SmarterThanYou said:
playing ping pong about what I posted vs. what you read is not in my future. either accept exactly what I wrote or remain in your ignorance. your call.



it's neither, but you know this. let me know when you're done being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Now you won't admit to the straw man. How is what I wrote analogous to the racial angle that you asserted?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Enhanced interrogation techniques are legal and used regularly. Are you saying what the Japanese did and what the Americans did is the same thing? Certainly waterboarding is the act of making a person feel as though they are drowning. That said, what the Japanese did went far beyond that using techniques that caused death and permanent damage.

No, it is you who have sidestepped the issue. You are the one who used yourself as some sort of comaprison to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, not me. So my questions are valid...you are unwilling to answer them is all.

It was authorized and legal for the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques...pretty simple.
Click to expand...

It's really a very simple question...and STY has asked it two or three times now. maybe you could quit stalling and answering a question with a question and STFU long enough to actually answer a question for once?

It's really a simple question: 'is it legal and justifiable to torture another human being?'
 
WinterBorn said:
No, it is about whether or not it is reason enough to stop them from marrying.

If someone is born with one leg, blind, deaf, or whatever, they are still allowed to marry. That is far more abnormal than being gay.

So why is it that this one abnormality is the only one that prevents them from marrying?
Click to expand...

are you suggesting that the centuries old definition of marriage precluded blind, deaf paraplegics?.....

in any event, I'm pretty sure the law precludes strawmen from being married, and that's all your present argument is proposing.....

you can pretend all you like, but it's going to take more than a liberal's opinion to convert the abnormal into the normal......
 
WinterBorn said:
No, it is about whether or not it is reason enough to stop them from marrying.

If someone is born with one leg, blind, deaf, or whatever, they are still allowed to marry. That is far more abnormal than being gay.

So why is it that this one abnormality is the only one that prevents them from marrying?
Click to expand...

Nothing prevent gay people from marrying, we just don't allow state recognition of such 'marriages.'
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It's really a very simple question...and STY has asked it two or three times now. maybe you could quit stalling and answering a question with a question and STFU long enough to actually answer a question for once?

It's really a simple question: 'is it legal and justifiable to torture another human being?'
Click to expand...

why are you idiots debating torture and terrorism on a thread about homosexuality?......
 
Southern Man said:
So now you agree that terrorists are not the same as legal soldiers. Progress.

Now you have to understand that it is perfectly legal to treat certain folks differently because of their behavior, or because they broke the terms of a treaty.
Click to expand...


"it is perfectly legal to treat certain folks differently because of their behavior"

Oh yes, that one is a keeper!
 
Dixie said:
Nothing prevent gay people from marrying, we just don't allow state recognition of such 'marriages.'
Click to expand...

In other words, blind can marry, deaf can marry, those born without arms can marry, those born with many birth defects can marry, and all of those get the same gov't benefits that everyone else does.

But this one abnormality is treated differently.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why are you idiots debating torture and terrorism on a thread about homosexuality?......
Click to expand...

because all three subjects have a basic and common theme, humanity. either people are all human, or they are not. people on different sides of the issues need to classify some group of humans as non-humans for the purposes of legitimizing their discrimination of that group or their outright denial of basic rights.
 
WinterBorn said:
In other words, blind can marry, deaf can marry, those born without arms can marry, those born with many birth defects can marry, and all of those get the same gov't benefits that everyone else does.

But this one abnormality is treated differently.
Click to expand...

do those abnormalities contradict the definition of marraige?.....I suspect, for example there are other instances in which those abnormalities would prohibit government approval.....for instance, no one is asking for a re-definition of "sight" to permit a blind person from getting a driver's license......should we petition the government to require basketball teams to hire people without arms because it isn't fair to treat them differently?.......should autistic people be hired as flight controllers at airports because it isn't fair?......
 
Dixie said:
Benefits are establishments of law, this can be done without disturbing the tradition of marriage, and has been proposed as "civil unions" but you aren't interested in that. If your focus were on the relationship, this would be a non-issue. What you are focused on, is destroying a religious institution that you don't feel deserves any respect, because you are not religious. Let's at least be honest about your motivations here.
Click to expand...

Now you are making things now Dixie. I have absolutely been in favor of having benefits for civil unions. I have said numerous times that it would be best to have all gov't benefits stem from the civil union and leave the religious ceremonies up to the various religions who preside over them.


Argue the points, but don't make up shit that I did not say.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
because all three subjects have a basic and common theme, humanity. either people are all human, or they are not. people on different sides of the issues need to classify some group of humans as non-humans for the purposes of legitimizing their discrimination of that group or their outright denial of basic rights.
Click to expand...

???....lame.....the issue of the treatment of Tibet by China also deals with humanity.......so does the interpretation of modern art at the graduate level....the long and the short of it is, gays do not have a basic right to marry.....if they did, they wouldn't need the law to be changed, would they.....by no stretch of imagination does that turn them into "non-humans".....that category is reserved for liberals....
 
WinterBorn said:
Now you are making things now Dixie. I have absolutely been in favor of having benefits for civil unions. I have said numerous times that it would be best to have all gov't benefits stem from the civil union and leave the religious ceremonies up to the various religions who preside over them.


Argue the points, but don't make up shit that I did not say.
Click to expand...

yet it's pretty obvious it wasn't good enough for the folks that filed the lawsuits in Massachusetts and California....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....lame.....the issue of the treatment of Tibet by China also deals with humanity.......so does the interpretation of modern art at the graduate level....the long and the short of it is, gays do not have a basic right to marry.....if they did, they wouldn't need the law to be changed, would they.....by no stretch of imagination does that turn them into "non-humans".....that category is reserved for liberals....
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree with this. the non-human category is indeed reserved for liberals.

as to the other part about gays not having the right to marry. lets examine this in a constitutional light.

People have a right to enter in to a contractual agreement that does not break the law, correct?

and marriage, by definition, is a contract mutually agreed upon, correct?

and this marriage contract is recognized by all 50 states of the union via the full faith and credit clause, correct?

so where does any government entity have the constitutional authority to define who can and cannot enter in to a legal contract?
 
WinterBorn said:
In other words, blind can marry, deaf can marry, those born without arms can marry, those born with many birth defects can marry, and all of those get the same gov't benefits that everyone else does.

But this one abnormality is treated differently.
Click to expand...

Nope... Homosexual people have the absolute exact same right as anyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex. There is NO discrimination!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top