Who is going to pay for the cushy government benefits paid out to the so-called "spouses" of the "gays"? The taxpayers of course. In other words, me. And I think I'm taxed enough already. <<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>
No, because that implies "SSM" will make that happen all by itself, which of course I never implied. Then you're really not paying attention, because clearly it's already in process. <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>> I mean the populace in general abandoning its morals by degrees, and with it the love of liberty. Both. It doesn't matter what you're "sure of", because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Not interested. <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>> You might as well ask for evidence that it's wrong to cut a child's beating heart out just for the fun of it. Then cease and desist from your futile cogitations, which have no other purpose than to protect you from the truth. You're welcome. Well it would certainly help the discussion become a roaring river of imbecilities. Why I should facilitate that I have no idea. Because if they had any concern for the children they would not provide them with an upbringing which is morally bankrupt ipso facto.
If you're saying that I'll respect your opinion and you'll respect my opinion even when we disagree and we both want to bash each other's head in, then yea, that's pretty much my point. I'm glad to see that your inborn sense of morality doesn't say you can beat me up until I've changed my opinion on the matter to hide my inner darkness.
Last I checked, I was still paying taxes. So the notion that gay people are victimizing taxpayers - a group which includes them - is ridiculous, empty rhetoric.
- You said that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to "moral decay" which in turn would lead to dictatorship. - If you're not saying same-sex marriage alone will lead to that, then what else is required? - And given whatever additional factors you have in mind, how will adding same-sex marriage to the mix then make it any more likely that the U.S. will turn into a dictatorship? <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>> Obviously, if you cannot explain how allowing same-sex marriage will move us towards a dictatorship, and you have no data or evidence of any same-sex marriage dictatorship correlation, then you have nothing, absolutely nothing to back up your <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>> assertions, and there is no reason why I nor anyone else should believe them. Same-sex marriage leading to a dictatorship,....Ha!,....its as I said before,... fantastical! That's funny. You relate morals with a love of liberty, and yet you want to deny same-sex couples the liberty to marry each other. <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>> Then you believe same-sex marriage to be immoral in and of itself, regardless of what it does or doesn't lead to? But supposing same-sex marriage is not hurting you or anyone else, (which I will suppose seeing as how you cannot show how it will lead to dictatorship) do you think your personal view of it is enough to justify governmental discrimination? Yes or no? -Meta
Can you not read? Because that's exactly what I said. For the 3rd time, 2. How is it that you figure that a sterile opposite-sex couple have the right to marry, but a same-sex couple do not? I'm not the one professing to know whats in the minds/the desires of every homosexual. That would be you. And I'm pretty sure they have a better idea of what they want than you do. Of course, you neglect to consider that most homosexuals do not consider homosexuality to be morally bankrupt. -Meta
You're not interested in whether these laws are unconstitutional, and you're willing to trample upon the rights of homosexuals? You know...its that sort of thinking which is how dictatorships get started. Or did you mean to say something else? That analogy you just made is beyond ridicule. ...Anyways, it seems like you can't provide the evidence supporting your claims, which surprises me (a little) since by your earlier words it seemed like you had the data right in front of you. (BTW, I'm beginning to see a pattern here, with you). Doesn't matter though, as I found this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/are-same-sex-couples-better-parents/ http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html Evidence to the contrary which seems to disprove your claims. So,...is this why you did not post your evidence? Because the evidence which you claimed existed in fact, does not exist? Are you honestly suggesting that its useless to carefully think through an issue before coming to a conclusion?... That thought, reason, facts, and evidence are all antithetical to the truth? That's <<<Mod Edit: Profanity Removed>>> -Meta
My opinion of my own observation is when they started coming out and wanting rights as much as being accepted is when this issue of asking how they came to be homosexual. I think it comes from curiosity by some because they are brave and proud enough to declare the sexuality. I don't care what they do because they are normal people and I am not to judge them because as a theist, it's not my place to do it. Just accepting them embraces the words, "love thy neighbor as yourself". If people would look at others without judging them, they would be more tolerant and not see them as some special breed of people. It's rather personal to ask them how they became this way. I think society is embracing them more than wondering how they became this way. It's kind of silly.
I don't know your view of liberty, but as it's a subject I'm intimately familiar with I'd be glad to take anything you can throw at me. ie: right back at you.
Please remember to discuss the topic without baiting and insulting other members. thank you Cenydd Site Moderator
Since I have already done so, I have no need to read the rest of the sentence. No, it is God who denies them that "liberty", just as He denies all of us the "liberty" to worship Him by burning our children alive. What I want is for the state to refuse to treat an absurdity as a sacrament. The supposition being idiotic, I'll pass. Already answered. Don't ask me again unless you covet a spot on my i-list. No they don't, because they've forgotten who they are. And quite properly so, obviously. No, I'm not interested in whether they meet any of the criteria you referred to, which are not to be found in the Constitution. As for the constitutionality of measures like CA Prop 8, that is not a legitimate controversy, and those who filed suit against it should have been penalized for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Nope. Well I wouldn't call it an analogy exactly, but it certainly is beyond ridicule by anyone with a lick of sense, seeing it is self-evidently true. Surely you don't imagine I'm going to click on any of those, which I am absolutely confident are hopelessly retarded, wall to wall. Of course it does, and one doesn't even need physical eyes to access it. In cases like yours it's quite a bit worse than useless, I'm afraid. Do pedophiles who do likewise similarly represent profiles in courage in your estimation? And if not, why not? Sure it does, if both parties are lovers of lies. Then surely you understand that liberty and license are mutually inimical. Right?
I think the cause is a lack of oxygen in the womb. Either that or the mother wore a watch with a radium painted dial.
- You said that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to "moral decay" which in turn would lead to dictatorship. - If you're not saying same-sex marriage alone will lead to that, then what else is required? - And given whatever additional factors you have in mind, how will adding same-sex marriage to the mix then make it any more likely that the U.S. will turn into a dictatorship? Don't lie. You know we can all see the quote history, right? I don't see how God denies homosexuals the liberty to marry, that seems to be people who are doing that. Regardless, are you saying you want the U.S. to be a theocracy?...Whatever happened to the 1st amendment and freedom of religion? I'm not surprised, seeing as how no one else has been able to show how same-sex marriage hurts anyone either. But, if you can't for whatever reason back up your assertions, you probably shouldn't be making them. -Meta
Again, DON'T LIE. And again, you do know that we can all see the quote history,...right? It's clear to everyone you haven't answered this. I've asked the question 3 times now and you haven't answered it once! Now I'm asking for a 4th time. 2. How do you figure a sterile opposite-sex couple have the right to marry, but a same-sex couple do not?[/quote] That's ridiculous! The point is, if homosexuals themselves do not consider their homosexuality to be morally bankrupt, then you cannot then turn around and say that they have no concern for the children they are raising. -Meta
They are the criteria that the court uses to determine whether a law is in line with the constitution. You're saying you disagree with the courts and the criteria they use to determine constitutionality? Why? Shielding yourself from the truth I see.... Personal remarks are no substitute for actual evidence I'm afraid. That does not lead to the truth. Claiming that evidence and thought do not matter does not help either. If anything, it hinders the truth. -Meta
Sure they're not - when a man makes an obligation (through contract or otherwise) he is bound to its conditions, but only the individual may set these obligations. Outside imposition of obligations is tyranny. If you want to have a society where homosexuality is not allowed/punished then us NAP libertarians are happy to let you have it. You're welcome to create a community with that condition, just don't force it onto individuals without their consent. There's no reason why alternate political theories can't be played out voluntarily - Communists have set up communities where their ideals are practiced without coercion, so can you.
So as I suspected, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Thanks for clearing that up right quick. Then tyranny is no more escapable than is spacetime, because no conditions agreed to by an individual can run afoul of natural law without negative consequences. You do understand that "SSM" advocates think nothing of imposing their immorality on straight people without their consent, right?
Right back at you. Explain what you mean by natural law. So? If the act is voluntary then that's all I care about, not guilt by association with other actions.
Good news! You don't have to. You don't have to like gay people. You don't have to do anything really. None of your rights are being affected. And finally, I'm quite sure there aren't any gay people waiting around for you to accept them.
I find it wholly ironic when someone uses "natural law" to argue against homosexuality considering that homosexuality is natural as it does appear in nature.
This is getting kinda boring. I mean the metaphysical laws to which every human being is subject. Two people cannot agree to mutual deception without consequence, because by doing so they come under the dominion of the dark spirit that deceives them both. The act is only voluntary in the most superficial sense, but clearly anything beyond superficialities doesn't interest you.
So, in a conversation where you have been asked to explain "natural law", you bring up "dark spirits"? Do you understand what natural law is? Show me where these "dark spirits" exist in nature.
Apologies for not mixing up my phrases. Do you mean two people "voluntarily" agreeing to force to a third party? I readily admit that's wrong. Do you mean two people voluntarily breaking your ethical code? I'm cool with that. If you don't like it don't mix yourself up with them. Explain to me how something other than the initiation of force violates the person/property of anyone.
No and no, obviously. You think it is impossible to defraud someone without the use or threat of force?
