This had better not pass
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=155782
Printed Date: 05 December 2025 at 5:13am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: This had better not pass
Posted By: mbro
Subject: This had better not pass
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:02am
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/05/politics/main1680630.shtml - Thank god they solved all the real problems and can now work on this. Now that the war is over, inflation isn't out of control and our international policy is in order we can finally get down to the real issues, stoping **edited**s from marrying.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness my ass. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Replies:
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:11am
|
Yeah, no joke man. It's just a political ploy to get the religious right mobilized again so maybe they can do better in the November election though. Hopefully that's so glaringly obvious that it wont work, but I don't have that much faith in this country right now.
-------------  |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:14am
"The world's going to Hades in a hand basket. We're going to debate the next three weeks, I'm told, **edited** marriage, a flag amendment and God only knows what else. I can't believe the American people can't see through this," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said on NBC's "Meet the Press." -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 7:43pm
|
bump because i said so -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:09pm
|
BUT ITS ICKY
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:14pm
|
I want it to pass.
Atleast send it on to the people to vote. Gallop pole says majority are against **edited** marriage. It's a privledge, NOT a right. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:14pm
It's blatant discrimination. ------------- http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Linus wrote:Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:17pm
 -------------
|
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:19pm
|
Yep....it's still discrimination.
------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:21pm
|
Hmmm i'm sure alot of people wanted blacks to keep using seperate water fountains too.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:21pm
|
Dont care what you call it, majority is against it.
EDIT---- How'd I know someone would bring up segregation and/or slavery? ALWAYS the fall back for liberals / pro-**edited** marriage activist. -------------
|
Posted By: Boss_DJ
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:22pm
|
------------- 
|
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:23pm
|
Linus, choke on my anus.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:24pm
|
As if you couldn't tell by my previous post, I'm against those kind of acts.
But you obviously failed Reading Comprehension 101. -------------
|
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:27pm
I'm calling it discrimination because that's what it is. It's a sad fact that the majority is for it. ------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:28pm
|
So, if it discriminates against a minorities PRIVLEDGES, it shouldn't even be thought of?
There is a difference between a right and a privledge buddy. Marriage is NOT a right. -------------
|
Posted By: Boss_DJ
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:29pm
i actually don't really care about the topic but i hate people making stupid statements that mean crap -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:31pm
|
SO.. if someone wants to marry their sisters (Boss >_>) they should be allowed to?
If someone wants polygymy, they should be allowed to? If someone wants to marry their dog, they should be allowed to? Sorry.. make concessions for one and you have to for ALL. Talk about discrimination... -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:36pm
... What? ------------- 
|
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:36pm
|
Linus, why are atheists allowed to get married? (privilege* btw, Linus. If you're going to make an idiot of yourself, at least do it with your thoughts/opinons, not basic spelling errors) -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:39pm
|
Making **edited** marriage illegal means that it is making it illegal for two people to enter into contract with each other based soley on their sex. It makes no sense to me and I have yet to hear one good argument against it. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:42pm
|
Linus, Why should straight people be allowed to marry? That's right, because you're straight. Try putting yourself in their position. If you were **edited** (God forbid), you would want to be able to. And I don't see a lot of people wanting to marry their sisters or dog. ------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:43pm
|
Lets be practical here people; What America REALLY needs is more lowered trucks and vacuous placement of eastern religious symbols. Bonus points if they're animated.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:50pm
|
Dont use the "if you were in their shoes" arguement... doesnt mean anything.
If you were in MINE you'd think MY way, correct? See.. logic is flawed. As for Mbro...I revert you to my original post...
I mean... you condone the guy getting married to his dog? If not, why not? Solely because of the sex? What about marrying his sister? -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:53pm
|
NEWPORT FOR THE WIN! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Project Irene
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:57pm
| I along with 80% of my state want it to pass. |
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 8:57pm
|
Alright, well then please give me one example of how **edited** marriage affects you. Just one. Seriously, who cares if they marry. It's not like everytime a **edited** couple gets married, you have a heart attack. ------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:00pm
|
Every time a **edited** couple gets married, an angel gets its wings Bango. Linus worships the devil, and wont allow this to happen.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:03pm
|
Bango, answer me this.. would you be ok with
A) Man marrying his sister. and / or B) Man marrying his dog. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:04pm
|
Here is why people don't want homosexuals to get married:
"They don't make good parents" "It's against god" "It threatens my sexuality" Good reasons, no? -------------
|
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:07pm
------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:09pm
|
3 countries have it legalized.. 3. Out of over 200+.
We arent the only ones against it. GO to Canada and get married if youw ant to say youre married. It wont count for beans here.. but if all you want it marriage.. visit them and get married. Then come back. -------------
|
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:12pm
|
What do you have against **edited** people that makes you not want them to be able to marry?
------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:15pm
linus,
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:17pm
I have nothing against them. We even have one employed by us. Very nice guy.. cool too. My firm belief is that it's a decision, and it's a wrong one. If, for the very slight possibility that they are born with it, then dont act upon the 'urges'. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:21pm
Haha, so you want someone to live their whole life in an uncomfortable, unfulfilling lie? Sounds much better. I cant beleive people with the mindset like you. "Theyre homosexual, and they're wrong, they need to change" |
Posted By: PbMuz98
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:21pm
|
even though i'm catholic i still think it's BS that the government wants to ban **edited** marriage. other than religion, i haven't heard one decent argument against it. seriously, if the state really is seperate from the church there should be no reason to ban **edited** marriage. ------------- 98c drop j&j ceramic 12" derder sticker on hopper= +2bps |
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:23pm
Wow. A wrong decision. Then, to top it off, you say don't act upon the urges? You're unbelievable. Do you realize what your asking them to do? I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, but that's like me telling you to stop having heterosexual urges. If that's how they feel, who are you to tell them to ignore their urges? I'ts good that you're not homophobic though, I was kind of expecting you to be. ------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:23pm
And I cant believe people with a mindset like you, oblivious to the great possibility that it's a decision! -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:27pm
|
Linus, God doesnt like when you judge others. Have fun in hell.
-------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:31pm
|
my uncle was **edited**. he had **edited** friends visit in STL while i was there to help him put on a new years party. linus, you are so closed minded it's not even funny. it's borderline scary actually. i doubt you've even been in the same room much less talked to a **edited** couple. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:33pm
|
Linus, do you actually beleive what you say, or just spew the opposite of anything that makes sense to amuse yourself?
I know you "know" a **edited** guy from work, but have you ever actually talked to him/ got to know him? I think its pretty obvious you havent. I've got a **edited** guy living in my room in my apartment for the summer while I'm home. I couldnt care less, he's a good friend, one of the funniest people I know, and extremely open about his homosexuality. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:36pm
|
Linus, until you interact with a **edited** couple and understand they care for each other the same way your mom cares for me, you will never grasp the concept of **edited** marriage. Good day, sir! -------------
|
Posted By: PbMuz98
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:45pm
|
what i wana know is is linus opposed to **edited** marriage because he's religous or because he's a redneck homophobe. ------------- 98c drop j&j ceramic 12" derder sticker on hopper= +2bps |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:47pm
Its the same thing. -------------
|
Posted By: PbMuz98
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:50pm
|
crap, i walked right into that one ------------- 98c drop j&j ceramic 12" derder sticker on hopper= +2bps |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:50pm
ZING! -------------
|
Posted By: pb125
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:52pm
|
ITS NOT RIGHT I TELL YOU.
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN... AND A WOMAN! ADAM AND EVE , NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:53pm
|
Simply put, there is NO, not one, nothing, no good reason to ban homosexual marriage. No good arguments. Linus here has tried the "WELL ZOMG WAT IF PEOPLE WANT TO MARRY A TURTLE" or some other ludacris responce. That falls into the slippery-slope argument. That can easily be explained. We keep laws in place to keep it from happening. ZOMG BUT WAT? There is not a big push in America for people to be able to marry their cousin or brother or dog or turtle. There is a push for homosexuals to be able to marry.
Once again, no good reason to ban it at all. Every argument falls under one of a few titles. 1. Bible Says So, 2. Ewww Icky, 3. Slippery Slope, None of which are good enough reasons to make it a law.
------------- 
|
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:58pm
|
Linus, respond to what I asked you.
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 9:58pm
| But whale...its butt secks...straight people would never do that......oh wait.... |
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:00pm
|
Buttsex is wild and it dont cause no child
-------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:06pm
|
the reason we don't marry animals is because then peta will have some real legal stance...
-------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:08pm
and, and, they cant have children. I mean, i guess its not like sterile men can get married, or people dont use condoms or contraceptives of sorts. WAIT! ITS CONTAGEOUS AND ITS FILTH AND I WILL NOT HAVE MY CHILDREN GROW UP IN A **edited** COMMUNITY! Um. No. If you really think that them growing up and having any sort of contact with a **edited** MARRIED couple(because really, **edited** couples that aren't married dont "rub off" on people likw married couples) will cause them to be **edited**, then you better not let them have the internet, TV, radio, or any sort of contact with the outside world, because there will be some homosexual in every facet of life. Also, one more thing to note, it isn't the title of marriage that they are after, it is the benfits that come with the title. And, please answer newports question,
------------- 
|
Posted By: Hitman
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:20pm
|
What does Linus have against people being happy?
------------- |
Posted By: Savage93fvss
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:23pm
|
I'm a homophobe, just because the only **edited** people I've come into contact with are weird and think everybody else is **edited**.........But that's illigitiment in this debate. I for one dont see why it's a big deal, I dont like the idea of two men getting together having sex, but you know, why would the government care? It's not that big of a deal, and as I see it it's an infringement upon our rights provided to us by the US constitution. I mean, damn, are they costing people money? Are they doing the country harm? Are they endangering the life/wellbeing of other US citizens? Linus, give one good point besides that the majority are agianst it. You can't. And "cuz it makes me go ewwwwww", is'nt one. That's right, you can't. Oh, and if 80% of the population was in favor of killing all the illegeal mexicans, does that make it right? |
Posted By: Hitman
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:25pm
|
It makes me happy to see that even though people may disagree with the act, they can legitemately see why the government has no right in banning it.
------------- |
Posted By: Savage93fvss
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:36pm
| Hey now, I'm a drunk ass redneck. No cheap shots... |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:36pm
He complimented you. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:42pm
|
This is why I firmly beleive that Linus is gdangerously ideological. It has been conclusively proven by neurologists and psychologists that psychosexual development - the sexual development of the brain vs. the body - is directly linked to over or under exposure of sex homrmones (testosterone, estrogen, GABA, and a few others) while still in the womb. The simplification that the presence of lack of a Y chromosome results in male or female physical development confuses some people- that chropmosomal expression emrely sets the 'default' hormone release, however hormone recepters or blockers can be either overrided or not activated as a result of hormonal imbalances in the mother. This results in physcial development along one gender line, with mental and hormonal development along the other - or even in ambiguity. The exact same hormonal imbalances that cause transvestitism and other physical sexual defects are responsible for homosexuality. That being proven, I can no more object to homosexuals or transsexuals marrying than I can those who may have any disability or genetic or hormonal anomaly. I find it morally reprehensible that people would object to giving homosexuals the same rights as the rest of us. The reason people bring up racial segregation is because it is an exact and appropriate analogy. Or perhaps you could also look at Hitler's discrimination against other races based on ethnicity, for that too is based on a simple and arbitrary genetic or biochemical differentiation. You seriously frighten me, Linus. You're erratically moral, and very ignorant and prejudiced. You need to get a grip on yourself. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Savage93fvss
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 10:42pm
Me? In the same class as linus.........I think I'd rather bang rosie O donnel than be anywhere near even thought about concidered to be anywhere close to linus..
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:02pm
| Homophia is for n00bs |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:11pm
|
Gone for a little while and look at all the crap I have to deal with...
What, I cant be against **edited** marriage becuase it's my choice to be? I'm against communism becuase it's my choice too.. oh noez, call me discrimintory for that too! I'm against slavery, oh noez, I discriminate against slave owners! I'm allowed to think what I want on this issue, just as you are.
I'm going to hope you didnt mean to sound as dumb as you did. Kind of hard to work with a guy every day and not talk to him, isnt it? Mkay then. Now the fun part.. Brihard. Brihard, WRONG. Just because some test came to the "conclusion" that they are born like that doesnt make it so. Many psychologist / psychiatrist / neurologist say ADD is real, while many say it's fake. Many world renowned scientist say global warming isnt natural and we should take action, while many others say it's the natural cycle of the earth. "Proof" pointing to both sides of the arguement. Many educated people believe, and have "proof", that homosexuality is a born thing, yes. But just as many believe, and have "proof", that it's a choice. "Proof" for natural--- Can smell the hormones and are turned on by them. Counter-point--- They attract themselves to people that dont even have to be in the same local area... look at a picture and get turned on. Pretty damn sure their hormones arent passing through the computer. Dont have smell-o-vision in mass production quite yet. "Proof" for natural--- Animals do it... Counter-point--- Then whats to say it isnt a mental disability? Like psychosis or schitzophrenia? Then it isnt natural, but a mutation of a gene. (The next one isnt mutually connected to the proceeding one) "Proof"--- It's in the genes. Counter-point--- Nurtured in a specific way that made them **edited**, hence making it a choice, NOT in-born. "Proof" that it's a choice---- Many women report going homosexual after being raped or experiencing sexual abuse from males, or even just getting tired of guys in general. Yup.. it's natural.. thats why then were attracted to guys for a long time, then poof, nature kicked in and made them **edited**.  -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:15pm
|
While you are here, what have homosexuals done to hurt you so badly
that they shouldn't be allowed to live life as a normal heterosexual
couple would? And you seem to just be arguing against our points, and not for yours. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? -------------
|
Posted By: White o Light
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:16pm
duh. ------------- 
|
Posted By: PbMuz98
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:18pm
|
oh snap! ------------- 98c drop j&j ceramic 12" derder sticker on hopper= +2bps |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:21pm
|
linus isn't making any forward progress. he's just resorted to slinging insults around and repeating the same crap over and over. we get it, the people are **edited** for whatever reason. point is why should they not be allowed marriage? -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:22pm
| Nice dodging my question. You've obviously never talked to him outside of work, or as a friend. If you had 1 real friend that was homosexual, and still had such a problem with it...you'd have to be...well, you... |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:25pm
|
I'll take your last point first- the instance of women being raped and turning homosexual is grossly anomalous, and is a neurotic or psychotic condition. We're talking strict biology here. You quote "conclusion" as if the scientific method is not worth considering. The biochemical effects of sex hormones on foetuses is hard science, clinically proven. Too much exposure to a sex hormone will skew the careful baalcne that regulates neural and physical development. An XY chromosome male genotype may develop a female phenotype as a result of excessive exposre to estrogen in the womb. The converse is true. There is an entire tribe of people in which a certian hormone balance runs genetically througha portion of the population- many children are born as girls, then around age 11 suddenly develop over the course of mere montsh complete male reproductive organs, and assume all male physical traits. Transvestitism has been heavily researched and linked to hormone imbalances as well. Homosexuality is due to a conflict between hormones present in prenatal development, and the hormones that one's own body later produces. Genetic males may be completely female physically, despite having an XY chromosome. Homosexuality generally occurs when a person grows up in a body that is one genotype when they brain is producing hormones at levels appropriate for the opposite sex, or the brain itself may be developed as the opposite sex. You claim that there is 'proof' that it is a choice, when in the vast majority of situations, it is not. Certainly some women choose to be lesbians, but that is free will as opposed to biological determinism. You can try to spready ambiguity or anomalous scenarios, however that changes nothing- yalling WRONG repeatedly does not make it so. You are merely trying (and failing) to rationalize an unreasonable prejudice you are not willing to admit you hold. I don't even see the point of that idiotic comment about seeing a picture on a computer- visual stimuli has long been proven to have sexual arousal effects. You cannot use indecisions or failings of science on one point to condemn another. That's fallacious, and frankly I'm surprised you think me dumb enough to buy that kind of tactic. Fundanmentally, homosexuals are humans, and thus are entitled to human rights, which include freedom of self determination, and freedom to enter contract if adult and metnally sound. To argue that because of a hormone or chemical imbalance that they should be held as second class citizens is thoroughly disgusting. It is EXACTLY the same as arguing the same discrimination for blacks, or aryans, or people suffering from dwarfism, or people whoa re unusually good runners. Different genetic or hormonal expressions that have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that they are nonetheless a person equal in all ways to you or I, and ENTITLED to the same right- for rights are not a privilege, they are an entitlement. The state that begins to view rights as a privilege is called a tyrrany. You can be against homosexual marraige becuase you choose to be, but you cannot claim that you can justify it or ratioanlize it by any moral standards notdependent on a religious blind faith. Morality must have some tangible foundation in the good and harm that it does people, and your views cannot in any way be justified. You simply hold them for whatever ignorant reason you do. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:30pm
If you get nothing else from that post, and this is to anyone that happens to be so closed minded to think that they should not be able to marry, just read and understand this. -------------
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:39pm
| Does anyone else find it strange the only people following Jesus around were dudes? And why werent there any ladies at the last supper? Didnt any of them have wives? Isnt is strange for 13 men not to have any wives? Hmmmm... Maybe someone editted the reasoning out of the bible to better push their agenda. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:41pm
|
hades, yeah and some of their followers touch little altar boys...
-------------
|
Posted By: Hitman
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:43pm
|
I only believe in Science when it proves points I agree with.
------------- |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 11:45pm
|
Linus did not make a single point. Look and read it, its amazing, it is a post of nothing but syntax. "Well I cannot prove point A, but some people cannot prove point B!!"
Linus. Explain, in one sentance, a GOOD REASON why homosexual marriage should be banned. -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 12:21am
And now on to your points Sister: Illegal do to public health reasons. Dog: Illegal because dogs cannot sign a contract. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Styro Folme
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 12:25am
|
why do people care who marries who.... it's not their <poopy> life ------------- X |
Posted By: Justin98
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:19am
|
i think everyone needs to chill out. this is an internet forum that isn't going to mean squat.
i'm against **edited** marriage, the vast majority of you liberals are not. fine. but what all you weeners are getting so hot and heated about w/ Linus not answering is a bogus question to begin with. "good answer" is a relative term. my good reason for not agreeing for **edited** marriage is good enough for me and many others. Linus disagrees for whatever reason he wants...its his to decide, relative to his life. I don't want to hear "zomg it scares me how close minded you conservatives can be." shut up. its reality. it scares me how far this country has moved away from its roots. stop being liberal sissy's. ------------- 
http://www.freewebs.com/teamnightmarepb/index.htm - Team Nightmare |
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:52am
-------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:58am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 5:02am
uhhh.. i AM conservative. and it really is quite scary how closed minded fellow conservatives are.  -------------
|
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 5:05am
Care to share with the class? -------------
|
Posted By: Savage93fvss
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 8:12am
|
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm........eye candy..... I to am a conservative, No, I dont like **edited** marriage, but to deny that to somebody just based on the sex they like is wrong, hell, who is to say that heterosexual marriage is right? Show me a law that hetereosexual marriages are the official marriage |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 8:24am
I dont have enough time to rebuke everyons post or even every part from your post.. I'll have to do that later. But I'll go head on into this one. Lets take the off chance that you ARE born like that. It's your brain, for lack of a better word, screwing up, correct? It isnt 'natural' because the purpose of sex is to reproduce. So, born with it, brain screwed up. Where am I going with this? If the brain is screwed up, it's a mental disability. If it's a mental disability, they arent mentally sound. If they aren't mentally sound, they cant enter into a contract. I love loop-holes. (A stretch, I know.. but you guys do it too)
You go from being rational to being a bigoted asshole. Not once did I say anything about morals in my post. Not once did I say anything about religion in my post. Please.. show me where I said I hold my values on this from a moral or religious standpoint in any of my post in this thread.
Buddy.. I will say it once again. Just becasue SOME scientist say they have proof that people are born with it doesnt make it so. Just as many say there is no proof to back up that claim. It goes both ways and I'm surprised you are blind to that FACT. You are a smart guy and youre letting something so obvious slip by your logical mind. PS--- I'm hearing Alabama just passed a ban on it.... -------------
|
Posted By: kuhndog599
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 9:47am
|
dude this reminds me of a story my brother told me. he went into a bar (it was kinda a biker bar but not neccesarily) and him and his friends had a few drinks. then a guy comes over and asks if he can buy them a round. they were like..... uhh... sure. and then like 5 minutes later another guy comes over to the guy that brought them drinks and french kisses him. so my bro and his friends said that they needed to go to the car and get some cigarretes. yeah they hightaled it out of there. ------------- model 98 - homemade handguard solid stock - opsgear mag polished internals homemade sling - paintjob operator barrel progressive barrel opsgear mag - stock |
Posted By: phillll227
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:03am
|
There is an easy solution to this
Mairrage was originally a function of the church. Why not return it to the church? Let the church decide who marries and who doesn't. From a government point of view, all legal implications of mairrage would be handled through legal unions. Mairrage would no longer have any legal implications, it would essentially be replaced by civil unions. The right would be happy because the sanctity of mairrage would be preserved, the left would be happy because everybody would have equal rights under the law. ------------- |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:06am
|
Homosexual's brains aren't screwed up... -------------
|
Posted By: Dazed
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:12am
|
Yes the state did vote it in, unfortunately. I voted against it, but apparently most of the Christians here don't understand why they shouldn't pass laws like that.
Your Jesus preached love and tolerance for those outside his beliefs. The ONLY time he ever got upset (that I can find reference to, biblically) was when believers were abusing the house of god. Do you comprehend the precident your SAVIOR set? Love and compassion for those outside of your faith, and firm dealings with those inside your faith. Jesus would have hung out with homosexuals, and would have told them "go, and sin no more." if and ONLY IF they came to him and asked for salvation, he wouldn't force himself or his moral stances on anyone not claiming to be of his faith. The plain facts are that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone in the general sense(society is a different beast all together), doesn't affect on our government's international standings, and doesn't affect internal trade. It shouldn't be "governed" one way or another federally. It shouldn't be an issue at all at the national level. Bush and the GOP are just drumming up mid-term voters after the horrible job done by-and-by by the incumbents. Personally, I think the government should just remove the word marriage from its vocabulary. Make all Civil Unions the same, as long as its two people of legal age and sound mind they shouldn't care who is applying for the license. Leave the "Marrying" up to the local churches and their own moral standings. After all, "Marriage" in its contemporary form is a Christian thing, isn't it? If I were an active Christian, I would be pissed that the government was regulating a religious ceremorny, even if I agreed with it. It sets a frightening precident. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:23am
Because the church and the government are two very different things, and its a sad, scary thing when one gets involved with the other. Linus, I can't beleive you honestly think homosexuality is a mental disability....thats absurd. You say that the purpose of sex is reproduction right? So other than urination, thats all the genitals are for, anything else is just wrong in your books. You better not masturbate then... and if you EVER go on a date, you two better not do ANYTHING until sex, otherwise you're breaking your own rules. |
Posted By: Dazed
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:27am
|
^Not to mention the fact that he had better not ever have sex unless he is actively trying to reproduce.
We won't even bring up the thought of heterosexual couples that can't reproduce for one reason or another. That just doesn't happen. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:36am
|
Once again, Linus is not arguing for his point, but rather against others', and it is getting him nowhere. He has managed to avoid the most pressing matter at hand, again, and is only picking apart certain aspects of posts that he feels he can argue with. Plenty of people have asked "what have homosexuals done that is so terrible that they should be denied the liberties that hetero people have", and it has been ignored by everyone who is for banning **edited** marriage.
And contraceptives dont exist.
And the one woman involved was considered a whore and a prostitute, and was a bad person.
OMG WE HATE AMERICA -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:36am
|
Question for the supporters of <**edited**> Marriage. What is the next established social norm that will be deemed discrimination and judicially sanctioned.
How about pedophia, there are those discriminated by established law who by choice prefere young children as sexual pardners, why do we discriminate against them. The same arguements that are used for <**edited**> marriage could be used in this case also. As for the seperation of church and state, still have not found that passage in the US Constitution, unfortuanately for many our government is based on judeo-christian fundimentals of law and behavior. There is a book out there which I will find the title that documents the fall of all of histories great "empires" and the destruction of established social norms is found to be the start of the downward spiral of that society. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:54am
|
Choopie.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Mental_illness - Here, read this please.
If it isnt natural, ie, more then 50% have it, then it's a disability, or a mutant gene. Schizophrenia is a mental illness, and you wont argue that. But you will argue that homosexuality is neither a mental illness, nor a choice. So what is it? -------------
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:58am
|
fixed
Actually OS the age of consent in Canada is 14 or something like that, so lowering our age of consent would have precedent. The slippery slope idea is what concerns me. I have no problem with the couple down the road who've lived together for 20 years being married(This is MA, so they are). They can run their pottery shop and fly their rainbow flag all they want. However, if a court is going to interpret this as "The government has no right to question a marrige" instead of "The government cannot discriminate against marriges based on race, ethnicity or gender" we could have other problems. I mean, if the libs can have homo marrige, the fundamentalist hillbillies will want legalized incest to keep their bloodlines pure. Slippery slope stuff scares the crap out of me. Also, I totally agree that this is a non-issue. And an old non-issue at that. Brought up solely to motivate the evangelicals to vote in the mid terms. Apparently the only way the republicans can think of to get their evangelical base to vote is by exploiting their intolerance. |
Posted By: Dazed
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:59am
Considering that the last major established social norms to be declared discrimination were Womens Rights and and Black Rights, I'm not sure I would side myself on the side of tradition in this case, OS. As someone who lived through the sixties, tell me, which side were you on then? Do you still think you were right? Pedophilia falls under the "legal age of consent." Completely different than the "two consenting adults wanting to file their taxes jointly and have a pretty ceremony" most of us are talking about. While most of the founding fathers were Christians, their were athiests among them. Benjamin Franklin, most prominiently. And while our basic tenants do seem to follow Judeo-Christian laws, they also tend it follow the motto "First, do no harm." I, personally, believe that our laws were established to grant each individual every personal liberty possibly that wouldn't detract from anyone elses. I, respectfully, submit to you, OS that homosexual marriage does not curb your personal freedoms in any way that seeing a black man marry a white woman doesn't. My point isn't whether it is right or wrong, its whether this is something our government, or our personal morals should dictate. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 11:09am
|
People bring up "People were for slavery at one time" arguement.. but think about it like this.
Slavery was wrong because it forced people to hard labor for nothing but a minimum amount of food and harsh physical punishment for petty things. Not allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that). Only "bad" thing is you cant wear a ring and say your married. Oh noez! Live together! Many hetereo couples decide never to get married, yet they love eachother and stay with eachother for life and have children. Why can't **edited**s do that? -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 11:19am
OS, Mbro already adressed that point. Children can not be held responsible to make such a descision, and animals are simply not able to make that descision and sign the contract.
Dazed mentioned nothing of slavery, he mentioned black's rights. Big difference. And it is still discrimination, regardless of what you think they should do. I'm hoping you can agree on that. -------------
|
Posted By: White o Light
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 11:36am
One can only hope he will agree. -------------
|
Posted By: Savage93fvss
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 12:50pm
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 12:56pm
So why do you care so much that they not be allowed to do it? -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 1:08pm
|
So, by the example of **edited** marriage activism, all the pedophile activists have to do is get an activist Judge to lower the age of consent to 6, and then thier right to thier wants will be legal. Slippery slope as mentioned, incest can to be seen as discrimination, so do we change those laws also to fit the few who demand thier rights. Children today have decesion rights way prior to age of consent. Ask planned parenthood, a 12 year old can be given birth control or even an abortion without parental consent and or even knowledge in some cases.
What is the norm, what is the abnorm, that is where societies determine the norm based on the consent of the many. Slavery is another age old issue, and still exsists in the world, right or wrong, depends on where you live and the culture you live in. As of many polls the norm here in America is still man woman marriage, the norm as established by the many, and again by law and per religion, marriage is a priviledge, even in the biblical sense, not a right. BTW we still have an indentured servant system here in america, ask any trucker firm. They put you in the school, train you and have exclusive rights to your services for upwards of three years till debt is paid off, and usually driver paid way below the standard, or they quit and have to pay back upwards of $7,000.00. -------------
|