NY Times: US, In Shift, Sees Marriage Act as Violation of Gay Rights

[Ax]

Because homosexuality is biological, the other things are not.

Well, you can't prove that. You can choose to believe it, but you can't prove it.

False. Its not a choice. I mean, maybe YOU can choose to be attracted to males, but I certainly cannot. I'm hard-wired to chase ladies. But whatever floats your boat - I'm all for your right to marry a dude if you choose to, Ax.

"If I can't have you, I don't want nobody baby
If I can't have you, ah ah aah!"

I think I see the problem here - many of you still think of homosexuality as a choice. Sorry to say, you are completely wrong. The proof is in your own heterosexuality. I have no choice, I am attracted to women; I couldn't just some day choose to be into Denzel Washington, I just couldn't. Logically, it makes sense that the opposite is also true, since there are no 100%'s in nature.

On the contrary. My argument is in your posts. ALL men are designed to be "hardwired" to be attracted to women. Somewhere during assembly, like at Obama Motors for instance, the wiring got all screwed up. Now when they use the right turn signal, the left comes on. Imagine the chaos of making it legal.

Thanks for supporting my belief that they are defective.

 

[Alaskan]

http://www.dvstudios.com/ccn/Questions_Answers.pdf

Of course, those of you who support Gay Marriage will suggest the info offered by the Family Research Council is false, so it is probably useless anyway.

Alaskan, this is not about me, but I will answer your question. How does gay marriage hurt me? It erodes the fabric of my beliefs by breaking down the traditional values I believe, redefining traditions that have been in place for all of mankind. (Lanky, I believe I have addressed your challenge regarding the history of homosexual marriage so please don't suggest it is part of the norm throughout history. It is not!)It is an attack against what I hold dear. I am not Catholic so I do not believe Marriage is a Sacrament, but it is an act where God is present. I do not hold true that God intended for same sex "marriages". I do, however, believe God gave us free will to allow us to do as we wish. Homosexuals have the choice/right/desire/ or whatever you want to call it to be together, but no right under the Constitution to marry. I will not judge their behavior that is between them and God. If they want Civil Unions, so be it. But marriage is sacred, so it harms my beliefs Alaskan!

Again, this is not about denying anyone the opportunity to be together enjoying the same benefits anyone else enjoys. It is about a redefining tradition. This is not an issue protected by the equal rights clause in the 14th Amendment.

How can someone you don't know, whom you clearly hate getting married "erodes the fabric of my beliefs." Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be eroded that easily?

I think we all know the answer to that. Bottom line is that you not only want the freedon to have your beliefs you also want to impose your beliefs about marriage on others even if it doesn't harm you.

You are free to believe whatever you want. You can believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin and those who practice it will burn in hell for all eternity. What you are not free to do is to impose your personal beliefs on others or to deprive those of whom you disapprove of the same rights and privileges that you enjoy.

Now yes or no, would you support the removal of the word marriage from the government lexicon in regards to heterosexual unions so that from the government standpoint there are only civil unions for both same sex and opposite sex unions and the word marriage is used only with regard to religion?

 

[Ax]

I suppose they could if there was a mass upraising in support for bestiality and they could get it through the legislature and signed by the executive branch.

Man! You really are fixated on the animal issue, aren't you?
I don't blame you for cherry picking this one defect, as it is the easiest to attack. But you strike me as smart enough to understand the jest of my all inclusive *deviant* behaviors.

Although, since you keep bringing it up, I always wondered why, in the Bible, when some degenerate got caught having sex with his goat, it was law that the goat had to die. What's up with that?

Goat didn't do a damn thing wrong.

Edit: *I don't consider polygamy deviant behavior.

 

[Alaskan]

Man! You really are fixated on the animal issue, aren't you?
I don't blame you for cherry picking this one defect, as it is the easiest to attack. But you strike me as smart enough to understand the jest of my all inclusive deviant behaviors.

Although, since you keep bringing it up, I always wondered why, in the Bible, when some degenerate got caught having sex with his goat, it was law that the goat had to die. What's up with that?

Goat didn't do a damn thing wrong.

You're the one that seems to be obsessed on the animal issue because you keep bring it up. And I didn't cherry pick anything as I also dealt with incest and polygamy.

If you want to bring up any more odd sexual behaviors that you seem to be constantly thinking about, I would be glad to deal with them to. But I suspect that you keep bring them up because you really have no other way to rationalize your desire to impose your beliefs on others.

But congratulations, the same mentality that you used to oppose gay marriage (i.e. it hurts society) was also used to tell us what kind of light bulbs we have to buy and what our health insurance has to cover.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

who you sleep with and how tall you become are two totally different things. I am attracted to women because I choose to be. If I chose to be attracted to men I would be.

Totally cool w/ me if you're bisexual, but science and common sense says we can't control who we are attracted to.

But you don't have to go tail chasing. On the other hand, you can no more help that you are white than I can. Good try though

That doesn't even make sense. Of course I don't have to chase tail - doesn't change who or who I'm not attracted to.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Well, you can't prove that. You can choose to believe it, but you can't prove it.


"If I can't have you, I don't want nobody baby
If I can't have you, ah ah aah!"


On the contrary. My argument is in your posts. ALL men are designed to be "hardwired" to be attracted to women. Somewhere during assembly, like at Obama Motors for instance, the wiring got all screwed up. Now when they use the right turn signal, the left comes on. Imagine the chaos of making it legal.

Thanks for supporting my belief that they are defective.

Well, you can't prove that. You can choose to believe it, but you can't prove it.

 

[Alaskan]

who you sleep with and how tall you become are two totally different things. I am attracted to women because I choose to be. If I chose to be attracted to men I would be.

Mike, if you choose to play for the other team, can you please forgo posting the usual details?

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Personally, if you say you have the choice to be attracted to men *OR* women but simply CHOOSE to be with men, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. Is it really a choice?

 

[Ax]

Well, you can't prove that. You can choose to believe it, but you can't prove it.

Exactly. I knew I'd bring you into the light.

 

[Ax]

And I didn't cherry pick anything as I also dealt with incest and polygamy.

My brother, I was referring to the individual post. I know you addressed the other issues, in the post I told you would require more time than I have right now to respond to.

I promise to get back to that, either tonight, or tomorrow.

 

[Alaskan]

My brother, I was referring to the individual post. I know you addressed the other issues, in the post I told you would require more time than I have right now to respond to.

I promise to get back to that, either tonight, or tomorrow.

So you accuse me of cherry picking and then when you get called on it, you say, oh I was just refering to the individual post. I see. (Note to self: when responding to Ax, make sure that you respond to every point in every post least he accuse you of cherry picking.)

This should be easy as you keep using the same argument over and over again that somehow letting gays get married is going to cause the people through their representatives to suddenly let Ax's neighbor marry his pet goat and then their little half human kids will get on your lawn (and probably eat it too since they are also half goats.)

I can hardly wait.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

try to refrain from this lanky..youre better than that

Refrain from what? Someone who can choose to be attracted to males AND females is bisexual. That's the definition - that's what you're telling me. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

dude, just keep it cool. no "totally cool with me if youre bi" type of stuff please. you know what i meant and that is not adding to a decent discussion here at all.

I'm just making a point. If you can literally choose between men and women, by definition you are a bisexual. That's just the definition of the word.

 

[Ax]

So you accuse me of cherry picking and then when you get called on it, you say, oh I was just refering to the individual post. I see. (Note to self: when responding to Ax, make sure that you respond to every point in every post least he accuse you of cherry picking.)

This should be easy as you keep using the same argument over and over again that somehow letting gays get married is going to cause the people through their representatives to suddenly let Ax's neighbor marry his pet goat and then their little half human kids will get on your lawn (and probably eat it too since they are also half goats.)

I can hardly wait.

I apparently gave you more credit than you are starting to show you deserve. If you want to be a dick about it, you go right ahead.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

if ive made a choice one way or the other it isnt bisexual. its hetro or homo.

which is my point..its a choice. you have the choice to decide.

My point is that its *NOT* a choice. And if you have a choice, that means you're bisexual. Follow the logic:

If you are attracted to women, you are heterosexual.
If you are attracted to men, you are homosexual.
If you are attracted to both, you are bi.

So, if you had a choice between the two, you were obviously attracted to both at one point, meaning you are bisexual.

If you were never attracted to men, then it was never a choice, and you are heterosexual.

It is simple logic.

 

[Elephant]

How can someone you don't know, whom you clearly hate getting married "erodes the fabric of my beliefs."

This is where it ends! I am done and no matter what Jaimie or you say from here on out matters. I expressed my traditionalism. Never once did I say anything about, nor did I infer in any way, that I hated anyone or anything!

You are putting words in my mouth at this point so I will no longer discuss this issue with you! You are using the same tactic Jaimie uses when he suggests any of us who oppose homosexual marriage are homophobic. It is neither true, nor honest!

 

[Elephant]

Now yes or no, would you support the removal of the word marriage from the government lexicon in regards to heterosexual unions so that from the government standpoint there are only civil unions for both same sex and opposite sex unions and the word marriage is used only with regard to religion?

I have answered this question more than once, go back and read!

Now, I am done!

 

[Alaskan]

This is where it ends! I am done and no matter what Jaimie or you say from here on out matters. I expressed my traditionalism. Never once did I say anything about, nor did I infer in any way, that I hated anyone or anything!

You are putting words in my mouth at this point so I will no longer discuss this issue with you! You are using the same tactic Jaimie uses when he suggests any of us who oppose homosexual marriage are homophobic. It is neither true, nor honest!

From one of your previous posts:

Alaskan, this is not about me, but I will answer your question. How does gay marriage hurt me? It erodes the fabric of my beliefs by breaking down the traditional values I believe, redefining traditions that have been in place for all of mankind. It is an attack against what I hold dear.

An attack against what you hold dear? Really? Someone you don't know getting married is an attack against what you hold dear? That's hatred no matter how you try to spin it.

What makes you so damn special that you get to decide that someone else can't do something that you have the right to do when it doesn't even harm you? The pure arrogance. You have the right to believe in traditional marriage. What you don't have the right to do is force those who are not hurting you to conform to those beliefs.

I suppose your philosophy is traditional marriage now, traditional marriage tomorrow, traditional marriage forever.

I hope that if you are ever confronted with a child or other close relative who is gay and wants to get married, you would be able to rethink your position and accept both their spouse and understand their desire to be treated in the same way as everyone else.

 

[Alaskan]

I have answered this question more than once, go back and read!

Now, I am done!

Actually you didn't. Here is about as close as you get:

"If this were about Civil Unions, which guarantee the same legal rights to same sex couples as marriage does, I would have no issue. What they are trying to do is change the definition of marriage altogether. I would even go so far as to suggest that any union between a couple performed in a Court House be referred to as a Civil Union."

But that doesn’t really answer the question. Look this isn’t hard. Unless you want to stone gays there are really 4 choices:

1. Marriage for Gays and straights.
2. Marriage for straights nothing for gays.
3. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays.
4. Civil unions is the legal definition for both gays and straights with marriage being the religious definition.

I know 1 and 2 are out. So it’s between 3, i.e. separate but equal or 4 church and state separate. Just pick a number.

 

[Alaskan]

I apparently gave you more credit than you are starting to show you deserve. If you want to be a dick about it, you go right ahead.

Oh I see, time to roll out the personal attacks. Sure sign that you are out of ammo. But you’ve been out of ammo since the beginning, repeating over and over your lame slippery slope argument that suddenly we are going to legalize sex with animals. Then you accuse me of being fixated on the animal issue. Well, lets see who is really fixated with sex with animals shall we?

If homosexuality is a civil right, then so is Polygamy.
And pedophilia.
And Zoophilia.
And Incest.

Ummmm, they can already share a life with the person they chose to love.
So can a brother and sister.
So can a woman and her dog.
But such behavior is illegal.
So is same sex marriage. But now they want to change that law. When they do, then there is no good reason not to allow brothers and sisters to marry, either. Or a person and their pet. Or 4 men all marrying the same 10 women.
Why isn't it discrimination against them?

If same sex marriage becomes a legal and acceptable lifestyle, then why shouldn't incest, or polygamy, since the choice to do so would also be made by consenting adults? What are their rights?

Man! You really are fixated on the animal issue, aren't you?
I don't blame you for cherry picking this one defect, as it is the easiest to attack. But you strike me as smart enough to understand the jest of my all inclusive *deviant* behaviors.

Although, since you keep bringing it up, I always wondered why, in the Bible, when some degenerate got caught having sex with his goat, it was law that the goat had to die. What's up with that?

Goat didn't do a damn thing wrong.

Edit: *I don't consider polygamy deviant behavior.