Democrats - you got your MORAL VICTORY! Time to celebrate!

[TheDude]

fossten-You are coming from an incorrect premise and also operating via moral relativism. Can you not see the difference between right and wrong?

Yes, in this case I can.

The correct way to look at this is:

1. Marriage b/t man and woman was here first and is sanctioned by society as a norm.
- That is irrelevant, no one is trying to ban hetrosexual marriages and replace them with homosexual ones. It's simply an addition.2. Tax breaks and other benefits for marriage are for man and woman.
-You mean hetrosexual men/women.. Refer to my Jim Crow reference, people are people Fossten, it not like homosexuality is a crime.
3. Gays want to obtain benefits equivalent to hetero married couples without having to change their lifestyles and thus conform to societal norms.
-They shouldn't have to change thier lifestyle to fit someone else's view, like I said, they're not commiting a crime and they are not asking hetrosexuals to change their lifestyles.4. They are trying to redefine a societal norm for PURELY ECONOMIC benefit, i.e. obtain SPECIAL RIGHTS.
-No, they want to be treated equally.
5. They claim discrimination because they don't get those special rights, despite the fact that society in general doesn't approve what they want.
-They claim discrimination because that is exactly what it is. It's not a crime to be a homosexual and they are not asking for anything above the law.6. You fall for their rhetoric and succumb to the pressure because you don't want to be made to feel guilty about telling somebody else they are wrong.
-Wrong again, I do not feel guilty, I could care less what two other constenting adults do with each other. Once again you take the stand point that they are criminals asking for special rights to commit a crime. It just isn't the case.

And for what it's worth, divorce, although hated by God, was permitted in the old days. Homosexuality was NEVER permitted by God in the Bible. You make an illogical argument when you try to compare divorce to homosexuality. That's apples and oranges. You would do better to compare polygamy to homosexuality.

-it was hated by God but permitted? I believe since you have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible. But the hated/permitted dynamic seems just a bit too convenient.

Would you approve of a new definition of marriage that states that marriage doesn't have to be between one man and one woman, thus making polygamy a legal status?[/QUOTE]

-Yes I would as long as it involved consenting adults, I wouldn't care to practice polygamy, but what right do I have to stop two or more adults from living the way they like as long as they do not harm anyone else.

Truthfully, I'm not overly concerned, I'm disgusted by it but I'm certain this will come to pass in time, society seems to be ever moving forwards even if it sometimes slows to a crawl. At one point African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens, but look what we have today. Womens rights was another issue back in the day and look how far women can advance today; can we say President? Ask someone 50 years ago if a woman would ever sit in the oval office and they'd have laughed their ass off.

I ask you this, what difference in your life would it change or impact if two men or two women you'll never meet get married?

 

[fossten]

fossten-You are coming from an incorrect premise and also operating via moral relativism. Can you not see the difference between right and wrong?

Yes, in this case I can.

The correct way to look at this is:

1. Marriage b/t man and woman was here first and is sanctioned by society as a norm.
- That is irrelevant, no one is trying to ban hetrosexual marriages and replace them with homosexual ones. It's simply an addition.2. Tax breaks and other benefits for marriage are for man and woman.
-You mean hetrosexual men/women.. Refer to my Jim Crow reference, people are people Fossten, it not like homosexuality is a crime.
3. Gays want to obtain benefits equivalent to hetero married couples without having to change their lifestyles and thus conform to societal norms.
-They shouldn't have to change thier lifestyle to fit someone else's view, like I said, they're not commiting a crime and they are not asking hetrosexuals to change their lifestyles.4. They are trying to redefine a societal norm for PURELY ECONOMIC benefit, i.e. obtain SPECIAL RIGHTS.
-No, they want to be treated equally.
5. They claim discrimination because they don't get those special rights, despite the fact that society in general doesn't approve what they want.
-They claim discrimination because that is exactly what it is. It's not a crime to be a homosexual and they are not asking for anything above the law.6. You fall for their rhetoric and succumb to the pressure because you don't want to be made to feel guilty about telling somebody else they are wrong.
-Wrong again, I do not feel guilty, I could care less what two other constenting adults do with each other. Once again you take the stand point that they are criminals asking for special rights to commit a crime. It just isn't the case.

And for what it's worth, divorce, although hated by God, was permitted in the old days. Homosexuality was NEVER permitted by God in the Bible. You make an illogical argument when you try to compare divorce to homosexuality. That's apples and oranges. You would do better to compare polygamy to homosexuality.

-it was hated by God but permitted? I believe since you have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible. But the hated/permitted dynamic seems just a bit too convenient.

Would you approve of a new definition of marriage that states that marriage doesn't have to be between one man and one woman, thus making polygamy a legal status?

-Yes I would as long as it involved consenting adults, I wouldn't care to practice polygamy, but what right do I have to stop two or more adults from living the way they like as long as they do not harm anyone else.

Truthfully, I'm not overly concerned, I'm disgusted by it but I'm certain this will come to pass in time, society seems to be ever moving forwards even if it sometimes slows to a crawl. At one point African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens, but look what we have today. Womens rights was another issue back in the day and look how far women can advance today; can we say President? Ask someone 50 years ago if a woman would ever sit in the oval office and they'd have laughed their ass off.

I ask you this, what difference in your life would it change or impact if two men or two women you'll never meet get married?

Look at you putting words in my mouth. I never said homosexuals were criminals.

Homosexuals are already treated equally. You are once again comparing apples with oranges. Homosexuals aren't treated like 'lesser human beings' that need civil rights. They have the same rights as you and I do. What they don't deserve is marital status, because that is a different set of privileges reserved only for a man and a woman. What they want is a special set of group rights, which are not guaranteed by the Constitution. You're absolutely wrong on this one.

The Bible expressly states what I said about divorce. Are you calling me a liar? Do you need me to list the verses for you?

Interesting to hear that you are in favor of polygamy. I will now refer you to this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312_pf.html

You said you're not overly concerned, but you're disgusted at the same time? Sounds like double talk to me.

And stop questioning me about whether or not this affects me personally. Many things don't, but that doesn't keep me from being able to say that they are wrong.

The fact that you apparently only care about issues that affect you personally indicates that you are selfish, possibly even narcissistic. But I'll bite: Whether or not they get group rights doesn't affect you personally, so what do you care?

By the way, Hillary Clinton not only won't be President, she might not even get the nomination. Your assertion that we will have a woman President is highly unlikely in 2008.

 

[TheDude]

Look at you putting words in my mouth. I never said homosexuals were criminals.

Homosexuals are already treated equally. You are once again comparing apples with oranges. Homosexuals aren't treated like 'lesser human beings' that need civil rights. They have the same rights as you and I do. What they don't deserve is marital status, because that is a different set of privileges reserved only for a man and a woman. What they want is a special set of group rights, which are not guaranteed by the Constitution. You're absolutely wrong on this one.

They do not have the same rights; civil unions do not provide the same rights and privileges that a marriage does. If they did, then I doubt this would be an issue for the most part. Would you be happy with 1/3 of what others received for your tax dollars spent?

The Bible expressly states what I said about divorce. Are you calling me a liar? Do you need me to list the verses for you?

The exact opposite, I know you are well versed in the Bible.

(* I have a Bible question for you, that you could probably answer, please see below.)

You said you're not overly concerned, but you're disgusted at the same time? Sounds like double talk to me.

Not double talk. I am disgusted that this kind of oppression is still had in America BUT I am not overly concerned because I feel in time gays/lesbians will receive equal rights. It will just happen slower than it should.

And stop questioning me about whether or not this affects me personally. Many things don't, but that doesn't keep me from being able to say that they are wrong.

It's a valid point here, because gay marriages would have ZERO impact on your personal life, they would cause no harm to others and you’re against it solely because of your religious views as the majority of people who are against it. Feel free to correct me here if I am wrong.

I'm not saying you have to agree with the homosexual life style, like it, condone it or practice it. But there is no valid legal arguement why gays/lesbians should be denied equal rights.

The fact that you apparently only care about issues that affect you personally indicates that you are selfish, possibly even narcissistic. But I'll bite: Whether or not they get group rights doesn't affect you personally, so what do you care?

It wouldn't personally affect me in any way, correct. But I side with the gay/lesbian rights movement because I feel gays/lesbians should have equal rights, they're people just like you and I (with the exception of sexuality). Also, who's to say in the future some group in power comes along saying that Caucasian males can no longer marry Caucasian females, then what? I'm f@#ked because I'm married to a white woman. Silly analogy, but it's about setting the precedent for equal rights.

By the way, Hillary Clinton not only won't be President, she might not even get the nomination. Your assertion that we will have a woman President is highly unlikely in 2008.

Not saying Hillary is a guaranteed shoe in and I personally think she won't ever be president. I was merely stating that the possibility now exist where a few decades ago it was held as being impossible.

....................................................................................................

* I know the Bible forbids man to man & man to animal sexual relationships, but I had trouble finding were a woman to woman is forbidden. Any insites?

 

[fossten]

They do not have the same rights; civil unions do not provide the same rights and privileges that a marriage does. If they did, then I doubt this would be an issue for the most part. Would you be happy with 1/3 of what others received for your tax dollars spent?

Civil unions are not provided for in the Constitution, nor are they anything but a recent phenomenon, due to the growth of gay rights groups in the US. There is no legal precedent for giving them equal standing with hetero married couples. Period. No matter what you say.


I'm not saying you have to agree with the homosexual life style, like it, condone it or practice it. But there is no valid legal arguement why gays/lesbians should be denied equal rights.

See above.


It wouldn't personally affect me in any way, correct. But I side with the gay/lesbian rights movement because I feel gays/lesbians should have equal rights, they're people just like you and I (with the exception of sexuality).

They already do have equal rights. What they don't get is the privilege to share in marital rights because they don't qualify as married. Why not, you say? The main reason is that they can't produce children.


* I know the Bible forbids man to man & man to animalxual relationships, but I had trouble finding were a woman to woman is forbidden. Any insites

Sure. Here:

Romans 1:26-27

26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[TheDude]

Civil unions are not provided for in the Constitution, nor are they anything but a recent phenomenon, due to the growth of gay rights groups in the US. There is no legal precedent for giving them equal standing with hetero married couples. Period. No matter what you say.

Declaration of Independance states.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Lincoln used this as a stepping stone to free the slaves, why doesn't it apply to homosexuals? Being legally married and having ALL of the rights and privileges entitled to someone else would fall under 'pursuit of happiness'.

They already do have equal rights. What they don't get is the privilege to share in marital rights because they don't qualify as married. Why not, you say? The main reason is that they can't produce children.

If they had equal rights, they'd be entitled to the same privileges that our marriages give us and they don't. Like I said before, the union thing is about 1/3 of the privileges/benefits.The 'can't produce children' argument is filled with more holes than the Swiss cheese I had in my sandwich this afternoon.

-What about hetro marriages where one person is sterile?
-What about lesbian couples, the potential for children is doubled there
-What about gay men that have children (it happens)

You didn’t correct me in my assumption that the MAIN reason why people are against gay marriages boils down to their personal view of religion. Like I said, no one says you have to like it or morally agree with it, but you have no right to deny it.

 

[fossten]

Declaration of Independance states.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Lincoln used this as a stepping stone to free the slaves, why doesn't it apply to homosexuals?

BECAUSE THEY AREN'T SLAVES.

If they had equal rights, they'd be entitled to the same privileges that our marriages give us and they don't. Like I said before, the union thing is about 1/3 of the privileges/benefits.The 'can't produce children' argument is filled with more holes than the Swiss cheese I had in my sandwich this afternoon.

-What about hetro marriages where one person is sterile?
-What about lesbian couples, the potential for children is doubled there
-What about gay men that have children (it happens) Really? You mean like in the movie "Junior?" Oh, you think that was real! Well, little boy, I have news for you - that was just the movies, not real life. Get a clue.

That's absurd. A gay man and a gay man cannot produce children. A gay woman and a gay woman cannot produce children. Traditional marriages that have a sterile spouse has nothing to do with a lifestyle choice, it has to do with a medical condition, and is the exception to the rule of production. The gay marriage's inability to produce children is ABSOLUTE. The ONLY WAY for any of them to have a child is by introducing a member of the opposite sex into the equation. Did you not learn ANYTHING in biology class? Or were you too busy watching the Smurfs? You are making an illogical, absurd argument that will accomplish nothing. I'm done arguing this with you.

You didn’t correct me in my assumption that the MAIN reason why people are against gay marriages boils down to their personal view of religion. Like I said, no one says you have to like it or morally agree with it, but you have no right to deny it.

I have a right to deny anything within my power, and you have no right to deny that.

 

[TheDude]

BECAUSE THEY AREN'T SLAVES.

I know that, but they are being denied rights/privileges just as slaves where; but on a MUCH lesser note, it still doesn't make it right though.

I guess "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." is subjective.

Really? You mean like in the movie "Junior?" Oh, you think that was real! Well, little boy, I have news for you - that was just the movies, not real life. Get a clue.

No. not like the movie Junior, if you'd step down from your holier than thou alter you'd see what I meant (I’ll explain below).Little boy? Lol, I see the old Fossten has reared his ugly little head again.

That's absurd. A gay man and a gay man cannot produce children. A gay woman and a gay woman cannot produce children. Traditional marriages that have a sterile spouse has nothing to do with a lifestyle choice, it has to do with a medical condition, and is the exception to the rule of production.

It's an exception to the rule because it benefits hetrosexuals, that's why.

The gay marriage's inability to produce children is ABSOLUTE. The ONLY WAY for any of them to have a child is by introducing a member of the opposite sex into the equation.

You said the main reason for denying gay marriages was 'inability' to produce children... There are many instances were gay men/women after being heterosexually married and having children 'come out' so to speak, these people have the capacity to go on with their lives, re-marry and for all essential purposes have a family were one parent is a father in-law or mother in-law of the previous marriage offspring. I believe you have something similar in your life since you have mentioned being a step-father, that's why I figured you'd understand my point.

In the case of a lesbian marriage; have you ever heard of artificial insemination? Straight couples that reproduce this way are granted full marriage rights, what makes two lesbians different other than their sexual orientation?

Did you not learn ANYTHING in biology class? Or were you too busy watching the Smurfs?

Ya, you're one to belittle me on biology Mr. Intelligent Design...I watched the Smurfs about the time I was in kindergarten, biology wasn't taught then, duh.
Ugly head rearing number deux!

You are making an illogical, absurd argument that will accomplish nothing.

They only seem illogical to your religious bias views, that doesn't necessarily make them useless.

I'm done arguing this with you.

Lol, Raveneyes called you out on this a few weeks backs, thats funny. And I thought we were debating not argueing. Have it your way though.

I have a right to deny anything within my power, and you have no right to deny that.

No you don't; not in the sense you're thinking. If I had the ability (power) to deny you of your religious views and I did so, it wouldn't make it right solely based on the premise 'because I can'.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

That's absurd. A gay man and a gay man cannot produce children. A gay woman and a gay woman cannot produce children. Traditional marriages that have a sterile spouse has nothing to do with a lifestyle choice, it has to do with a medical condition, and is the exception to the rule of production. The gay marriage's inability to produce children is ABSOLUTE. The ONLY WAY for any of them to have a child is by introducing a member of the opposite sex into the equation.

So are you saying that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"??

:bowrofl:

That explains EVERYTHING. You don't know a damn thing about homosexuality, so you are unauthorized to debate it. STFU.

 

[fossten]

So are you saying that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"??

:bowrofl:

That explains EVERYTHING. You don't know a damn thing about homosexuality, so you are unauthorized to debate it. STFU.

STFU? Oh, I must have hit a nerve!

Are you a homosexual?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

STFU? Oh, I must have hit a nerve!

Sure did, you are talking out your arse about something you know nothing about, AS ALWAYS.

Are you a homosexual?

No, but what if I was? Are you interested? :lol:

 

[fossten]

Sure did, you are talking out your arse about something you know nothing about, AS ALWAYS.

No, but what if I was? Are you interested? :lol:

Hey, Johnny, it's okay, you know, our society is all right with that stuff now. You can come out of the closet. You have nothing to be ashamed of big guy. There's no need to be in denial in this day and age.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

- Jerry Seinfeld

 

[TheDude]

Hey, Fossten, it's okay, you know, our society is all right with that stuff now. You can come out of the closet. You have nothing to be ashamed of big guy. There's no need to be in denial in this day and age.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

- Jerry Seinfeld

Look, I pulled a Fossten... Yay!

 

[fossten]

Look, I pulled a Johnny... Yay!

You obviously cannot read. Let me make it real big since your squinting obviously blinds you.

 

[TheDude]

You obviously cannot read. Let me make it real big since your squinting obviously blinds you.

Lol... You just proved that I was correct... Lol...