A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

I asked a question and you cannot answer it. Now you want to end the conversation with an answer you don't want to read. How many people died because of gay marriage? You don't want the truth.

 

As I wrote before, you are wrong. Learn to read what is written, not what you think was written.

Before the Civil Rights Act, racism was not universal. It was not even universally implemented in the Southern states.

And as I wrote previously, your assumption is that if people can discriminate, then all people will discriminate - "bigots would rule". That's clearly a false assumption.

You must have a horrible opinion of people, and must be surrounded by horrible people, to believe every person will be the worst they can be unless the govt tells them how to live.

a non sequitor. Drivers licenses are to generate revenue first, and for safety second (and they are a very poor means of improving safety). They have nothing to do with forcing people how to drive.

And I do oppose having to get a drivers license. They are nothing but a revenue stream for the govt, they do not improve safety, they do not help maintain the infrastructure.

You can yell "Fire!" in a theater, there is no law preventing you from it.

What the law says is that you will be held responsible if you maliciously act to cause damage and injury such as falsely yelling "Fire!" in a theater.

The speech is not prohibited, but a person will be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Another non sequitor.

You should be able to have "horse stew", just like Jews want kosher food, Arabs like to eat cat, Chinese eat dogs, Brazilians eat insects.

The govt should not ban such foods. A particular society may be so opposed to a food (such as eating horses in the USA) that social pressure would result in that food not being available, but its not the govts role to regulate the menu.

You cannot poison people. Govt food inspection to maintain food safety is fine with me.

 

LOL this part is hilarious. First the terms used in law tend to be defined in the law. That means theft as a crime is defined largely by the statutory definitions supplied therein plus legal precedent or within the larger umbrella of law. Its elements will actually differ between legal systems. What legal theft may include in France will differ somewhat from what legal theft includes in Kenya. Marriage has a religious and cultural meaning which includes and excludes different practices. Separate and apart therefrom, marriage also describes a particular secular contract recognized by statute. The law describes what that contract is and who is entitled to its access and government writes the law.

What is or is not constitutional is described within the four corners of that constitution. You do not get to decide what is constitutional. The document does. Now if you care to quote the section of the constitution that refers to constitutional language use, or English language use, or restricts Congressional, state or municipal power to use and define the terms used in statutes in any way or change them as it suits that legislative body, I would be glad to read those words. >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<< In other words, quote the document or concede you are wrong.

 

What does any of this have to do with private sex? Do you choose who you’re attracted to? I can choose to be attracted to any man. I don’t know what it is but some in attract me and others don’t.So basically what you were saying is that you can choose to be attracted to a man.

 

When people tell me to learn to read as you did in both your posts, I go no further, Perhaps you should learn to show respect.

 

And yet you continue to respond to people after you've decided that they are not worth your time. ?????????

 

I have not chosen to be attracted to a man. I am attracted to my wife. Before her I was attracted to different women. They were not all the same. Being attracted to men is something I've never explored....but I will not march in your parade.

 

But you admit you could have chosen to be attracted to men, You’re lucky it increases your chance of a date on Saturday night. I love the company of women but I just cannot be sexually attracted to them.

 

I didn’t respond to you...learn how to read!

 

You asked me a question after saying you didn't want to discuss the matter further; then you said it to another poster... and here you are addressing me again. Hmmmmm..

 

Can’t you read? It wasn’t that I didn’t want to discuss the matter further, it was I didn’t want to discuss it with you who accuses me of not knowing how to read. I will pick and choose when I want to address you or not

 

And

And I have a question for you. Where in the constitution is this prohibition against defining or redefining terms in any language, by any court, or any legislative body or the executive in its own statutes, or its own government generated documents ,as you claimed in post # 568? "When it comes to same sex marriage (sic) the concept is defined in our English language. It is the union of one man and one woman. Courts do not have the authority to redefine the English language. Allowing the Courts to redefine the English language is not within the purview of their constitutional authority" that is your peculiar claim. Please quote the language of the document where it precludes the definition of terms such as 'marriage' outside of common or societal usage , because I don't see it in there. Why can't government write its own definitions for its own legal purposes in its own statutes , regulations and ordinances as long as it does not ban alternative definitions to be used in other settings?

 

You are free to support anarchy, but both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution's Preamble layout the purpose of government. If you want to call those "moral decision(s)" fine, but it's also a logical one since the alternative is anarchy and the brutality of "might makes right".

 

I support government writing law, and in so doing, helping to define what it and society perceives as public morality. I do not support an obligation by government to codify all social morality into statutes. In short, I agree that every moral transgression envisioned by a culture , does not benefit by having government police it. Its not realistic or smart to expect government to butt into every aspect of our lives and label what is and is not 'moral', but it definitely has play a role to prevent anarchy.

 

When you make false statements that I condone bigotry and that I am "yearning for Jim Crow laws", then you need to learn to read what is written and not insert your own bias.

By making those false claims, you are making personal attacks rather than trying to address the real subject. You should show respect by not making personal attacks.

 

The Traditional spaghetti sauce comment was a little Terra / Earth-er humor, it was not meant to offend, apologies....

When Folks bring up Traditional family values and Traditional Family this or that, it reminds me of those straight perverts that loved a little Traditional molesting of poor innocent wee boys....

When I was a young lad age 9, I was scared to use Public bathrooms, especially if there were men standing around inside, not doing anything..talking.... I would peek in first.

 

At this point I am realizing that we are too far afield from the thread topic. If you want to take this particular topic to another thead in a more appropriate section, I will be happy to continue with you on it.

 

I think it can be both. I believe that there are some people who simply have an imbalance of the hormones which causes abnormal sexual orientation. These same types of imbalances could also be the cause of natural bisexuality and asexuality as well.

But I also believe that environment and life events can also causes subconscious changes to a person which effect their sexuality.

For example, say a man has an abusive mother, and subconsciously, he associates her abuse with the fact that she is a woman. He is closer to his father and other men in his life and has a mistrust of woman. While his natual sexual orientation may be hetrosexual, his mind could cause an subconscious attraction to the same sex to match his mental state. Same way sugar pills can be used to trick the body into thinking it's being treated with medicine. The mind is very powerful and can sometimes disrupt natural signals.

 

A Placebo effect.
And the effect is in the mind.
Hypochondriacs imagine they are ill and exhibit actual symptoms.
There are psychosomatic illnesses. generated by a belief one is ill, and even real Illness can often show much relief and remission and cure, with beliefs, prayers and faith.

 

She is exactly as you've depicted. She called me a Nazi sympathizer for similar off-the-wall reasons, but mainly because I disagreed with her. It's a good reason to focus on more reasonable members.

 

Abuse by women or seeing a male figure abuse women usually results in misogynists, not homosexuals. Sexual preference goes much deeper and is more firmly wired into the psyche. Straight males don't "turn" gay. It's one thing for them to experiment because of a social or parental lifestyle, but they'll have a definite preference just like prisoners who commit homosexual acts in prison go back to women once out.

 

Why must there be a reason? We do not have control over who attracts us. I am sure most gay people would prefer being straight. It isn’t a choice

 

Come on boys...stop being so catty

 

Exactly..guys in prison are having sex with men because they want to get off,,.it doesn’t make them gay. If one is in a pitch black room and he is told that a woman is going to give him oral sex and he enjoyed it and the lights go on and it is a man, does that mean he’s gay? The trouble is too many people reduce the people to Sex acts, do not see them like they would you and me

 

Nothing catty about quoting truth, Renee. If you don't want to be called out for making false accusations or calling people with whom you disagree "Nazi sympathizers", then stop making false statements and calling people with whom you disagree Nazi sympathizers.