Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@BillW,

Quote:

This was never in doubt and wasn't subject to this SCOTUS any....

Never in doubt - it was a 5-4 decision.

0 Replies

When the chief executives of large companies realise that bankruptcy is inevitable they cease to care what the workforce is doing whilst maintaining an outward show for as long as possible of the trappings of their positions.

The decision is a shrug of the shoulders caused by resignation plus a keen desire to be at the top of the news.

In Rabelais 5 to 4 decisions are produced by drawing lots after weeks of expensive deliberations. The expense being the only consideration.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Which studies? Why did you use the 95% figure if your studies show it is less than that?

I posted like 3 or 4 in one thread. The reason I didn't use the other figure is because it's an estimation and I didn't feel like justifying it to these people on here who would refuse to read them in the first place.

I tell you what, I"ll give you 10% which is double the ones that self-identify and well over the estimation of how many have engaged in homosexual behaviors.

Quote:

Let's look at a scenario. Say you drop a $20 bill and a 6 year old picks it up and puts it in his pocket. You ask for it back and he refuses. You then reach into his pocket to take it back. His mother sees you doing that and calls the police saying you molested her son. Does that make you a homosexual? It would certainly count as a molestation under the study you want to use since it was reported to the police.

LoL I'm sure that happens all the time. Way more than the forcible fondling, penetration with a foreign object and rape of young men by other men.

3 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Now you are mixing apples and oranges again. Molestation numbers have nothing to do with people that attempt to get sexually stimulated by another male. Most of the molestations of children were fondling of the child which is not an attempt to have sex and is not getting sexually stimulated by the child.

So why don't you explain to me why a kid would fondle another kid? By the way most of them are not fondling cases, the majority of them were penetration with a foreign object. I think that's quite a few different than someone accidently grabbing another guy.

Clearly you are the one manipulating the meaning and definition.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Ok. Let's accept you at face value here and look at other studies.
This is Alfred Kinsey's research:

Loller Alfred Kinsey? You mean the research he did in like the 40's and 50's? Where he claims that in the 40's and 50's that nearly 40% of all men had a sexual release because of homosexual feelings? The same study that considered "nocturnal emissions" to be a homosexual release? You mean the SAME Alfred Kinsey who made his living based on the homosexual agenda and founded the Kinsey research for sex, reproduction, and gender? An institution that has advocated for on SEVERAL occasions for pedophilia to be an acceptable lifestyle?

And are you REALLY going to quote Alfred Kinsey, the same guy who believes this:
Kinsey believed that children were predisposed to sexual activity from the moment of birth and that adult-child sex was included under the notion of a sexual outlet. Our social conditioning made it taboo, although it is actually a "normal" sexual behavior that should be practiced as well as pursued, Kinsey believed. He maintained that when done under circumstances where the adult genuinely cares for the child, as would a loving parent or relative, sex between an adult and a child could prove to be a healthy experience for the child. The results are unfavorable, Kinsey said, only when the child is conditioned by police authorities and parents to believe that such conduct is immoral and incorrect.

Shocking you're using a freaking child molestor/pedophile to justify your position. Congratulations. As I said, homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand. They have done so for years.

You then quote, not another study, but Kinsey's successor at his Gay Sex institue, but a reproduction of the EXACT same study, using the EXACT same numbers that Kinsey used... and shockingly Gebhard (whose livelihood was dependent upon that SPECIFIC study being accurate) came up with the same conclusion as the guy who wrote his paycheck for more than 20 years.

I would have no problem using a study with a large sample size if #1 it can be replicated, which this one cannot... if they took into consideration volunteer bias, which this one did not... and if they weren't completely and utterly full of crap... which this one is.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

A male who attempts to have sex with another male or get sexually stimulated by another male AT ANY AGE... is engaging in homosexual behavior. Period.

Incorrect.

Period.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

And by that definition rape is a "natural phenomenon"... that doesn't make it an acceptable lifestyle choice.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Okay, homosexuals should not be treated as 2nd class citizens... but incestuous and polygamous family units should?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

That is not incorrect. Homosexuality is defined as: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality

And a male fondling, raping, or doing anything other sexually with another male... regardless of age... fits that definition.

I'm sorry you don't like that.

0 Replies

Parados, The irony that you used a pedophile to justify your position on homosexuality and did not even realize it is priceless.

I could not have set that up better if I had tried.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

In many (non-industrial) societies polygamy is the normal form of marriage. Even first cross-cousin marriage is considered the ideal form in a few. You are using our customary forms as ideals for the world.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

And in quite a few of those same cultures, they commit female castration, cut off peoples heads for being a homosexual and have sex with 8 year old children.

I dont agree with those policies, but I guess that's just silly old me using our customary forms as ideals for the world.

I guess according to your logic we should be decapitating homosexuals, raping 8 year old children and castrating women right?

Contrary to what liberals would like everyone to believe, morality is not subjective.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

No, that's not the point. If it were, then you'd have no problem providing benefits to gay couples, since they are individual "revenue streams" too. You made it very clear, however, that the reason benefits shouldn't be extended to gay couples is because they can't produce baby "revenue streams."

OMG... you can't be serious... We are not paying for them BECAUSE they are revenue streams. We are paying them money to CREATE revenue streams. Do you not understand that? Since homosexuals are incapable of creating those revenue streams in and of themselves, they do not qualify to get paid for doing so.

Quote:

I'm not accustomed to holding a conversation with someone who constantly accuses me of lying. Do it again and you'll find the ensuing conversation decidedly one-sided.

Fine then you probably shouldn't start slinging the bigot label around if you don't want to be called out.

Quote:

Any group of people can be considered a "class," incest devotees not excluded. It's not that they're not a class, it's just that I'm not prejudiced against them. For instance, I have not accused all of them, as a class, of living a "deviant lifestyle."

You are absolutely being prejudiced towards them. You're advocating that they should be denied equal rights. The same equal rights that you're crying about for homosexuals.

Quote:

Because this isn't a thread about incestuous marriages, and, as I have already explained, I don't intend to turn it into one just to divert attention away from your pathetically weak arguments against gay marriage. If you want to defend incestuous marriages, start a new thread.

Translation: I don't have any statistics to back up my claim so I"m going to act like I dont want to provide them.

Quote:

I have no doubt. They wouldn't be good arguments, to be sure, but that hasn't stopped you yet.

That's exactly what you're doing. You're attempting to defend homosexual marriage and making the exact same pathetic arguments that incestuous couples would make. Yet you accept them for the homosexuals but not for the incestuous couples. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Quote:

Nope. I never said anything about children.

I would call you out on that load of BS too but I know you'll just cry about how it's not an incestuous thread so you don't have to back up your hypocritical assertions.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Shadow X wrote:
A male who attempts to have sex with another male or get sexually stimulated by another male AT ANY AGE... is engaging in homosexual behavior. Period.

Incorrect.

Period.

It has been normal for same gender sex and/or close attractions to occur in situations where the other gender is not available; such as, war, prison, isolation, etc. After going back to society, the people go back to their internal, god given preferences - whether it be same or opposite sex/attractions.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

OMG... you can't be serious... We are not paying for them BECAUSE they are revenue streams. We are paying them money to CREATE revenue streams. Do you not understand that?

Yes, I understand that that's your position. I just don't think you understand that that's your position. You're the one, after all, who said: "You're trying to state that I'm arguing we should provide incentives for people to have children. That's not the point." But that's exactly the point, as you have now confirmed. I'm trying to keep up with your argument - I suggest you do the same.

Shadow X wrote:

You are absolutely being prejudiced towards them. You're advocating that they should be denied equal rights. The same equal rights that you're crying about for homosexuals.

You misunderstand the nature of prejudice. If I were to say "the law should punish all murderers," that's not the result of an irrational prejudice against murderers. There are valid, well-considered reasons why we think murderers should be punished, and it has nothing to do with some personal bias against murderers as a class. On the other hand, saying that gays shouldn't have equal rights because they're "deviants" is most definitely the result of prejudice. I have reservations about incestuous unions based on what I consider to be valid concerns regarding the conditions under which such unions are formed, not because I think incest is "icky." In contrast, you don't like gay marriage because you just can't get over the whole buttsex thing. That is the difference.

Shadow X wrote:

Translation: I don't have any statistics to back up my claim so I"m going to act like I dont want to provide them.

I'll remind you that this is not my argument. Even if my argument is lousy, your argument doesn't get better as a result. As I see it, you have two objections to gay marriage: (1) gays are more likely to be child molesters, so they shouldn't be put into situations where they might molest children; and (2) gays shouldn't receive the benefits of marriage because they can't have children. If you can't see the obvious contradiction inherent in those two positions, I'm not sure how any statistics on incest will help.

Shadow X wrote:

Quote:
Nope. I never said anything about children.

I would call you out on that load of BS too but I know you'll just cry about how it's not an incestuous thread so you don't have to back up your hypocritical assertions.

I knew you wouldn't be able to find anything. If you spent a little more effort addressing the things that I actually did write and less effort in refuting the things I didn't write, we might get somewhere.

1 Reply

@BillW,

I was right there with ya until you threw in that "god-given" bullshit.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Quote:

We are not paying for them BECAUSE they are revenue streams. We are paying them money to CREATE revenue streams. Do you not understand that? Since homosexuals are incapable of creating those revenue streams in and of themselves, they do not qualify to get paid for doing so.

Had Joe understood that, Shad, he would have ceased arguing.

It is a point of honour with Joe not to recognise my existence so he won't have seen my post on the matter which went a little further than you do in respect of a transfer of money from those who create children into the pockets of those who don't. By word magic accompanied by the clashing of many cymbals and the fanfares of many trumpets.

But, and it is a mighty but, the policy might now be to discourage creating children or to begin to do. There can be no question that such a transfer of money represents a downward evaluation of child creation.

I once worked out the expected consumption of barrels of oil by every newborn American baby during its lifetime.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Using their talk, either god gave it or god made a mistake Wink

I perfer the first one!

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Quote:

I dont agree with those policies, but I guess that's just silly old me using our customary forms as ideals for the world.

You really are not aware of "our customary forms", SX. The "ideals" are propaganda, the reality is much different.

Quote:

THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA:

part II

CIA COVERT OPERATIONS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, CIA MANIPULATION OF THE PRESS, CIA EXPERIMENTATION ON THE U.S. PUBLIC

by John Stockwell

a lecture given in October, 1987

...

Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these
things to the children.

This is nobody's propaganda. There have been over 100,000 American witnesses for peace who have gone down there and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they've happened, and documented 13,000 people killed this way, mostly women and children. These are the activities done by these contras. The contras are the people president Reagan calls `freedom fighters'. He says they're the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. And the whole world gasps at this confession of his family traditions.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

Quote:

Contrary to what liberals would like everyone to believe, morality is not subjective.

Most Americans have very subjective notions of what constitutes morality.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Shadow X wrote:
You are absolutely being prejudiced towards them. You're advocating that they should be denied equal rights. The same equal rights that you're crying about for homosexuals.

You misunderstand the nature of prejudice.

Since I similarly misunderstood this point ten years ago, when you and I first discussed gay rights, let me supply a few points that I would have found helpful back then, but didn't know about until later. In the context of discrimination, American law has a formal standard for distinguishing suspect classifications (like being black) from benign ones (like being a murderer). As Wikipedia competently sums up, suspect classifications have the following general characteristics:

The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.)
The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.

Murderers are not a suspect class for three reasons: First, anti-murderer resentment is based on established fact, not stereotype. While the public does hold a standardized mental picture that murderers kill people, this is not an oversimplified opinion, nor a prejudiced attitude, nor an uncritical judgement. Second, murderers choose to murder, so the trait of murdering people is not innate. Third, the defining characteristic of murderers does inhibit them from contributing meaningfully to society. By contrast, homosexuals fit all the criteria of a suspect class except, arguably, powerlessness. Consequently, it makes sense to treat them at least as a somewhat-suspect class, and to subject discrimination against them to much stricter scrutiny than discrimination against murderers.

There is another layer to the analysis: Even if we stipulated, for the sake of discussion, that discrimination against murderers merits strict scrutiny, laws punishing murder would still pass muster. Strict scrutiny means that the discrimination must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Without a doubt, protecting people's lives against deadly violence is a compelling government interest, and criminalizing murder is a narrowly-tailored means of doing it. (Although strict scrutiny might condemn capital punishment for murder, it would certainly uphold punishment of some form.) By contrast, discrimination against homosexuality may not even pass the lowest level of scrutiny, the rational basis test. (Some State Supreme Courts found that it doesn't, others found that it does.)

Summing up, then, anti-murderer discrimination merits much lower levels of scrutiny, and passes much higher ones, than anti-gay discrimination does. Consequently, it is false to draw analogies between the two kinds of discrimination --- and America has long-standing principles of anti-discrimination law to establish that.

1 Reply

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know