15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 07:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

But your's isn't. Conservatives believe in "less government intrusion into our lives." Why are they advocating for intrusion into private lives? Why are they advocating for discrimination against our own citizens? Our Declaration of Independence" says "all men are created equal."

Quote:
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.


Gay's pursit of Happiness is being denied for no reason other than homophobia and bigotry.


Their pursuit of happiness is at the expense of straights that value marriage as holy matrimony between hombre y mujer. Sort of like a joke that uses someone else as the butt of the joke. Gays should have civil unions, I believe, but marriage evolved out of religion that does not accept homosexualists as standard gender practices. Perhaps, civil authorities should get out of the business of having civil marriages, just civil unions, then straights can get married in church, and gays and divorced Catholics can have civil unions?

By the way, all men are created equal. By the time people reach puberty some have fallen behind others in the equality department, I believe. Not that anything is wrong about it; just a fact.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 08:27 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie, You are ignorant! Civil unions and marriages do not have the same legal status.

It's an issue called "equal rights under the law."

Quote:
The Marriage Timeline in California
Gay and lesbian couples briefly enjoyed their hard-won freedom to marry in California, and are now fighting to get it back.

Since 1999, gay and lesbian couples and opposite-sex couples have been able to register as domestic partners, affording them many, but not all of the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage. Almost every year since the domestic partnership registry was established, new legislation has been introduced to close the gaps in rights and benefits between marriage and domestic partnership, which are still two separate and unequal institutions.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 08:36 pm
Foofie wrote:
Quote:
Their pursuit of happiness is at the expense of straights that value marriage as holy matrimony between hombre y mujer.


Exactly what "expense" are you talking about? Gay marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriages. Don't blame gays for heterosexual marriage problems. What's "holy" about marriage? Please tell us the difference in "holiness" between heterosexual and homosexual marriage? Most cultures practice "marriage," and they're not based on any one religion or any religion.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 08:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Foofie, You are ignorant! Civil unions and marriages do not have the same legal status.

It's an issue called "equal rights under the law."


You mean like for federal taxes? So, then the lgbt community can argue with the federal government to allow for equal tax benefits for homosexualists that have civil unions. I just do not think that the word "marriage" is for the lgbt community, since "marriage" evolved out of religions (perhaps, pagan?) and is something special to straights. Why should the specialness of marriage be watered down with homosexualists joining the holiness of matrimony?

Again, I have nothing against equal rights under the law. I just think marriage should be outside the jurisdiction of the law. It was, and is, a religious concept. The civil authorities got involved, God knows why?

I have nothing against the lgbt community. Personally, their focus on their own problems bores me. They should all live and be well, as the saying goes.


JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 09:43 pm
@Foofie,
One of the best foofieisms yet.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 09:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The countries in Asia that are overwhelmingly Muslim are probably not Islamic nations.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:00 pm
@Advocate,
How so? In Bukhara, Uzbekistan, the authors of the Koran were residents there.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From glennstevens.biz:

Quote:
Like Samarkand and Khiva, Bukhara was a major stopping destination on the ancient silk route, and has been a cultural hearth of Central Asia, and the Islamic world.


Quote:
and religion.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 09:46 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Civil unions and marriages do not have the same legal status.

Also, legal loving partnerships between two males, or between two females, cannot ever be the same kind of partnerships as legal loving partnerships between one male and one female.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 09:56 am
@ican711nm,
How so?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 06:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

How so?


Because a male and female can look upon their offspring as a continuation of two family trees.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 06:15 pm
@ican711nm,
I can think of a number of ways myself but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same legal/moral/religious/... rights as same sex couples. The sole reason the "different H2O fountains" crowd want to deny those rights is prejudice.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 06:25 pm
@Foofie,
And that's the only reason? Gays also have children, and many adopt.

Where's the problem?

Our planet also has a human explosion; how much longer will the planet be able to sustain the use of raw materials with human growth at current rates on this limited environment called earth? We already have the majority starving, and living on less than $1/day.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 06:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

And that's the only reason? Gays also have children, and many adopt.

Where's the problem?

Our planet also has a human explosion; how much longer will the planet be able to sustain the use of raw materials with human growth at current rates on this limited environment called earth? We already have the majority starving, and living on less than $1/day.


Your points are extraneous to the mainstream culture's valuing family trees from heterosexual couples. Do not proselytize your alternate thoughts to me. I choose to be old-fashioned main stream.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 06:51 pm
@Foofie,
No, it is not; it's directly related to your ignorance about couples making children without considering other humans, mainly gays and lesbians who have done nothing to you! Also the propagation of more children increases the hardships already being suffered by billions of people already living. You are a homophobic bigot.

People like you don't understand anything about humanity or our Constitution; you just want to control other people's lives - people you don't even know or care about.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 07:33 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
Your points are extraneous to the mainstream culture's valuing family trees from heterosexual couples. Do not proselytize your alternate thoughts to me. I choose to be old-fashioned main stream.


Foofie, think about it. You have the right to believe anything you want, but you don't have the right to ideas just because they are mainstream if those ideas diminish the rights of others.

This type of prejudicial behavior is no different than a prejudice against a racial group.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 07:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Also, Foofie, not all "mainstream" folks are homophobics and bigots like you!

I know Dr. Bob Brodsky, a Jewish scientist and professor, who also supports all the legal rights for gays and lesbians. He's pretty "mainstream" if I say so myself!
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 11:37 am
@cicerone imposter,
I said "old-fashioned main stream," not "old fashioned AND main stream." There is no logical "and" in my correct thought. Please do not parse my definition of myself. I am a great believer in the power of sociology. We are, I believe, a product of our socialization. I do not blame people, but the society that socialized them. However, I seem to be blamed for the socialization that nurtured me. That is not erudite from a sociological standpoint, I believe.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 11:44 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
I do not blame people, but the society that socialized them.
Very interesting thinking; is it your own or something you were socialized to think?
Perhaps it's a new foofieism.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 11:47 am
@Foofie,
FYI, "old fashion" and "main stream" are one and the same as used by you. You have not advanced to living in the present - socially or politically.

You wrote:
Quote:
I choose to be old-fashioned main stream.


Your bigotry and homophobia is alive and well.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/26/2025 at 11:10:23