Thread: BREAKING: CURRENT EVENT A Majority of Americans DO NOT support gay marriage. WAPO

Originally Posted by Silhouette

The gay advocates like to use the word "sex" [verb] and "sex" [noun] interchangeably when it suits their purpose. They're hoping good lawyers won't notice the difference. When they talk about the 14th Amendment for example, they will say "you can't descriminate against sex" [when they mean and know it's the noun "gender"]. Then when trying to stand out as an organic cohesive group, they will cry foul about their sex [verb, arbitrarily limited to the fetishes "GLBT"] being descriminated against.

As usual you are 100% correct.

Originally Posted by SkyStryker

I read the first sentence of your post and stopped reading because you are obviously confused. Here are your exact words:

Texmaster
" What are you talking about? You cowardly block reply instead of going point for point as true debaters do so there is no way to determine what you are referring to."

Clearly you said block replying was the reason you made the accusation of cowardice. Now that I have refreshed your memory, would mind retracting the claim I lied?

I gave you 4 tries. You ran away each time. And I asked my question before you began your challenge to me. Either answer my question like a man or run away but I'm tired of you running away when you are challenged. Answer it or stop replying to me.

But there must be rational reasons for the restrictions, usually when it infringes on the rights of others.

"Rational"...you mean like requiring kids in California to emulate a gay pedophile who promoted promiscuous sex...the number one cause of one of the deadliest epidemics in the US? I'd say preventing the spread of AIDS is a rational reason for restricting the promotion of males having anal sex with other males: aka "gays" in a school environment particularly.. or via the vehicle of the number one sanctioned sexual relationship in society: marriage...

Promoting something that isn't normal, as normal, particularly when that something can be predicted with good accuracy to be deadly to the practitioner is anything but rational..

Originally Posted by texmaster

I gave you 4 tries. You ran away each time. And I asked my question before you began your challenge to me. Either answer my question like a man or run away but I'm tired of you running away when you are challenged. Answer it or stop replying to me.

Well now let's see. You accused me of cowardly responding based on block replying. When I pointed that out you changed your reason and said you accused me of cowardice because I didn't answer your question. We all know you said:

Texmaster
" What are you talking about? You cowardly block reply instead of going point for point as true debaters do so there is no way to determine what you are referring to."

You ignored your own words and falsely accused me of lying while you were dishonest about why you accused me of a cowardly reply.

Furthermore, you have still not provided that list of people you have embarrassed. Can you ever support your claims? Considering you deny your own claims, I think we all know you can't.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

"Rational"...you mean like requiring kids in California to emulate a gay pedophile who promoted promiscuous sex....

Rational would include not making claims that are false. Rational would mean making a rational argument rather than trying to defame an assasintated American elected official in every thread you start.

Originally Posted by texmaster

If, then of course. It would be the law.

So can I assume that there are no laws with which you disagree?

You've never heard far left argue that the 14th amendment covers gay marriage? Its used in 99% of all of these threads. So, can you answer my question now?

Thank you for the clarification. In debate it is good form to be specific rather than assume people know what you're talking about.

Of course the 14th Amendment applies to homosexuals--there is no asterisk there. It says "shall not be abridged." It does not equivocate. It does not say "shall not be abridged... as long as we like you." I'm not sure how the marriage equality debate constitutes a "reinterpretation" of the 14th Amendment as you suggest. It always has, and always will, state unequivocally that all Americans are equal under the law and are thereby equally entitled to its protection. From Fred Phelps to Barney Frank, Rush Limbaugh to Bill Maher, and everyone in between, we are, all of us, entitled to equal protection of the laws--and that certainly would include equal access to the civic franchise.

I guess the bigger question is how you view the role of government in a free society. Should government be used as a tool to enforce social mores and engineer a society to the liking of the majority? Or should it be used as a tool to inure the greatest amount of liberty for the greatest amount of people, protecting each of us from the whims of popular opinion? I think the framers leaned to the latter. I think they got that part right. What about you? Do you want to live in a free state or do you want to live in a nanny state? You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by texmaster

As usual you are 100% correct.

Sil was 100% correct to say:

"The gay advocates like to use the word "sex" [verb] and "sex" [noun] interchangeably when it suits their purpose. They're hoping good lawyers won't notice the difference. When they talk about the 14th Amendment for example, they will say "you cant descriminate against sex" [when they mean and know it's the noun "gender"]. Then when trying to stand out as an organic cohesive group, they will cry foul about their sex [verb, arbitrarily limited to the fetishes "GLBT"] being descriminated against."

Are you serious? Wow. You really never ever have debated or thought about this issue in any way at all. Same sex couples are not denied marriage licenses based on their sexual orientations or activities. They are denied solely by anatomy.

Oh, I'm sorry, you want me to prove it is based on sex? No problem!

From DOMA:

" No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between PERSONS OF THE SAME SEX that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'

and

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX who is a husband or a wife.'.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:H.R.3396.ENR:

I understand you were unaware of the fact same sex and opposite sex are in the law because today is the first day you have ever discussed the same sex marriage issue.

Originally Posted by texmaster

You just made the same argument many use against gay marriage. Thats what I'm trying to get the gay militants to understand. They are using the exact same argument to keep other sexual preferences out as are the people who are against gay marriage. All this BS claim about supporting a new "civil right" is a complete lie. Its no more a civil right than someone who says blacks can drink from the same water fountain as whites but Asians can't.

"Gay militants" might be using the same argument to keep other sexual preferences out as those who are against gay marriage, but they would (presumably) be doing so by claiming that gays marrying does not have a reasonable basis while others do. Can't answer this question without knowing specifically which "other sexual preferences" you're referring to, as some may have a reasonable basis while others may not. It also requires knowing the purpose of the law in question, as it's only through understanding the purpose that we can determine if there is similar situation or not and a reasonable basis for discrimination. Right now, we're talking in such broad generalities without considering the purpose of marriage, and without specifying "other sexual preferences" that it would be impossible to make any sort of meaningful debate of it.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

"Rational"...you mean like requiring kids in California to emulate a gay pedophile who promoted promiscuous sex...the number one cause of one of the deadliest epidemics in the US?

I'd say obesity and tobacco use are about a bagillion times more deadly. Regardless, Harvey died several years before AIDS even existed, and as such you're judging something out of the context of time. As for "pedophile", you misunderstand the purpose of statutory rape laws.

I'd say preventing the spread of AIDS is a rational reason for restricting the promotion of males having anal sex with other males: aka "gays" in a school environment particularly.. or via the vehicle of the number one sanctioned sexual relationship in society: marriage...

Or perhaps this is a compelling reason to promote safe-sex among gay men, by removing the stigma. You don't necessarily remove or fix a problem by making it illegal or stigmatizing it, and in fact this can often just make the problem worse.

And while you talk about pedophilia, maybe you should stop supporting it:

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

The most common reasons victims do not disclose are a fear of the stigma of
homosexuality; lack of societal understanding; presence of positive feelings for
the offender; embarrassment, shame, or fear over their victimization; or do not
believe they are victims. Since most of the offenders are male, fear of the stigma of
homosexuality is usually a significant issue for victims who are boys. Although being
seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual,
the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he risks significant
ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.

Seems this threads own poll proves the OP wrong.