60
   

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:03 am
@Shadow X,
If we make chewing gum legal people will be chewing crack... right? WRONG...
0 Replies
 
Shadow X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:04 am
@RexRed,
How about you go read the declaration of independence. You know the document that establishes our right to draft a constitution? Then tell me if it mentions a god or not.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:05 am
@Shadow X,
You mean the declaration that frees us from the tyranny of the Church of England?
Shadow X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:07 am
@RexRed,
Uhhh no, the declaration that frees us from the tyranny of a King and establishes our right to freely worship any god we so choose. Whether you like that or not.

The document that EXPRESSLY defines our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as being derived from our CREATOR.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:14 am
@Shadow X,
No. Rights are derived by our government; and they can take them away.
That's the reason why "rights" are varied by country and culture; it has nothing to do with any god(s).
Shadow X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:16 am
@cicerone imposter,
Not according to our declaration of independence. The document that gave us the right to break away from the King of England and draft a constitution.

And that document expressly states:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Without God or our creator... according to our declaration of independence we would have no right to draft a constitution or break away from England. Our rights are not derived from our government. Our government exists to SECURE those rights that we are provided by our CREATOR. Now I know you don't like that... but I don't particularly care if you like it or not.

I suggest you go educate yourself. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:37 am
@Shadow X,
As for polygamy, people live in polygamous relationships as it is. Should that be stamped with the word marriage? NO

My mother used to say two is company three is a crowd...

Marriage is between two consenting adults.

You know you mentioned what you have written in prior posts. Well this topic has been addressed by myself and others several times already in this post. Someone didn't read back i guess.

There is no good reason why gays can't marry and raise their families together.

As for polygamy, as I said, people are already living in those types of relationships. It is called a "mistress". No this should not be granted marriage status. A man or a woman have to choose who will be the wife or husband and who will be the trick on the side... Although I do not agree with infidelity to marriage, to each their own. In Japan, infidelity is considered okay. I do not agree with this either. Children need a stable home with hopefully two loving parents.

Should we outlaw single parents because they do not fit the description to the letter of marriage? NO

Should we prevent infertile people from marrying because they do not fit the description to the letter of marriage? NO (I figured you would be asking this next) or maybe not.

Allowing gays to marry strengthens the community by providing social structures for gays to make and keep lasting marital bonds... Simple as that.

Rather than gays falling through the cracks and becoming burdens to themselves and others they now have a hope for happiness and equality.

It is pure selfishness and hate to deny that.

Is it selfishness and hate to deny polygamy? The root of polygamy is selfishness. So denying this kind of selfishness in marriage is not hate. Gay marriage is not selfish but it is two people caring mutually for one another...

So who will be the main proponents of polygamy? The religious who were instructed by their God to be fruitful and multiply in spite of love and all else?

Abraham had his concubine and did he not marry his sister Sarah? Society has stopped this kind of abhorrent behavior, not religion... I suspect society will continue to repel the evils condoned in the Bible. i.e. incest, polygamy homophobia, sexism, slavery etc...
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:46 am
@Shadow X,
Nature's God or the Bible's God? The Bible expressly speaks out against natures God... The natural man cannot know God (so says the fallible humans who wrote the Bible)... Apparently our constitution thinks otherwise.

More crappy dogma and lies from the New Testament. Nature is our creator not a racist God. Nature giveth and nature can take away. It has nothing to do to with a supreme male deity living in the sky. But it has all to do with our universe and solar system and the natural scientific parameters thereof.

The writers of our constitution and declaration of independence were deists and rationalists not Anabaptists and Roman Catholics..
Shadow X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:48 am
@RexRed,
You're such a pathetic hypocrite. You consider something wrong so it's okay to deny them their rights to happiness and equality. But if someone considers what you do to be wrong you start crying and kicking your feet screaming about equality and how it's wrong to deny you equal protection under the law.

Nobody is going to take your equality argument serious when you refuse to acknowledge the equality argument with something that you disagree with.

As far as your arguments of homosexuals. It doesn't strengthen the community to give money to people who are economically detrimental when you consider how much they take out in marriage benefits as opposed to how much they put into the system in taxes. It doesn't strengthen the community to give people who are 2600% overrepresented in the pedophilia statistics the right to adopt children.

You don't even understand why you're wrong. It's really quite sad. You have no problem with denying people that YOU think are wrong equality. So let me ask you this... if you don't care what the vast majority of the world thinks about homosexuality... why should anybody give a fat baby's behind what you think about incest or polygamy? You think you have the right to impress your homosexual agenda on people who think it's immoral and detrimental to society. Not only do you expect people who think it is immoral and detrimental to accept that behavior. But you also expect them to PAY for that behavior through marriage benefits AND teach their children that behavior is acceptable as well.

So if you think you have the right to do that... why doesn't the polygamist and the incestuous couple force you to accept their activities as moral. To pay them for committing those acts by providing them marriage benefits? And then FORCE their morality on your children at school by teaching them that polygamy and incest are perfectly acceptable ways of living as long as all parties are consentual.

People like you make me sick... and it's not about the fact you're gay. It's about the fact you're a hypocrite.
Shadow X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:50 am
@RexRed,
Nature's God is the bible's God... Not that it matters... the point is that those rights derive from a CREATOR... a god. Without that creator or those Gods'... you don't have those rights.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:52 am
@Shadow X,
You are sick and fucked in the head asshole...
Shadow X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:55 am
@RexRed,
Why is that? Because I disagree with your position on homosexuality? Because I don't think that being a hypocrite is an acceptable way to make an argument?
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:03 pm
@Shadow X,
Because you are a winy bisexual or perhaps closeted gay in denial and jealous that gays are finally doing what you don't have the guts to do.
Shadow X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:05 pm
@RexRed,
Really? So then because of your denial and dislike of incest, polygamy and pedophilia... does that mean you're a closet multiple partnered, incestuous pedophile?

I mean that's the same argument you're making with me.
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:12 pm
@Shadow X,
Are you trying to say loving many partners is the same as the love between two consenting adults? One is love, the other is born purely out of sex. One (two consenting adults) is a nurturing kind of love while the other (polygamy) is pure lechery.

I am using logic, rationality and reason and you are using religion, blind faith and personal interpretation... The Bible says it, so if must be true... (cynical)

So who is "standing on solid ground", really?
Shadow X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:17 pm
@RexRed,
Who are you to say they don't love each other? They will tell you it's not about sex and that it's about love. Why do you get to tell them different? And if you want to get right down to it, promiscuity in the homosexual community is FAR higher than promiscuity in the heterosexual community. This has been established for years. So one could make the argument that homosexuality is based not on love but on pure lechery. Now again, you'll disagree but the incestuous and polygamist couples will disagree with your assessment of their love as well.

I haven't used the bible to justify why homosexual marriage should not be legal one single time. You're the only one crying about religion.

BTW, go look up NAMBLA and then come back and tell me that pedophiles don't consider themselves to be homosexual.

Here I'll make it easy for you.
http://nambla.org/

NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom.
Shadow X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:21 pm
@RexRed,
“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

“It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh,” wrote Baldwin. “However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization..."

A study detailed in Baldwin’s report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be “gay.” According to the study, “Archives of Sexual Behavior,” some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

"also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls."


Abel also found that non-incarcerated “child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males.”


“The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,” said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. “Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.”

The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”

In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”

Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”

Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

A (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles."

A 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that". . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories" for sexual activity;' These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.

Another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that " . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality."

A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as "chicken hawks" — that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.

A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger.

I could go on if you'd like me to.

Oh but i forgot... you have an easy fix for that... if they're molesting children then you just don't call them homosexuals.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:23 pm
@Shadow X,
Why are you so vehemently defending polygamy???

and, NAMBLA is the Taliban of the gay community. These perverts are a blight on our community and do not in any way define the attitudes of the whole. On the contrary Mormonism is quite widespread. So you write it in a holy book and that makes it right? Wrong...

And I will raise me up a prophet and call his name Joseph Smith... Poppycock!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:25 pm
@Shadow X,
So, one person's opinion is how you determine the subject of homosexuality.

DUMB to dumber.....

Try reading the article on this link: You might learn something important about the subject and yourself.http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Shadow X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:26 pm
@RexRed,
It's not a defense of polygamy. It's that if you are going to make this argument for homosexuals you MUST be willing to accept the SAME argument from a polygamist or incestuous couple. They make the EXACT same arguments that the homosexuals make. If you accept those argument for homosexuals... you have to accept the same argument for polygamist and incestuous couples.

And in fact the damning statistics I provided earlier... along with the quotes from the homosexual advocates that I just provided indicate that man/boy love in the homosexual community exists at a MUCH higher rate than man/girl love in the heterosexual community. So, NAMBLA does represent homosexuals quite well in fact... at least that's what the numbers indicate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 07:22:03